Search
Part 7
October 9, 16, 1988
What Brother Lee feared regarding an explosive outbreak in the Lord’s Day morning meeting in Anaheim October 2nd did not materialize. It was an uneventful meeting with a good fellowship in Ephesians 1:1-14. There were no disturbances as in the previous Lord’s Day meetings. But it turned out to be the calm before the storm.
The next Lord’s Day morning, October 9, 1988, Godfred, Al, and I met as usual in the Elders’ Room before the meeting. We were expecting to fellowship that morning regarding the last part of Ephesians chapter 1. I went upstairs to the meeting hall, the other brothers lingering behind in the Elders’ Room to attend to some matter. As I reached the top of the stairs, I saw all the saints who had spoken out hotly against Brother Lee and the LSM office lined up in the rows near to the front. Some of them had ceased coming to the meetings, but this morning they were all there in force. Moreover, I saw saints from other churches entering the meeting hall whom I knew to be agitated and vocal concerning the current problems. There were some from Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Torrance, and elsewhere. I knew something was up. Obviously, others had been alerted and they were planning to do something. I turned around and hastened down the stairs to notify Godfred and Al. This was it. We must decide what to do.
We sang a hymn or two and had some prayer as usual. Meanwhile Godfred and I were conferring together in whispers as we sat on the front row. We could just dismiss the meeting. But that, we knew, would cause a tumult to erupt. After a little consultation we felt it would be better to just let them speak and get it over with once for all, and then we could go on in the coming meetings with a good order.
Soon one of them was on his feet, a dispositionally quiet brother who had been with us in the church life since the beginning in this country and had never caused any problem. He began by saying that we are not negative, we have some genuine concerns, and to have the harmony among us we all need to know the facts and deal with them. Then he referred to misconduct in the LSM office. At this point Godfred rose to his feet and asked to say something. A number of saints thought he was about to exercise control and stop the brother from speaking, so they loudly shouted, "Let him speak! Let him speak!" There was pandemonium. Eventually Godfred was able to calm them down and then said, "All right, anyone who does not desire to hear what these saints have to say may leave the meeting. Anyone who wants to hear them may stay." About a quarter of the saints rose and walked out, and the first brother who had started to speak continued.
It was said then by these saints that since the elders had not dealt with problems publicly, they could not keep quiet. They felt fully exasperated by the elders for continually delaying to take public action against disorders, the judgment of which they felt was long overdue. Such feeling had intensified to the bursting point.
Further reference was then made to the misconduct in the LSM office, and a brother in the meeting who was a former law enforcement officer interrupted the speaker, shouting, "Did you see it? Did you see it? And indicated that if he did not see it he should not talk about it. This ignited some other brothers, one of whom claimed to be an eye-witness, who proceeded to give detailed accounts of the misconduct in anguish and outrage, mentioning the names of involved parties. Such things never should have been spoken publicly. He said, "It’s a shame for us to have to stand up here and talk like this, but if we don’t do it there will never be any blessing on us, " indicating that because of a sinful situation among us, God’s blessing was not with the church. These saints surely felt they had cause for action. For over two hours they went on exposing some things and accusing the elders for not having dealt with them. The elders were just as much a target of their accusations as anyone else. One sister said that "the elders were weak spiritually, psychologically, and physically," and that is why they hadn’t dealt with the problems.
Eventually the meeting was brought to a close. Never in our history had there been a meeting like that. Although we sympathized with their concerns, we could not agree with their way of handling them. Yet, we allowed it to continue, and when Godfred spoke, he spoke for all of us. It was over at length, and we felt that we must now shut the door on that kind of behavior and not have it repeated again. The meeting was surely worthy of blame, but let those who shake their finger and raise their voice and write letters in reproof equally blame those responsible for the problems which were the root cause of such a meeting. If there was no ground for it, no problems of such enormous magnitude, these saints who loved the Lord’s recovery and gave themselves for it, and some of whom were naturally meek and mild, would never have erupted in that way.
To our great dismay we learned later that some saints who had recorded the October 9th meeting had sent out copies of the tapes to the elders of the churches in this country. We had no idea that they intended to do this or were carrying it out, and when we heard we strongly disapproved of their action. Just recently (March 1990) we found that the one responsible for this distribution was someone in another place, another church, altogether apart from the saints in Anaheim. But he had used the P.O. Box of someone in Anaheim who was not meeting with us for a return address.
We then began to receive numerous letters from elders all over the country addressed to the elders in Anaheim, castigating us for allowing such a meeting to take place. Many of them sent a copy of their letter to Brother Lee. But I wonder what they would have done had they been in our shoes and passed through what we had passed through. It is easy to criticize from a distance (I think that many who wrote were glad to be at a distance from the church in Anaheim), but when you are in the middle of the problem and have to deal with it, it is another story.
The following Saturday we met with some of the brothers with whom we usually met to pray (Minoru Chen and Philip Lin were not there; we met with them on Friday nights), and we decided that we would by no means permit another meeting like that on the previous Lord’s Day to take place again. If those same ones would insist on continuing, we would dismiss the meeting.
The next Lord’s Day morning, October 16th, the same group of saints who spoke on October 9th came again obviously to prolong their denunciations. Godfred stood at the beginning and spoke, begging them to desist and allow us to continue our study of Ephesians. They interrupted him frequently, and he patiently answered their questions. Then we proceeded to read some verses in Ephesians and in a tense atmosphere some bravely attempted to share from the Word. Eventually the saints who were intent on speaking more problematic things begin to take over the meeting with much turmoil, upon which Godfred stood and summarily dismissed the meeting. About sixty percent of those attending, including the elders, left the meeting, leaving about thirty or forty, who remained and had their own meeting.
In our absence they stood and read 1 Cor. 5 together, and took upon themselves to excommunicate a certain brother whom they believed to be guilty of gross misconduct. The elders had not done it so they did it. One of them then proceeded to tear up the announcements on the church bulletin board regarding the coming training and the Chinese Recovery Version, and threw in the trash some LSM books on display in the bookroom. This one called two days later and apologized for such unruly behavior, and we accepted the apology. Due to the chaotic condition we cancelled the evening meeting at the hall and met that night in homes.
That week we were contacted by those who had expressed their concerns so vocally, who said that they desired further fellowship with the elders. They had met for prayer and fellowship and felt they needed direction. We made an appointment to meet with them that Saturday evening in one of their homes. This was our third private meeting with this group, the other two, in August, having already been mentioned. They expressed their desire for the church to somehow go on from this point in time. They also protested some of the things we had said, and Godfred spoke very strongly and frankly to them, reproving them for things they had said and done. They urged the elders to take over the Lord’s Day morning meetings and share some needed things with the saints.
The next Lord’s Day morning, October 23rd, Godfred gave an excellent and appropriate word on the headship of Christ from Ephesians. It was well received, though he spoke strongly against exalting any worker to take the place of Christ as our Head. All blessing, he brought out, depends on His headship. Godfred ministered again the following Lord’s Day from Ephesians, emphasizing the oneness of the Spirit. The number in the meeting was down to about one hundred. A number of the saints were not coming and, we believed, were attending meetings of other Christian groups. In the Lord’s Table in the hall that evening there were only about fifty, probably the lowest number we had ever had.
October 27, 1988
On October 27th the elders had a meeting with five concerned brothers in the church who had asked for fellowship. They had written a letter to us on October 18th in which they outlined four areas of concern:
1. They did not agree that the Lord’s Day morning meeting be turned into a forum to discuss issues other than the Word of God.
2. They did not agree with the after-meeting on October 16 when a group of saints in the absence of the elders excommunicated a certain brother. They hoped that the elders would make a statement to denounce it.
3. Any problem that any elders or saints may have with Brother Lee should be settled properly and privately. They did not agree with all the public accusations toward Brother Lee and those who would receive him.
4. They did not agree that the Living Stream Ministry be made a continual issue in the church meetings.
Their special concern, they said, was how the saints could go on in this situation, and they were opening for fellowship along this line. They said, moreover, that they stood with us in this difficult time. Therefore we met with them, addressed the issues they raised, and took the opportunity to share with them our concerns for the whole situation, agreeing with some of theirs. By this you can realize the feelings of a number of saints in the church in Anaheim who had a different view.
October 1988
On October 11 a religious editor from the Los Angeles Times called me seeking further information regarding the problems in the church and the Living Stream Ministry. It was obvious that he had received considerable input. I answered that we do have some difficulties, but that we are seeking to solve them ourselves. He asked specific questions about the LSM office and its personnel, and I refused to respond. He pledged on his own initiative not to do anything until he had contacted us first.
Just one week later we received another call, this time from an editor of the Religious News Service, based in Philadelphia, which served some forty periodicals, if I remember the number correctly. He said he wanted information concerning the turmoil in the churches, having already received much information including some transcripts. I would make no comment.
November 6, 1988
During the months of September and October 1988 we had much consideration with all the elders in Anaheim regarding how to handle the problem of a certain brother and what action should be taken. It was a matter of serious misconduct on the part of the brother, and due to the ramifications of the affair Godfred, Al, and I, who were more familiar with the case, felt that church discipline should be exercised. Minoru and Philip, the other two elders, did not agree but said they would not try to stop this being done.
The date was eventually set for the Lord’s Day, November 6th. Minoru and Philip still dissented from the decision, but Godfred, Al, and I due to the serious nature of the problem, felt that we must go ahead to deal with it on the English-speaking side even without unanimity with the other two brothers on the Chinese-speaking side. The two brothers agreed to read our statements in the Chinese-speaking meeting, and then follow it with statements of their own dissenting from the action and explaining why. In the English-speaking side we would make our statement and follow it by reading the statements of Minoru and Philip.
Thus at the end of the Lord’s Day meeting, November 6th, Godfred stood and asked all the saints to read 1 Cor. 5:6-11. He then said that in obedience to the Word of God we must ask all the saints not to associate with the brother being disciplined since we had sufficient evidence that he was such a one as described in 1 Cor. 5:11. He then read statements by Minoru and Philip dissenting from the announcement. Of course it was a highly unusual step to take without the consensus of the brothers and indeed regrettable that all the elders could not concur in this matter. By this you may realize the situation among the elders and realize how strongly we felt about the matter.
After the meeting Godfred and I visited the wife of the disciplined brother and told her that this action did not apply to her or her children. She had come to the meeting in defiance of Godfred asking her not to come. She was greatly grieved, and we felt sorry for her.
November 13, 1988
Early this year (1988) Godfred informed Al and me that due to the impossibilities of the present church situation as he saw them, he was seriously considering to withdraw from the eldership. We were shocked. I strongly urged him not to do that but to continue with us for some time until we see how things would turn out. We desperately needed his help. To our great relief he assented to do that.
On September 30th Godfred again informed Al and me that this time he definitely intended to resign from the eldership and that the next day he would go to Brother Lee to notify him of his decision. He felt that due to all his complications in Anaheim it was impossible to have a church. But he indicated that he would remain with us in the eldership a little longer until the problem related to the brother whom we disciplined was resolved. Thus, when the disciplinary action was taken on November 6th, Godfred informed us that he would promptly resign the following Lord’s Day and would announce it to the saints.
On the Lord’s Day morning, November 13th, I communicated with Godfred before the meeting, hoping at the last moment to forestall his resignation. I urged him to delay a little longer so that eventually, if the Lord should lead, we could all resign together. It seemed better to me that it would be better for us to act together. But he felt definitely and strongly that he must take this step. His course was set, and he could not be turned aside.
We had good fellowship in the meeting over Eph. 4:17-32. At the close Godfred stood as planned and announced that he was resigning as an elder in the church in Anaheim, saying that it was a matter of conscience. The elders of the churches, he said, were expected to carry out Brother Lee’s burden and he could not conscientiously do that because of various practices and teachings that had come in. It was an exceedingly short statement, but it caused quite a stir. After the meeting about a dozen saints gathered around him and plied him with many questions and concerns. He lingered there in the meeting hall and conversed with them till nearly 2:00 P.M. Many saints had a high esteem for Godfred and his function and were wondering what would happen now that he was leaving. Al and I also wondered what we would do at this juncture. We felt we had no alternative but to remain, at least for some time, in the eldership.
November 1988
During the past year I had heard of two senior co-workers from Taiwan who were living in the San Francisco Bay Area, Brothers Chu Shun Min and Jeng Guang Ming, and I longed to have fellowship with them. I had first met Brother Chu in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, in 1965, and had seen him a few times since then at conferences and trainings. Although I did not know him well I had heard of his fruitful labors in Taiwan to build up the churches, especially in Kaohsiung and Taipei. Brother Jeng I had also met many years ago and was aware of his labor for the Lord in Bangkok and other places. The turmoil in Anaheim having grown and intensified, I was especially burdened to see them, having heard of their burden and concern for the present situation.
Thus on November 9th I flew to San Francisco and was met by Brother Jeng and Brother Daniel Wu, a former co-worker in Manila, who was living in the South San Francisco area. They transported me to Brother Jeng’s home in Los Altos, where for three days I met with the brothers. They were intensely interested in the progress of events in Anaheim, and I opened freely and fully to them. Likewise, Brothers Chu and Jeng opened freely and fully to me regarding their convictions and concerns for the churches and the work of the Lord. I would like to share in some detail their fellowship with me, beginning with Brother Chu Shun Min, who had been closely related to Brother Witness Lee since the revival in Chefoo in 1943 and the ensuing years. He knew Brother Lee and his family very well.
Brother Chu began by saying that he hoped that Brother Lee would have some change, but he had not seen a trace of this. Only a few know the source and the gravity of the problem. The reasons, he stated, for the present degraded situation of the churches were as follows:
1. Brother Lee’s position among the churches was overly exalted. The matter of greatest concern is that he would be idolized and thus replace the position of the Lord and the Holy Spirit in the church.
2. Brother Lee’s teachings and messages were overly read and repeated in the churches, causing us to be concerned that the position of God’s Word would be replaced. The words of man flourishes, and the Word of God languishes. The opportunities for the Holy Spirit to speak are scarce. These first two points are the fundamental problems.
3. Brother Lee’s leading has become a factor of discord and even of division among the brothers and sisters (e.g., door-knocking). Originally his leading was a factor of oneness.
4. Today we have overemphasized deputy authority more than the Bible teaches. The result is that people follow blindly and damage the Lord’s testimony. Obedience is a spiritual virtue, but we must be very careful lest we damage the Lord’s testimony through blind submission. Those who coordinated with Brother Lee in the past all learned the lesson of submission, but they were overly submissive with a tendency to exalt man. That caused trouble. The co-workers did this, and they led the saints also to do this. Thus the co-workers bear the responsibility for damaging the testimony.
5. Today there are too many practices that are not according to the truth. It was because of the truth that Paul resisted Peter, as recorded in Gal. 2. Today we don’t stand for the truth, but talk about deputy authority and raise up a pope. Thus the Holy Spirit is much restricted in the church. We talk about the Holy Spirit, but we don’t have the Spirit. We should only submit to the Spirit.
6. In many churches Brother Lee only set up as elders those who fully followed him. They are the ones who will execute his strategy. He did not consider whether those ones were immature or not; he only considered whether they would listen to him. Therefore someone called them "baby elders." Those who were experienced in the Lord, those who possessed the qualities of an elder and were manifested as such, were set aside.
7. Brother Lee’s leading was intended to help and supply the churches. However, unfortunately, he eventually used all kinds of methods to control: the ministry office, the trainings, the elders’ meetings, etc. He utilizes the simplicity of the brothers and sisters as a means of control. He controls the full-timers to influence the rest of the saints. He uses some of his writings and the way of reading.
8. Deviations in Brother Lee’s leading:
a) He causes the saints to overemphasize his writings (e.g. Life Studies, Truth Lessons, Life Lessons, etc.), leading to a reduction in the reading of the Lord’s Word.
b) He causes the saints to overemphasize prayreading and calling on the Lord (matters which are meant to help the saints), leading to a reduction of genuine prayers to the Lord. The result is that the brothers and sisters do not know how to pray, and those who are newly saved do not learn how to pray.
c) He overemphasizes and twists the matter of meetings in 1 Corinthians 14 so that the function of those members who can speak for the Lord as mouths in the Body is gradually diminished. Thus no gifts and functions are produced.
I would like now to record some of the comments made by Brother Jeng Guang Ming. He spoke as follows:
"We co-workers in the past have not had genuine fellowship among us concerning any questionable practices in the churches due to the prevailing concept that we should have no opinion, but rather just listen and submit. Brother Lee has related his experience and attitude toward Brother Nee in order to kill all opinions as well as all feelings and concerns. But our genuine fellowship is in sharing the feelings the Lord gives us, and in this we discover the leading of the Holy Spirit.
I very much treasure Acts 13, where the Holy Spirit spoke, 'Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' I believe that the speaking of the Holy Spirit to the brothers there in Antioch must have been through the genuine fellowship of the feelings which the Holy Spirit Himself gave to them. The same thing occurred in Acts 15. As long as the Holy Spirit speaks among us there will be no problem. But we don’t have today the leading of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 13 and 15, a leading in fellowship, a subjective leading manifested by each one speaking his own feeling before the Lord. The plurality gives the Holy Spirit opportunity. If we emphasize the one leadership so much how can the Holy Spirit have opportunity? The Spirit’s leading in the Body is in the prayer and fellowship of all. The kind of submission being practiced today kills the move of the Holy Spirit in the churches through the genuine fellowship among the saints.
We have no intention to rebel or overthrow Brother Lee. We have suppressed our feeling for many years, though we sensed there were many points of deviation. In Taiwan Brother Chu and I had no such fellowship concerning the abnormal situation in the churches today as we now have. We feel that the genuine fellowship must be like that recorded in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, where the Lord did not refrain from pointing out the negative aspects as well as the positive, the real situation.
Brother Chu Shun Min then told me how that on April 1, 1988, he had a conversation with Brother Lee in the Bay Area. He presented a number of serious concerns to Brother Lee and asked him to bring all these things to the Lord. Brother Chu told me that Brother Lee listened quietly and passively to all his points (with one exception), making no comment, neither admitting nor denying. The exception was a point he made concerning Brother Lee’s son, Philip Lee. In conclusion, Brother Chu told Brother Lee, "All the sweet feeling we had in the past is lost. All the rest in our spirit is over."
I will mention just a few more comments made by Brother Chu. He said that he feels very sorry for the present state of things -- he gave his whole life to this. He has received letters from elderly ones in Taipei that are full of blood and tears. There are very few elderly ones there who are not discouraged or withdrawn. The warfare now is fiercer than in Watchman Nee’s day when the issue was that of leaving the denominations. We are at a critical juncture. We cannot be silent regarding the change of nature in the Lord’s recovery. We should have no part in it. This is a day for further recovery. We need a new beginning to recover us back from the change of nature to the Lord’s original intention. We must discard all the changes of nature. The main direction is to come out of the system; it cannot change.
I will mention just a few more comments made by Brother Chu. He said that he feels very sorry for the present state of things -- he gave his whole life to this. He has received letters from elderly ones in Taipei that are full of blood and tears. There are very few elderly ones there who are not discouraged or withdrawn. The warfare now is fiercer than in Watchman Nee’s day when the issue was that of leaving the denominations. We are at a critical juncture. We cannot be silent regarding the change of nature in the Lord’s recovery. We should have no part in it. This is a day for further recovery. We need a new beginning to recover us back from the change of nature to the Lord’s original intention. We must discard all the changes of nature. The main direction is to come out of the system; it cannot change.
November 1988
On the Thanksgiving Day weekend of November 1988 Brother Lee, just returned from Taiwan, held a conference of five meetings in the auditorium of the Pasadena City College in California. The conference was followed by an elders’ meeting November 27th in the meeting place of the church in San Gabriel. In that meeting Brother Lee proclaimed that though he had a hall in Anaheim, he was not happy to use it (no doubt because of certain people who were in Anaheim). The brothers in the Los Angeles area invited him to have a conference and arranged the place in Pasadena. He said that when he heard that it would be in Pasadena he was happy. These people, he said, "exalt" me: I am happy to be exalted.
Before the conference began a report came to us that a flyer had been printed and would be placed on the windshields of all the cars of those attending the conference in Pasadena. On the flyer, we were told, some sinful disorders were mentioned. We fully disapproved of such action. Not knowing who authorized or printed them or who intended to distribute them, but knowing a couple of brothers who we thought might be aware of it, we called them and urged them to do whatever they could to stop the distribution. It seems that our word was heeded, at least to some extent, for no flyers were distributed at the conference. We discovered later, however, that they were put on some cars in the Anaheim meeting hall parking lot. Such acts we believe to be of the flesh and not the way to protest wrongdoing. Some time later, after the conference, we obtained a copy of the flyer. It was entitled Significant Dates in the History of the Church in Anaheim.
In the first meeting of the conference, November 25th, Brother Lee was in a fighting spirit, fighting against "autonomy" and "federation." He referred to some books authored by George Henry Lang, a servant of the Lord in England during the latter part of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. In one of his books, entitled The Churches of God, Lang emphasized the need for local administration in the churches. This was the book that troubled Brother Lee. (I had read this book, and being deeply impressed with its strong scriptural basis and timely application to our present need, I had recommended it to others.) Brother Lee called Lang’s book heretical and told the saints if they had them to burn them. I consider this kind of talk reckless and lawless. Brother Lee in years past had commended Lang for his insight and writing on the truth of the kingdom. His books have been recently reprinted and are available today.
In the conference meetings he strongly vindicated himself and his work. He gave a message in which he recounted a number of revelations brought forth by him which he said no one else besides the Bible authors had ever seen. Regarding the enjoying of Christ he said, "I invented this term, enjoying Christ." He continued, "I invented this term, experiencing Christ, exhibiting Christ." I believe a number of saints could testify that they heard of enjoying Christ or enjoying the Lord long before Brother Lee ever came to the United States. I for one did. My step-mother, seeking to help me, spoke to me of this in 1949. No doubt she heard this from other Christian teachers. The term, experiencing Christ, has also been spoken by other Christian teachers for years. Brother Lee did not invent that term. He mentioned many other items, claiming that they had all been revealed to him in the past twenty or so years; no one else had ever seen or spoken of them.
He referred to the title he has used for the Holy Spirit – "the all-inclusive Spirit of Christ as the consummation of the processed Triune God" – and asked who made such a title. Webster? he asked. Then he answered his own question, "That Lee! Lee has to be famous! Lee! Lee! Lee must have the credit! And if you listen to me, you do not listen to Lee, you listen to the very God in His oracle spoken by me." A little later in his message he said, "Going with God’s oracle, surely there is the deputy authority of God in this oracle. Whoever speaks for God, he surely has certain divine authority. I’m claiming this for Lee!"
Now I would ask, are these the words of a sober man, the words of a spiritual man, a man of God? To me it is shocking to hear him speak this way, for he has indeed been used of God in the past to speak His Word. But to vindicate oneself so blatantly and boastfully indicates to me a fall. May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Following his message he asked for testimonies to be given by brothers from five countries: Brazil, the Philippines, Korea, Taiwan, and the United States. All these told of the success of the new way in their place, especially giving statistics regarding the number of churches and new ones baptized. The Lord along knows the real situation. If there is any real blessing from Him we rejoice and give thanks.
In the elders’ meeting following the conference Brother Lee read from a list of items, mentioning what he said were the top ten revelations received by him, seen previously by no one else. Some of them were as follows:
- "The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
- "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
- Prayreading
- Calling on the name of the Lord
- The seven Spirits
- The dispensing of the processed Triune God into the tripartite man
- The New Jerusalem as a corporate man
- The lampstand as the embodiment of the Triune God
Now we thank God for these revelations from His holy Word, but to claim that he was the first one to see these is going altogether too far. Moreover, concerning at least a number of these items, Brother Lee was in fact not the first to see them. Regarding the last Adam becoming a life-giving Spirit and our being one spirit with the Lord, there were a number of other Christian teachers who saw and wrote of these things. We have evidence of this. Concerning prayreading, many have seen this and practiced this, as recorded in the book authored by Ray Graver and published by the LSM entitled, Lord…Thou Saidst. Calling on the name of the Lord was not a recent discovery by Brother Lee or by us. The New Jerusalem as a corporate person was also seen by others—T. Austin-Sparks for one. If we have time or if there is the need, we may document all these instances.
The revelations mentioned are indeed great and precious. Fairly speaking, some of these matters may have been fresh revelations to Brother Lee. The Lord alone knows. And some of them he may have enunciated more clearly than his predecessors. But for anyone to claim that no one had ever seen these things before but him is totally insupportable, since we are not omniscient. Moreover, such self-vindication is very unbecoming and repugnant.
Brother Lee went on to say, "You cannot deny the fact that the Lord’s oracle has been with me. I claim this at the face of Jesus Christ. The deputy authority of God is in His oracle; so whoever speaks for God has His deputy authority. But I never used it."
In the elders’ meeting, Brother Lee referred to some anonymous papers being circulated and blamed the elders in Anaheim for not stopping the distribution. He then referred to the flyer which had been printed and was to be put on the windshields of the cars at the conference. I then rose from my seat and said that we wanted Brother Lee and all the brothers to know that we fully disapproved of that action and had done whatever we could to stop it. Brother Lee took the opportunity then, while I was on my feet, to question me publicly about a few things. He asked me about an anonymous writing entitled Reconsidering Our Vision. (which had troubled him greatly) and if we had done anything to stop its circulation. I said that we had not.
Regarding some brothers, probably including me (or, especially me), Brother Lee said, Whether you are for me or not, I know; I know everything. I know what restaurant you were eating in, what day, and with whom. I have a lot of colleagues who write me long records of ten to twenty pages about you. He said further, Which church is under my hand? You have a church; I have none. I know which church welcomes me, and which has a cold heart toward me.
Near the end of his word he proclaimed, I don’t care for the loss of any church. Even if the entire U. S. A. is closed to me I don’t care. I only care for ten to twenty faithful ones meeting together to practice the truth. When he sat down and asked for fellowship, a brother from Anaheim, Paul Kerr, rose toward the end of the time and asked two questions. The first consisted of two queries: Why have other brothers besides you not been raised up? And, Why do you have no contemporaries to challenge you and fellowship with you? Brother Lee’s answer was simply, "I don’t know." And then he said that since 1945 he has been watching to see if anyone else could speak God’s word as God’s oracle. He could find none. Paul Kerr’s next question concerned John So and John Ingalls. He asked, "How is it that in the past you referred to these two brothers as pillars and today’s Timothy, and today you have nothing good to say about them? Brother Lee’s reply was that brothers can change. Demas loved the Lord, but then he changed and loved the world. I can change, he said; we all can change. So we all need the Lord’s mercy.
Brother Lee was beside himself in this meeting. I had never personally observed him in such a state as I witnessed him there. He was obviously exceedingly agitated. That was the last elders’ meeting with Brother Lee that I ever attended.
December 13, 1988
On December 6 Brother Lee called, saying that he would like to meet with Al Knoch and me before he went to Irving, Texas for the training on December 14. He hoped to meet with us on Saturday, December 10th. I told him that we felt we needed to pray more and wait for some time before having further fellowship with him, but he was rather insistent. On December 12 he called again, and then again on December 13, at which times I told him that we still felt it better that we pray more and wait for a time. He said that there were a number of points which he desired to share with us. Finally I asked if he could just share them with me over the phone, and he agreed. I relate them as follows in Brother Lee’s words in a somewhat abridged form:
1. Take my word, I have no intention to do anything bad to you. I have prayed, Preserve my brother’s usefulness in Your hand. I don’t like to see any part damaged.
2. Regarding the translation work on the revision of the Recovery Version, I never had any feeling that I would give you up. I prayed about the work being moved to Irving, and I believe that was the wisdom of the Lord. I like to get this work done in a peaceful and happy way. I never said anything bad about your part. I told the brothers just recently that the whole recovery is indebted to John for his work on the hymnbook and his polishing of other books for publishing. Now I have received a letter from you saying that you would withdraw from the work. I don’t know what to say. Now that you would stop, who can continue? It is much better to get one thing done by the same person. I still would ask you to do this work, and I beg you to reconsider. This work is not only for the saints in the Lord’s recovery, but for the Lord’s people as a whole. Please do not think that you will be doing anything for me, but for the Lord’s interests on the whole earth. I must have a definite word from you.
I told him that I had already given much consideration to this matter before writing the letter of resignation from the work.
3. Regarding the flyer that has been circulated, you said that you have stopped it, but on the Lord’s Day it was distributed in the Anaheim meeting hall after the meeting. A sister was holding a bundle of them and giving them out to some of the saints. The saints in Fullerton also got copies. My name is printed on that flyer in a very negative sense. Since I am a brother in Anaheim and such a thing is still going on, I ask you as a brother in the church where I meet to take care of this. You have already had an excommunication [to deal with the problem]; so that’s it! Why is such a flyer put out?
4. On August 28th you put out sixteen points, eight by you and eight by Godfred. I wanted to fellowship with you about these points, but I did not have time. After the coming training in Irving, I hope to sit down with you to study some of these points. They were sent out to all the churches. One brother told me that they were sixteen bullets aimed at me to put me aside from the church in Anaheim or from the Lord’s recovery.
5. At the end of the training in Irving there will be some elders’ meetings. So many elders will attend. I am burdened in those meetings to speak something very positive and give the Lord a way to lead us on positively. We will not go back to touch the things that have happened in the past. (Note: See under the following sub-title the contents of these elders’ meetings.) The present situation is damaged and divided. The Lord’s recovery was brought to this country through me, and you were the first one to take this way. Our hearts have been for the Lord’s recovery, and I believe you still have such a heart. I ask you to please go to Irving for the elders’ meetings. I believe they will be a great help, resulting in a very positive and profitable issue. We must endeavor to give the Lord a way.
Brother Lee told me that he had called other brothers in Orange County encouraging them to go. I know that he also called Bill Mallon. I myself was not led of the Lord to go.
6. Very honestly, not only as a brother, but as a friend, I want to speak to you about Joseph Fung. It is very hard for me to say anything bad about anyone. But he was spreading the news that Hong Kong and Rosemead were genuine local churches. The genuine local churches were more than one hundred, Joseph said. All the others were ministry churches. He indicated that the churches in Southeast Asian countries, excluding the Philippines, all joined together with the churches in Europe to be against me. (Note: This includes Brother Lee’s interpretation of what Joseph said. Joseph never said that any church, including Hong Kong, was against Brother Lee.)
I thanked Brother Lee for his concern, and we said goodbye. That was the last time I spoke with Brother Lee.
Dec. 31, 1988 – Jan 2, 1989
In the elders’ meetings in Irving, following the winter training, there were 340 elders present, a large number, and Brother Lee spoke to them on the following four points:
1. Gospel preaching: door-knocking is the best way
2. Home visitation for meetings with the new ones
3. Mutuality in the meetings
4. Church meetings for building up
Brother Lee had spoken many, many times on these same things before; so there was no new light or direction. When I heard the contents of the meetings I felt confirmed in my not going.
At the close of the elders’ meetings, Francis Ball, a long time elder and co-worker with us, rose and proposed a nationwide day of fasting and prayer on January 11th, to pray especially for the critical condition of the recovery and the churches. He then turned to Brother Lee and asked if he would approve of it. Brother Lee responded by saying that the condition of the recovery was not that bad, and what we were experiencing was only a passing storm. Then he said that only Germany and Anaheim have problems due to the danger of changing the truth.
I considered Brother Lee’s singling out of these two places and his charging them with being in danger of changing the truth to be serious. I would like to know what truth we have ever changed or are in danger of changing. Rather we have sought to be faithful to the truth, much of which we have seen through the help of Brother Lee’s ministry. Our problem in the past has been related not mainly to the truth itself, but to its practice, which we are seeking diligently to remedy. However, one crucial matter affecting the truth I will mention here. In Ephesians 4 there are seven factors of our oneness and only seven. But today other factors, at least in practice, have been added, such as, one ministry, one leadership, one deputy authority, and one divine oracle. These have been made factors of our oneness, so that if any individuals or churches do not adhere to the "one ministry", or the "one leadership", etc., they are cut off or labeled negatively. Now, is this not true? We have many examples to substantiate it.
Brother Lee has told the brothers who were serving with him a number of times, including myself, that if he ever left the way of God’s recovery, we should not follow him; rather we should go forward according to the truth to follow the Lord. We believe that in some degree this very thing has occurred, and we are taking Brother Lee’s own word to go on in the truth. May the Lord grant us mercy and grace to be faithful.
January 1989
On Saturday, January 7th, 1989, in the religious section of the Los Angeles Times, the first article regarding the problems among us appeared. It was rather long, covering two columns, and was entitled Crisis Threatens Future of Little-Known Church. It referred to the publication of an anonymous twenty-page pamphlet critical of Brother Lee and quoted from it (
). It stated that Philip Lee is a "powerful figure in the church second only to his father." Worst of all it mentioned some charges of sinful acts taking place. This is what we had feared most of all for over a year and had warned Brother Lee that this might occur if nothing was done promptly to clear up the disorder. Mentioning my name, the article attributed me as saying, "the problems were best handled internally out of the public eye," and then stated that I had refused further comment.Referring to information they had received, the writer said, "Some former members furnished The Times with transcriptions of taped emotional meetings in Anaheim and a copy of the pamphlet that has been circulated widely among church members in Taiwan and the United States." I strongly feel that such "former members" did not serve the Lord’s interests well by giving out such information. It is indeed shameful that there should be any ground for such an article to appear in print in a major newspaper – shameful to Brother Lee, to his ministry, to the churches, and to all the saints. Worst of all it is a smear on the Lord’s testimony.
We understand that another article regarding our problems was also printed in the Chinese World Journal, a Chinese periodical published in Monterrey Park, California, with global circulation. We did not see it, nor could we read it except by translation. It was no surprise to us to learn that Brother Lee was deeply disturbed over these two newspaper articles. There may have been more in other cities in the country that have not come to our attention.
In the fall 1988 issue of The Christian Research Institute Journal there was also an article about us entitled Turmoil in the "Local Church" (
). It carried as well a photo of Brother Lee and his wife. This writing quotes at length from the twenty-page pamphlet mentioned above. It also speaks of various disorders that are disgraceful. I have no heart to say anymore.December 1988 – February 1989
On December 20, 1988, after the church prayer meeting, a letter dated December 16, 1988, was handed to us by Daniel Sun, a brother in Anaheim, addressed to the elders and signed by eleven saints in the church including both brothers and sisters. After referring to the meeting of October 27th when we met with some of them, the letter said, "In view of what has developed, we feel the need of further fellowship and request that you meet with us as soon as possible due to the urgency of the issues." The letter then addressed seven areas of their concern. Because these concerns expressed the feelings of a number of saints in Anaheim, we will record them here in an abridged form. For the convenience of the reader, we will also include our response in an abridged form under each item.
1. Distribution of transcripts of the meeting on August 28, 1988 (sixteen points given by Godfred and me and confirmed in testimony by Al). They desired us to denounce this distribution openly before the saints and also to write an open letter to other churches to denounce the same. They further requested that we clarify that those points did not represent the feelings of all the elders or of all the saints, specifically those who signed this letter.
Response: We feel that the distribution of the sixteen points was allowed sovereignly by the Lord and used by Him. The points are solidly based on the Word of God and are for the greater part what we have always believed and taught in the Lord’s recovery since the beginning. Therefore we do not feel that we can or should denounce their distribution either by word or by letter. Of course, some of the points were especially suited to our local situation and should be viewed as such. It is clear from the transcript that we did not purport to represent all the saints or all the elders. Should any saints have difficulties with these points, we encourage them to indicate their difficulties specifically in writing and send them to us; we will be happy then to address them in further fellowship.
2. The distribution of the flyer entitled Significant Dates in the History of the Church in Anaheim (in English and Chinese). They asked us to publicly denounce the distribution of the flyer and to rebuke those who were responsible for it in order to stop such lawlessness.
Response: We feel it is wholly out-of-character and unbecoming to Christians to distribute such a flyer anywhere. We hope it will not be distributed in our meeting hall or in any place where the saints gather.
3. Untrue statements, public accusations, and character assassinations. They said that many untrue statements had been made during recent meetings which should be corrected and dealt with by the elders. Moreover they said that many public accusations had been made in the last few months which had grieved and offended many saints. They felt that the elders should help those who spoke these to deal with their offenses.
Response: Concerning some of the statements deemed offensive and untrue, Godfred has already publicly denounced and rebuked these. We encourage the saints offended by other matters shared to go directly to the brothers themselves according to the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18. We have spoken privately to a number of saints whose speaking may have been offensive, advising them to consider before the Lord what action He would have them to take.
4. Our relationship with Brother Lee. They felt that since the church had a long and close relationship with him, and since many saints consider him as the Lord’s servant and would like to continue to receive help, the elders should be fair to all the saints and allow the same freedom of close fellowship between the church and him.
Response: We acknowledge the long and close relationship with Brother Lee and desire to be fair to all the saints. Our attitude is that we would like to practice true generality, where all the saints are free to follow their own conscience. Any saints desiring to receive Brother Lee’s ministry by attending trainings and conferences or reading his books are at full liberty to do so. If any prefer not to do this, we should also afford them this liberty.
5. Brother Joseph Fung’s visit to Anaheim. They felt that the presence of this brother at this time was not profitable to the church since he associates himself, they said, with many of the saints opposing Brother Lee’s ministry and has made many slanderous and divisive statements.
Response: Whether or not Joseph’s presence here is profitable for the church, only the Lord knows and can judge. We do not have any jurisdiction to ask him to leave the area. In fact, we consider that his visit has been helpful to many saints, and that our fellowship with him has been constructive for the building up of the church.
6. Regarding discipline exercised upon a certain brother. They did not agree with any decision issuing from an eldership that was not unanimous.
Response: Of course it was a highly unusual step to take without the consensus of the brothers and indeed regrettable that all the elders could not concur in this matter. By this you may realize the situation among the elders and how strongly we felt about the matter.
7. How do we go on? Regarding this point they said, "We feel we do love Christ and the church. We need to go on not only for a few saints but for many. We need your fellowship in this area."
Response: We answered this question under four headings:
a) By receiving the Word of God. Our greatest need is for the Lord to speak to us through His Word. Without the Lord’s speaking it is impossible to go on or have a proper church life. The best way to overcome many troubling factors is to be well-nourished by the living, spoken Word of God. Our church life and daily life should be governed in all things solely by the Word of God, not by any expediency, tradition, or extraneous influence.
b) By following the Spirit’s leading. In order to do this we must give the Lord His rightful place as our unique Head. As the church and as individuals we are directly responsible and accountable to the Lord and we need to receive our leading in all things from Him Who is now the Spirit within us. In order to seek the Lord’s leading we need much more earnest prayer than we now have.
c) By practicing and keeping the oneness of the Spirit. To do this we must learn to receive all whom God receives with the love and grace of Christ regardless of their concepts or convictions. We hope that we will come out of any party or sectarian oneness that excludes other members. Moreover, we must learn to practice the proper generality in our attitude toward one another. In Anaheim at the present time we have the best environment to practice this generality that we have so long been taught but very little lived.
d) By preaching the gospel to the unbelievers and shepherding the saints. We sincerely hope that the Lord will raise up a healthy, normal, daily gospel preaching among us; this is vital to our going on. We hope that we may have a happy church life as a strong base and impetus for the spread of the gospel. With the gospel preaching we need adequate shepherding of all the new believers with the best use of home gatherings, either in their homes or in the homes of the saints.
After receiving the letter from these three brothers, we began to consider how best to respond. After much consideration we felt that due to the serious nature of the matters raised and demands made, we would answer the signatories of the letter in writing. Furthermore, due to the fact that many saints (not only the signatories of the letter) held concerns about the same matters, we decided to distribute copies of our response to all the saints that they may know where we stood on these matters. In the response distributed to all the saints we deleted our reply to item #6 since that touched upon a highly personal and sensitive matter. We include the full text of our response distributed to all the saints in the Appendix (see Appendix C). We also decided to append to the response an edited copy of the sixteen points given on August 28th so that they may have it for their reference, since it was referred to several times in the response.
We distributed the response to the signatories of the letter on Saturday evening, January 7th, and after the Lord’s Day morning meeting, January 8th, we gave out an amended copy of the response (as mentioned above) to all the saints. Some of the brothers who had signed the letter to us were very unhappy that we made such a distribution to the saints; so we promised to meet with them the following evening to talk about the matters.
On Monday evening, January 9th, 1989 we met then with the brothers who had signed the letter to us. On February 7th, about one month later we met with them again. During those times the brothers grilled us and accused us in a manner that was quite out-of-character for them. This led us to suspect that they were receiving direction from behind the scenes. (We received a definite report through one of them to another brother that they had met with Brother Lee and talked with him about the Anaheim elders.) The atmosphere in these meetings was tense and oppressive. We felt that it was altogether not profitable for anyone or for the whole situation to meet in such a way. The chief spokesman for the brothers said to my face bluntly, emphatically, and with great finality, "We will not follow your direction!" Minoru Chen, one of the other elders in Anaheim, strongly confirmed and supported them. The meetings succeeded only in letting us know how they felt about some things, matters which we held an altogether different view and told them so.
These brothers, with two or three exceptions, had been with us for many years and knew us well, as we did them. Most all of them were exceedingly quiet and retiring brothers, but they represented a number of saints who desired to receive Brother Lee’s ministry and leadership and were not happy with the way we were taking, although we endeavored to practice generality toward all saints regardless of their preference. They obviously did not agree with that or appreciate that. It was abundantly clear that, at least to them, our eldership was in name only. It was a grievous situation and one that could not continue much longer.
January 1989
I include in this narrative a brief account of the visit of the Raleigh brothers to Brother Lee, as related to me by them, since it affords another window upon the actual situation and since Brother Lee asked the Raleigh brothers to convey some concerns and questions to the elders in Anaheim.
In the summer of 1988 Tom Cesar of the church in Raleigh came to Anaheim to discuss with Brother Lee the points of a seventy-one-page compendium entitled Concernswith our Practice Regarding Truth and Life, which had been mailed to him earlier. The brothers in Raleigh had labored for many hours over this work in the expectation that Brother Lee would read it, be apprised of their concerns, realize the gravity of the situation, and hopefully make some major changes in the course we were taking. Under each point they had put together zeroxed copies of pages with quotes from Watchman Nee and Brother Lee’s earlier printed ministry together with quotes from his recent ministry to prove that there had been significant changes contradicting Brother Lee’s own teaching. While Tom was in Anaheim that summer I saw him, and learning that he had presented Brother Lee with this writing I commented, "I doubt that Brother Lee will read it. He doesn’t like to read things of that nature, that raise questions concerning his work or ministry."
In the early fall of 1988 Brother Lee wrote to the brothers in Raleigh saying that he desired to meet with them face to face and clear up their concerns point by point. Later in December of that year he telephoned and asked them to come to Irving, Texas for the elders’ meetings, and he would meet with them there. The Raleigh brothers were not free to come to Irving, so they agreed to come instead to Anaheim the week after the training to meet with Brother Lee. He said he would answer their questions.
They arrived on Saturday, January 7, and met with Brother Lee that night. They met also on the Lord’s Day morning, afternoon, and evening, and again on Monday morning – a total of approximately ten hours. The first evening Brother Lee did most of the speaking, giving them a history of the "conspiracy and rebellion." However, the brothers were able to say a few things. Tom pointed out how the church life was going down, and they were looking for answers. He said they had no problem with the matters of the new way, but how it was carried out was a problem. They were not concerned for right and wrong, but for God’s righteousness. They read some verses to him and quoted from the Normal Christian Church Life by W. Nee, but Brother Lee did not want to hear it. He said that he knew what Watchman Nee meant in that book, and what Watchman Nee meant then does not apply to today’s situation. He said, moreover, that there is no basic problem among us, but only a storm in Germany and Anaheim. John So, he said, exercises a strong control over Stuttgart, and just like Bill Freeman (a former elder of the church in Seattle) he is trying to set up another ministry. One of the Raleigh brothers then asked how you can identify another ministry. Brother Lee replied that it is very difficult.
The brothers said that Brother Lee was very defensive at times and was like a ball bouncing from one matter to another. Tom Cesar asked, "Why can’t brothers come together to discuss their concerns without being considered to be conspiring? " But Brother Lee, they said, had no ear to hear them. It was as if they were talking to the wall. He didn’t want to clear up their points; he hadn’t even read the outline they had presented to him the previous summer. He would not answer their questions directly. They were impressed that he never asked how the saints in the church in Raleigh were doing, as if he was not concerned for them. The brothers were very disappointed.
Brother Lee asked Tom Cesar to be his mediator and to convey four points of concern he had to Brother Al Knoch and me, which he did. I present them here with my answers:
1. Brother Lee has had a unique relationship with the church in Anaheim over the years, and now he has been excluded by the brothers.
Answer: We did not exclude him. Rather, we met with him repeatedly hoping that various problems could be resolved and eliminated so that we could go on together in a normal relationship. The fact is, Brother Lee stayed away from the meetings in Anaheim of his own choice for at least two years before we were awakened to the problems and opened to him about them. We wondered why he never came. He said publicly before a large assembly of elders at that time that he "lost interest in the church in Anaheim."
2. Why in the past fourteen months have the elders in Anaheim not invited Brother Lee to speak in the church?
Answer: Why did Brother Lee not come to the church meetings? Every Lord’s Day we got into the Word, and there was opportunity for everyone to speak. We were not burdened to invite him to hold a conference or give some special messages. We did not feel the church had need of that.
3. Why did the Anaheim brothers not share the sixteen points with him before the meeting of August 28, 1988?
Answer: After all our previous fellowship with Brother Lee, we did not feel it would be useful or profitable to do that.
4. Why did John Ingalls drop the matter of having a meeting with Brother Lee and some brothers to study together the concerns that have been raised?
Answer: Answer: I have already answered this question.
Brother Lee also told the Raleigh brothers that John Ingalls has the concept that Witness Lee is a king, and John is trying to raise himself up to that level. (The Lord knows all our hearts and will judge.)
January 1989
On the weekend of January 27-29, 1989, Brother Lee had a conference in San Diego. He believed he had discerned the reason why some of the older elders and co-workers had some concerns regarding his work and the local churches, and he enunciated his feelings in one of the conference meetings. He spoke as follows:
"So today, let me tell you, the problem among us is this: there is a kind of consideration among the older co-workers -- not all, but some. There was a kind of consideration -- Where shall they be? Brother Lee was the one who brought the recovery to this country and was the one who through the Lord’s ministry brought many, many of the older co-workers into the recovery. But now this one who brought the recovery to this country is seemingly deviating. Deviating from what? Into what? That’s right, deviating from the old into the new. Now some of the co-workers have to consider where they should be. Shall they remain in the old, or shall they go forth into the new? Go forth? To say this is easy. You have to pay a price, especially the older ones. They have made a success in the recovery according to the old way, but now the old way was annulled. Then what shall we do? If you were them, surely you would consider. I must tell you, this is the root of all the troubles among us today. All the other things are on the surface; the root is here. Now you know."
This analysis absolutely missed the mark. I was surprised when I read the transcript that he could judge so superficially by saying that the root of all the problems is that the older co-workers would not leave the old way and take the new. At the present time he has revised his explanation, yet still misjudges. He went on to speak of himself as follows:
"When I was told that I had deviated from the recovery, I checked with myself. Where? Where could I find my deviation? I couldn’t find [anything]. So I could not have anything to repent of. I’m not proud. I’m sincere. I’m honest. I’m open. To tell you the truth, I like to repent. I have repented to the saints openly at least two or three times. Right? I didn’t deviate from the recovery; rather I got into it more deeply. Right?
"I was in the Lord’s interests exactly sixty years. Right? I surely, humbly tell you, I know what I’m doing. Especially a man at this age would not do anything in haste, not knowing what he is doing. I got attacked – you all know this. Right? I like to suffer, because I like to suffer for what I’m doing. I know."
"Dear saints, you have to realize that what we all have seen in the past is just some kind of organizational things. It was not organic. Right? I do not mean that there was absolutely nothing at all organic -- I would not say that. There were some parts organic, but the main situation was not organic. Could you follow me? And today what the Lord wants is to have a main item. The main item must be organic."
I record these remarks here because they manifest how Brother Lee felt about us at the time, and how he felt about himself and his work. The reader may make his own judgment from Brother Lee’s words.
March 5, 1989
The church in Anaheim was registered with the state of California as a non-profit religious corporation, and according to its by-laws must hold an annual business meeting of all the members (consisting of all those who were regenerated and expressed their intention to meet with the church in Anaheim) with the main purpose of electing directors of the corporation. Each year this matter was held speedily at the close of the Lord’s Table meeting on the first Lord’s Day of March. The directors, according to our practice, were always elders though not required by law to be elders – any bona-fide member could be nominated and elected. The election was held by a voice vote of all the members present with usually none dissenting, and the meeting was adjourned, the whole affair lasting not more than five minutes. I believe many of the local churches are familiar with this practice. The saints were told and all realized that the church was not a secular entity to be administered as a business corporation in a worldly way, but since it owned property and received tax exemption it must in obligation to the State perform these legal functions however minimized they may be. Therefore, we endeavored to dispense with them as quickly as possible.
There were three directors who, according to the by-laws, served a three-year term on a rotational basis, meaning that every year one of the directors terms expired, and he must be either re-elected or replaced at the annual business meeting. The custom was to re-elect the one whose term expired, and it was always accomplished without any problem. Minoru Chen, Al Knoch, and myself were the directors. The one whose term expired that year was Minoru Chen, a brother who was transferred by Brother Lee from the church in Huntington Beach and appointed an elder in the church in Anaheim in March 1986. Most of the saints were aware that it was he whose term expired and that he must be considered for re-election. Now the problem to a number of saints was that he was an elder who stood strongly for Brother Lee’s leadership, whereas those saints did not, and they would like to see him replaced. The rest of the saints desperately desired to see Minoru in that position. Such an abnormal and divided condition we had never experienced before.
The business meeting and election were to take place on the Lord’s Day, March 5th. On Thursday evening, March 2nd, Al and I met with Minoru Chen and Philip Lin to discuss the agenda for the business meeting. Minoru made a point very strongly that according to our custom the directors should always be elders. In fact, without our knowledge, in the preceding Lord’s Day meeting on the Chinese-speaking side, Minoru had educated the saints to this effect, pointing out that in the coming election for directors, they should do the same on the English-speaking side. This we declined to do in the present divided situation, since the by-laws expressly stated that any member of the corporation could be nominated and elected to the post. We anticipated that this time we would have to vote by ballot as there would likely be more than one candidate nominated.
As the day drew near, we learned, there was much activity in progress to get out the vote, one side wanting to maintain Minoru in office as a director and the other wanting to replace him. The phone lines were hot. It was quite unseemly to say the least. Many saints were informed that they must show up in order to vote. If Minoru was voted out and replaced by someone who was not absolute for Brother Lee’s leadership, that for some saints forebode an extremely unstable situation for the church and the property. If Minoru was elected that to some saints meant a foothold for Brother Lee and the LSM. We, speaking for Al and me, did not have any taste for the whole affair and were certain that in any case Minoru would be re-elected. If Al and I had wanted to remove Minoru (as some were charging us), since we constituted the majority of directors (two against one), we could, according to the by-laws, call a director’s meeting and vote Minoru out of the directorship. But this we would never do.
At the close of the morning meeting on March 5th, the Chinese saints from their meeting on the other side of the building filed in, making a total of close to three hundred in attendance. As the president of the corporation, I was responsible to preside over the meeting. I stood and made a few introductory remarks concerning the nature of the meeting: I explained again that as a corporation we were bound legally to have the meeting and that it was a business meeting governed by by-laws, not a church meeting where anyone was free to speak as he was moved. The meeting was then called to order, the purpose of electing a director stated, and the meeting opened for nominations from the members. I endeavored to direct the meeting very strictly according to parliamentary procedure and the by-laws, to assure order, not give any ground for accusations, and eliminate any kind of maneuvering and disturbing behavior. It went fairly well considering the situation.
After a flurry of nominations, a number of which were declined, two persons remained to be voted upon: Chris Leu, who was not an elder, and Minoru Chen. Cards to serve as ballots were distributed, and four brothers chosen previously by the elders collected them and counted the vote. I myself abstained from voting. Minoru was elected, receiving 195 votes, to Chris Leu’s 69. It was as I expected. When the count was announced by Al Knoch, the secretary of the corporation, many saints applauded with clapping of hands for Minoru’s election. The meeting was soon adjourned.
I determined after that morning that I would never preside over such a church business meeting again. Such a function is wholly out of character with the church and utterly distasteful to the spirit. I was thoroughly fed up with the whole affair.
It has been said that since I failed through the election to have someone else installed to replace Minoru, for that reason I resigned from the eldership. The Lord knows that this is far from the truth and is the product of someone’s overworked imagination.
March 19, 1989
On Tuesday, March 14, 1989, Godfred, Al, and I had fellowship and prayer during the morning and then lunch together. It was a memorable time, a decisive time. I expressed strongly to the brothers my feeling concerning the futility and dishonesty of playing the role of elder in Anaheim any longer. It was hypocritical to go on in that status feeling as we did with strong conviction that we were in a system. Moreover, we were totally incapable of changing the course of the church or of practicing a generality with the saints where all were free to follow their own conscience. These considerations dictated that we should resign. Both Godfred and Al agreed. Of course, Godfred had already resigned and withdrawn from the eldership on November 13, 1988, about four months earlier, but he was still concerned for Al and me. We fellowshipped about this matter and felt very clear that we should take the step and resign. I proposed that we wait to announce this to the saints until I would return from a trip to Europe planned for the end of March, but both Godfred and Al urged that we should do it immediately. We decided then to make a statement to this effect in the coming Lord’s Day morning meeting, giving the reasons for it.
This was a critical and momentous decision for us. I had been an elder in the church in Los Angeles for twelve years and in the church in Anaheim for fifteen years, during all this time closely associated with Brother Witness Lee. This decision would change the course of our lives and of the church, but we believed it was of the Lord.
On Friday evening, March 17th, Al and I met with the other elders, Minoru Chen and Philip Lin, and announced to them our intention to withdraw from the eldership, giving them some explanation. They received it and urged us to notify Brother Lee immediately. This we intended to do, and did so by letter the next day. Our letter is included in the Appendix (see Appendix D).
Thus on the Lord’s Day morning, March 19th, I rose at the close of the meeting and announced our decision to withdraw from the eldership of the church. I made a few introductory remarks, saying that "I began to realize that our practices have differed and deviated from our vision. Our vision was the same, our teaching was mostly the same, the truth is always the same, but our practice has really differed." I included a statement that the nature of what we called the Lord’s recovery had changed, and then spoke in a number of points the reasons and basis for our decision to withdraw. I did this briefly without much elaboration, speaking for twenty-two minutes. I record here in abridged form the salient points. The full text is included in the Appendix (see Appendix E).
1. There has been a change in emphasis to the building up of the work or the ministry more than the local churches. The ministry has been promoted, exalted, and built up, and the churches have suffered greatly in the process.
2. There had been a great effort and promotion to unite the saints and the churches around a certain leader and organization.
3. There has been much pressure with full expectation that all the saints and the churches will conform to the burden of the ministry and be identical with one another in full uniformity of practice to carry it out.
4. In February 1986 we had signed a letter along with 417 other elders agreeing that we would be identical with all the churches, that we would follow the ministry absolutely, and that we realized Brother Lee’s leading was indispensable to our oneness. Since these matters were not in agreement with the Word of God, we greatly regretted that we had subscribed to them, and I stated publicly that I would retract my signature.
5. There has been an emphasis, at least in practice, on a centralization of the churches and the work.
6. There has been a pervasive control exercised over the church, not so much directly, but very much indirectly, which makes it difficult to go on by getting our leading directly from the Lord.
7. Church history reveals that denominations have begun with the affiliation of groups of saints under one leadership followed by the commencement of a training center. We were also going that way.
8. I greatly appreciate Brother Lee’s portion, but he has been exalted and honored above what is written, according to 1 Corinthians 4:6.
9. Brother Lee and his ministry have been made a great issue and factor of division among us.
10. Our going on and our relationship with the saints and with the church is made to depend on our relationship with Brother Lee. When this is done the ground of oneness is replaced with something else.
11. We have applied the teaching concerning the ground of oneness in a divisive and sectarian way, so that we divide ourselves from other Christians. This is due to an improper attitude and application of the truth. In the local churches we have become narrow and small as manifested in our attitude toward other Christians and in our reception of other saints.
12. Our attitude toward other Christians is one of belittling them and thinking we’re superior. What we need is the reality of oneness, not just the teaching or slogan.
13. The Lord told us in His Word to go forth to Him outside the camp. The Lord is still calling His sheep out of every fold and every camp so that there can be one flock with one shepherd.
14. Our oneness should be as large as the whole Body of Christ. Any oneness that is smaller than this we should leave and not keep.
15. We should all go directly to the Lord for His leading in the church in order to have a local administration, at the same time maintaining a proper fellowship with other saints and other churches. At this point I quoted some sentences from a pamphlet entitled The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Church, published by the Living Stream Ministry. One sentence reads: "In all administrative affairs, the local churches are autonomous and locally governed."
16. There has been an over-stressing and distortion of the teaching concerning deputy authority, which has caused the saints to be fearful to follow their conscience, to be one with their spirit, and sometimes to speak their genuine concerns.
17. There has been too much emphasizing of methods more than the inner anointing, and external big success more than the experience of the inner life.
18. We have no problem with the matters of the "new way". We wanted to make that clear. Actually these things are not new.
In conclusion I said, "Based on the above points, we feel we must withdraw from the eldership. We are not able to lead you in this way, nor are we able to lead you out of this way. Many of you feel strongly that you would like to take a certain direction, and as elders we cannot lead you in that direction…. We really love you in the Lord. The Lord knows that. We care for you, and we wish you all the very best in the Lord. You are in our prayers. You will always be in our prayers. We ask you to pray for us too. Pray for Brother Al and me. If we’ve offended any of you saints, we ask you to please forgive us. We surely never intended to offend any one of you. We still like to keep our fellowship with you all as fellow-members of the Body of Christ."
Al Knoch then rose and spoke for eleven minutes, giving a very genuine and touching statement regarding his inner feeling about the eldership. I will just quote briefly here. He began: "I am so thankful that John could share those points, because I could not do it so clearly. I hold the same concerns…. These were the same concerns we presented to Brother Lee in all our times with him. So he knows all of these things already, and he has considered them….As elders in the recovery we do have a problem with many of our practices, and there’s no way we could in a good conscience continue on in the position without the reality. How can we lead you? We can’t lead in that way, and yet the recovery is going that way.
"So we brothers feel…it’s good for us, it’s good for you, and it’s good for the Lord that we withdraw at this time. The reason we didn’t withdraw sooner, though we were clear to withdraw last December, is that we felt the need to stand here for these very concerns for a while longer to see what could be done, and to see how the saints would respond to this kind of stand. But the more we have done this, the more clear we have become that there will not be any change at this time in the way the recovery is going."
The saints, generally speaking, listened well, only interrupting once. The Lord’s presence and strengthening were with us. Minoru Chen closed the meeting, saying that we all must realize that the points I had made were an expression of my own personal view. He made a special point of controverting my assertion that the nature of the recovery had changed. He said that the nature of the recovery had indeed not changed. That was his view.
I also resigned by letter from the board of directors and the presidency of the corporation. A great step had been taken and a turn made.
The next day I left with my wife for Europe, where I rested, while visiting and fellowshipping with a number of churches. Upon returning to Anaheim on May 2nd I was not led of the Lord to return to the meetings on Ball Road, where I had met with the saints for fifteen years, and where I had resigned from the eldership on March 19th. I continued to gather with saints for the Lord’s Table in one of the couple’s homes, where I had been meeting for some time prior to resigning.
April 2, 1989
On the Lord’s Day, April 2nd, at the end of the meeting, Minoru Chen stood and read a letter addressed to the saints from Brother Lee in Taiwan, appointing two brothers to replace Al and me in the eldership. They were Eugene Gruhler, who was brought from Denver, and Francis Ball, who was transferred from San Gabriel. These brothers had been elders in Anaheim some years previously. They were both present in the meeting as Minoru read Brother Lee’s letter. The full text of the letter is included in the Appendix (see Appendix F).
In the letter Brother Lee acknowledged that he had received our letter notifying him of our resignation, and had also heard of its accomplishment. He remarked, "I am very sorry for the two brothers that their course in following the Lord would have such an issue." He went on to say that he was very much concerned for the eldership in the church in Anaheim, and that he had felt led of the Lord to ask Eugene Gruhler and Francis Ball to "reassume their eldership in Anaheim in meeting the urgent need there…." Later in the year we heard that six more elders had been appointed by Brother Lee to the eldership in Anaheim, making a total of ten. Thus our eldership had been replaced, revised, and greatly enlarged in number.
