Does "Baptist" Mean to a Baptist What "Recovery" Means to an LCer? [Archive]

Igzy

01-12-2009, 02:32 PM

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)

What am I getting at here?

Simply that every movement (and thus its designations) conjures up positive images in its faithful followers which bespeak the best God has to offer. "Baptist" to a Baptist essentially means God's best, as does "Recovery" to an LCer. So they are more alike than LCers might want to admit.

Certainly there is plenty of difference between the Baptist movement and the Recovery movement. Yet LCers would like to make vivid differences which, when you get right down to it, aren't much differences at all. Why is the name "Baptist" divisive and "The Recovery" is not? Simply put, because in the minds of LCers, the Recovery is something good and genuine and totally of God himself thus it cannot be divisive (no matter how much havoc it wreaks). While to them "Baptist" means something of old dead religion, and so could never be anything but negative. On the other hand, Baptists think the Baptist movement is where God makes his home, so, of course, they like to call themselves Baptists.

But is there really any difference? No, there is not. So, if an LCer says by calling himself a Baptist a person is divisive, he must also say that by calling himself a person in the Lord's Recovery such a person is also divisive. Likewise if calling oneself a Baptist is not divisive, then one can say simply calling oneself a person in the Lord's Recovery is not divisive either.

When a Baptist says "we in the Baptist church" is he really saying anything different than when a LCers says "we in the Lord's Recovery"? In essence, no. One is not necessarily more exclusive or divisive than the other. Designations are necessarily for communication. No matter how much they try to get around it, LCers designate and denominate themselves when they refer to themselves as being in the Lord's Recovery and others as not.

Obviously, then, for communication purposes, denominating is unavoidable. The issue then is not denominating. The issue is what are the implications of the denominating. If a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church because the Baptist beliefs to me represent the best God has to offer right now," then the Baptist is doing no differently than what LCers claim they are doing. Neither should be held at fault for doing this.

But if a Baptist says, "I'm in the Baptist church, and you are not, so you are not in God's move," then that is an exclusive implication of the denominating. This in fact is what many LCers and most staunch LSMers do. It is practically by definition sectarian.

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities. On the other hand, they do not see the deep and essential exclusivity of claiming that those not in the Lord's Recovery (their movement) are not in God's move, while pointing an accusing finger at the superficial exclusivity of some modern denominations.

OBW

01-12-2009, 03:10 PM

In other words, the LC engages in a form of equivocation concerning the significance of their moniker v the significance of that of others.

In reality, it would seem that the LC thinks more highly of their moniker than does most other Christian groups. Yet they speak as if it is the opposite. “Red is grey and yellow, white.” I think I know which is an illusion.

countmeworthy

01-12-2009, 04:03 PM

I think the BIGGEST difference between the 'Lord's Recovery' and all other Christian gatherings who meet in a building once or twice a week to hear the Word of God is that in the LC meetings, people used to 'testify' after the message was given by the elder.

I don't know if they still call it testify or if they now call it prophesy.
The other difference was/is that at prayer meetings, people in the LC would 'build upon' each other's prayers...again supporting the 'burden' for the week.

I'm not critisizing the testimonies. I rather enjoyed the testimonies. It helped build confidence in the saints and I think over all that was a good thing.

I don't think it's like that now. I think people stand in line and there are little bells so the testimonies don't get too long winded. I don't know for sure.

Anyway.........those are the differences that distinguish 'The Lord's Recovery' from any other denomination or non-denomination IMHO. (In My Humble Opinion)

Otherwise, there isn't much difference. Well....I don't know...I don't know how many congregations watch webcasts. :cool:

Hope

01-12-2009, 05:38 PM

Igzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptists being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope

01-12-2009, 05:39 PM

Ibzy,

Brilliant parallel!

I was once a Southern Baptist. I remember well in the “Baptist Standard,” a monthly publication, the Southern Baptist being referred to as “God’s Favorite People.” They were fairly uniform in believing that not only were the Baptists, God’s best but the Southern Baptists were the best of the Baptists. Kind of like being an FTT member of a local church. They were so proud that Billy Graham was a member of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas.

I almost was laughing as I read your post. Excellent observations!! I would invite a present LSM/LCer to rebut Igzy. If no one can, then the case for the LSM representing the Body of Christ and having a scriptural “Oneness” is done and over.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Terry

01-12-2009, 07:04 PM

(In the running for the thread with the longest title.)

So LC/LSMers in an attempt to claim special status try to draw all kinds of superficial differences between their names and the names of denominations (e.g. saying the name is really a "description"; making an issue of signboards, etc) but fail to see the essential similarities.

Being raised in the local churches, one minor teaching is other Christian assemblies are denominations because a name is taken. This thread is comparing Baptists to LCers. I think more important than a name is our heart. Where are we giving the headship?
Is it necessary to be pigeonholed according to a particular denomination? Whether it's LC, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Brethren?
Isn't it good enough just to be a brother or sister in the Lord and see each other as such?
What Igzy's question says to me, if a Baptist cannot meet with a non-Baptist congregation, there is division. Same goes for one in the LC's. If an lcer cannot meet with a non-lc assembly, there is division.
Our hearts need to be recallibrated in receiving one another.
For the record, I am currently meeting with an assembly that has the word Baptist in their name. When we meet I don't see Baptists, I see brothers and sisters in the Lord. In the same context when I met in the local churches.

This might be along the same line as Igzy's questioning, but can God's administration (economy) be only found in the local churches?

Terry

Oregon

01-12-2009, 11:49 PM

Ohio

01-13-2009, 06:01 AM

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”...

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.

Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

OBW

01-13-2009, 06:18 AM

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?
I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

I’m not really saying you should just go away. Just noting that saying negative things are said about the LC is pointless.

I also have a father, a brother and sister and their families that meet with the LC. I agree that they are dear Christians. But I also see the toll that the LC is having on them. They would deny it, but it is as plain as the nose on your face.

But rather than complaining about Igzy’s characterization of the moniker “the recovery” relative to that of others, consider the truth or fallacy of that characterization.

This forum is a tremendous aid to those of us who need to be freed from the bondage that the LC laid on us. The arguments made here by various LC apologists are typically phrased in broad terms that are hard to argue against at that level. It is difficult to say anything against some of the generalities that sound so spiritual. But if there is nothing to be said against them, then why aren’t we still there? Because there is something wrong with those things even if it seems to be an attack on Christ Himself to say that. But it only seems so.

Here we can deconstruct the teachings into the parts that, while sounding untouchable, are not supported by scripture. So Albert and others come and try to obfuscate the discussion by repackaging everything into those spiritual-sounding catch-phrases that seem so hard to refute at the macro level. Once you get to the significant details and see the error, you can be freed. It has freed me.

With a few exceptions, we are never talking about the people in the LC. We are talking about the system of teachings and practices and the culture of shame and bondage. When dear Christians become fooled into thinking that near heresy is God’s highest and shaming of brothers and sisters is administered by God’s deputy authorities, it is time to speak up. Do you think that the members of so many other true cults are simply evil like the system they are trapped within? No, they are misguided and have been duped. We can argue about the applicability of the “C” word to the LC, but real dear Christians are duped to stay in such a aberrant system. Won't you say something for their benefit?

Hope

01-13-2009, 06:48 AM

Oregon, I understand your views, having protested regularly myself about the implications conveyed by words such as "cult, Kool-Aid, idolatry," etc. The forum can be a toxic place indeed. And ... I should add that the "Texas brand" of LCism was perhaps the most obnoxious of all. Hence, their regularly extreme assessments of the movement.
Ole' Igzy's comments here were not like that, and actually were helpful. I think we both would agree that over time the LC's have become denominated. I was persuaded of this several years ago solely due to the matter of "headquarters," and find the matter of "what's your name," to be secondary to this.

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,

Your phrase above really made me chuckle. Texas is a large area and had and still does have many different local churches with hundreds of many different brothers and sisters. I know personally the posters here who came from Texas. None of them was just your average bear. Jane Anderson is a very unique personality and one of the most intense persons I ever knew. She was not then and is not now just the average sister you might run into. Matt, Mike, Nell are all very strong personalities (a good thing). Jane and Nell were in Houston and OK City. Ray Graver and James Barber had a thing about subduing strong personalities. No doubt they were among their targets. I would suppose they received more than their fair share of abuse.

The humorous thing is that your area was discussed as a region that was under the thumb of ole tyrant Titus Chu, legal and not very living. Thus, the explanation for some of the problems. :confused: I did not like it then and I do not think it helps to lump individuals such as Igzy into groups of people. It tends to minimize what they have to offer.

Just a little brotherly fellowship.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I frankly appreciate Igzy's pointing out the fallicies and contradictions. If our premise is that all was roses or all was briars and stickers we have missed the mark by a mile. From the start there were struggles, problems and many issues to overcome. We need to throw out the myths about the recovery. I sat in too many sessions with WL in which he was discussing big problems and issues in China and Taiwan as well as Elden and then Anaheim. If you ever attended one of his elders/co-workers meetings, you know how much of his speaking was concerning the latest round of problems and what to do about it.

Oregon

01-13-2009, 06:55 AM

I’m not sure who “you” is here. Is it Igzy, Terry, Hope, or me?

In any case, this is a forum to discuss the problems with the group known generally by several names; the Local Church, the local churches, the Lord’s recovery, or the recovery. If the fact that things are said that is negative to their organization bothers you, then you are in the wrong place. If you want to disagree, then disagree with specific things that have been said. Don’t just say we shouldn’t be here. It that is what you think about this forum, then the only one who shouldn’t be here is you.

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.

Igzy

01-13-2009, 08:05 AM

What get’s old Igzy is your endless criticism of “ the local churches”. Don’t you ever have anything positive to say? I have a mother and a brother meeting with the local churches and they are precious dear saints. I fellowship with them regularly concerning the things of God……just like I fellowship with other believing family members who do not meet with “the local churches”. There are some positive things there you know along with a lot of precious bothers and sisters in the Lord. But to listen to you one would think it is nothing but a dark evil cult.

Is that all your life is about is to constantly make negative posts on this forum concerning the local churches?

Dear Oregon,

Well, in the first place my post wasn't that negative. It was just pointing out a fundamental flaw in thinking on the part of some. Do you think things would be better if this was not pointed out for the sake of not being negative? Certainly not every perceived error needs to be pointed out. But this one has lead to gross hypocrisy. How can I ignore it?

I can see how you could be irked by seeing just this one side of me. I know there are good saints in the LCs. What breaks my heart the most is feeling I can't really have free fellowship with my old friends there. I miss them very much. But, simply put, they think anyone not in their movement is off and that's hard to deal with in a relationship.

As far as the part of my life which is spent on this board goes (I do have other parts), it is about pointing out the flaws in the arguments and thinking put forth by LCers and LSM/LCers. Not all flaws, though. I am not interested in nitpicking. I feel to focus on the flaws in reasoning which work to hold people there. I'm trying to help people be set free from a web of reasoning which formerly ensnared me and for many years stumbled my walk. That is what my life on this board is about, more or less.

Why do I do this? Honestly because I feel not enough people are doing it. I have certain gifts that lend themselves to this arena and I think the Lord is pleased that I am using them. I'm also by nature a debater and someone who doesn't mind speaking my mind and even feels called to do it.

I pray a lot about my efforts here. I myself get bothered sometimes by the seeming negativity. I suppose I could do like most people do and just pretend the problem doesn't exist and go about my business. It bothers me how many do that. I understand the idea of moving on and going on positively and living and let living. But I don't understand leaving victims in a ditch to fend for themselves when something can be done about it. Frankly, I think a lot of people are just plain scared to take on LSM.

One walks a treacherous path, however, when one becomes a critic. Sometimes you hurt innocent people's feelings or worse do damage. If I've done either to you, I apologize.

However, simply calling me overly critical is not going to work with me. You are going to have to tell me why the things I write should not be written, why they do more damage than good, because I'm seeking to do some good.

Someone is going to have to convince me I'm wrong before I stop, short of the Lord just plain telling me to. I hope you can understand and I hope this post doesn't make me sound self-righteous because I'm certainly open to being corrected.

Igzy

Igzy

01-13-2009, 08:50 AM

BTW, how am I going to know when I'm done here? I guess when I run out of things to say. But the post that started this thread has not been said before. At least, I think, not in the way I said it. So perhaps it can do some good.

Anyway, basically what I guess my post adds up to is that the LSM/LC is as much a denomination, and in some ways more of one, than many of the others. The unique thing about it is that it is a denomination which thinks denominating is bad, so it pretends not to be one, while condemning all the others. That's pretty much it.

Igzy

01-13-2009, 11:12 AM

Oregon, your testimony is helpful. You have found a way to fellowship with believers both inside the LC's and out. Even though, as Igzy points out, they are both in denominations, they also are all believers, children of God, with Christ within. This is why I continually differentiate the bad behavior of LSM and LC leaders from the LC saints. Many saints are precious indeed. Many don't agree with LSM teachings and practices that differ from scripture. They stay for many reasons, and we should realize this fact in our posts.

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down.

Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

If anyone can convince me that no one in the LSM/LC or any other LC is being manipulated to stay there, then my work here is done.

Don't worry, I'm not as scary as I sound.

OBW

01-13-2009, 11:24 AM

If you'll go back and read what I said OBW....I never said one word about who should be here and who shouldn't be here. The point I am making is that the general nature of this forum is constant criticism of anything to do with the local churches. And my point is simply that there are some good things there....although rarely recognized by posters on this board.You are correct that you never said that anyone should leave. I never said you did. And, if you look at what I wrote carefully, you will see that I really didn't either. But I did say that the purpose of the forum is the discussion of the problems of the LC, therefore if constantly hearing about its problems (something that is, by definition, negative when viewed from the inside and even the outside) then being part of the forum is probably not a good idea.

I didn't intend to suggest you or anyone else should just leave. I suggested that you consider the purpose of the forum before complaining. We are within the grouping "Practice What He Preached?" It should be presumed that the topics of discussion would begin with "No." That is, by definition, negative. Any are free to disagree. There have been threads that are positive with respect to the LC. Admittedly not many, but they do exist.

But if you think I was being antagonistic with you, I did not intend that and am sorry for giving that impression.

Hope

01-13-2009, 11:42 AM

Oregon

01-13-2009, 11:50 AM

Igzy and OBW,

I deeply and honestly appreciate your last posts. Please forgive me if I was too much in my post. The last posts by both of you have helped me to open up to understand both of you better. Like the word says...."a soft answer turneth away wrath".......and I appreciate your soft answers. I know there are problems with the LC. Gosh....I spent over 30 years of my life there. My first wife divorced me because she literally hated the LC.......and that's where I met her as a young sister. Believe me......I've been through it too. I guess where I am coming from is that even the seven churches in Revelation who were nearly all rebuked by the Lord had some good things about them and the Lord mentioned them. So....sometimes I do get a little bothered when all I see is an unending flow of criticism.

Ohio

01-13-2009, 05:38 PM

Hold on there good Brother and friend Ohio,...

Brother Hope, thanks for the brotherly fellowship. You are right about intense persons with strong personalities taking hold of the leadership of the movement. This occurred both in Texas and Ohio, but of course in the end we know who continually wins that battle, don't we? Whether on the football field or in the courtroom, Ohio folks are just no match for those Lone Star folks, with their pickup trucks and shotguns in the back window. :)

Yes, these are generalizations and broad brush characterizations which overly simplify very complex situations, but they do help at times to explain our history. I left the LC's because I was tired of the bullying in my area, only to come to the forum and learn (partly thru Thread of Gold) that some other places were far worse. In fact, it was this systemic disease of mistreatments and abuses that caused me to first realize that something was seriously, inherently wrong with the whole program. Of course, not every leader and not every saint was molded the same way, but the leaders did tend to promote those of similar character.

Sorry, Igzy, for "lumping you" with the others.

Ohio

01-13-2009, 06:48 PM

This is well-stated. However, I would add that if the "reasons" they stay hold them there against their will and are not of God, well then that's wrong and that's why I'm here. If there are any bogus arguments why someone should remain in a group, I'm here to shoot them down. Frankly, few things bother me more than the arrogance of those who think they have the ground to direct other's decisions, and use fear and misinformation to do so. I hate bullying. I was picked on as a kid and the lack of confidence that produced was exploited by LC bullies. So I guess it's kind of a personal prejudice and crusade.

Well ... Igzy, perhaps our paths have crossed more than once, for I can surely relate to your story. It is mine also and perhaps the singlemost important reason I have posted on the forums. I do thank the Lord for all those who truly loved and shepherded me, but often mixed in with this was, as you also experienced, a certain degree of manipulation, fear based controls, bullying mistreatments, and being "used" for another's benefit. Due to my own childhood experiences, perhaps I was more vulnerable than others. Were it not for the repeated abuses undeservedly inflicted upon other precious brothers, I might never have become aware of my own situation. I am not completely innocent myself either, since at times I found myself treating others the way I was being treated. That frankly scared me.

As I read Hope's account several months ago, this was the section that moved me to tears:
We peasants had sympathy toward the weaker members of our society, and especially for ones oppressed. I believe the Lord Jesus puts into his believers a strong desire to bestow more abundant honor on the less comely and to protect the weak. One of the main reasons I eventually left the local churches was the rough treatment received by weaker ones and ones whose opinions did not match the leaders’ ideas. I recognize in some ways my reaction to the “lording it over” that came in later days may have been partly due to my culture. Ransford Ackah of Ghana once told me, “Don, you always favor the poor.” I had to confess to him that his statement was true. Regardless of our background, culture, disposition, or how our mother raised us, we all need to be transformed and conformed to Christ.Here is a small example of the kinds of events which has long troubled me. I served for years as deacon under the elder's direction. I constantly was contacting the saints related to their serving the church. I personally tried to maintain the attitude that these saints are volunteers, giving their time willingly, and I should do my best to appreciate them. Not all feel this way. One time I was expressing some difficulty to the leader about carrying out the latest changes. I told him I was doing my best to support his burden, and suddenly he said to me, "I don't need you. If you can't do this, I'll get someone else who can." The attitude startled me.

Experiences like this eventually turned me sour. I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

Terry

01-13-2009, 07:20 PM

I came to the conclusion that true elders view every saint as an asset, while the workers view the saints as liabilities. Of course, this is another generalization, but in my view, the LC's were a much more kind and loving place before we had so many full-timers.

Wow Ohio, your words stirred me up. Earlier this week in emanna the topic of one email was The Church Only Having One Class of Believers. Here is a short excerpt:

"The concept of today's organized Christianity is to have various distinct classes of people within the church. It is against the Bible, however, to have different classes of believers in a local assembly."

Is this really the case in denominational or non-denominational churches?
Ohio, as I read into your experience, did the elders view themselves as a different class apart from the non-administrative member? The place of fellowship where I've been meeting there is no distinction of classes. Can the same be said within the local churches?

Terry

Ohio

01-13-2009, 08:00 PM

"The concept of today's organized Christianity is to have various distinct classes of people within the church. It is against the Bible, however, to have different classes of believers in a local assembly."

Often times, within the Recovery, "the work" with the full-timers as "managers" creates a "business" out of the church, with the many members as "employees" of the enterprise, carrying the latest "agenda" from headquarters. As such, the saints are often poor "employees," since they may not be well-suited for the tasks assigned to them. The leaders, as such, rarely take into account the actual needs and wants of the saints, since their condition takes second place to the "program." This "top down" management style almost becomes synonymous with the definition of a denomination. For such a "business" to prosper, the elders as middle "managers" must be able to hire and fire incompetent performers, else their own performance, as viewed by headquarters, suffers. Hence, the saints, like myself, become a liability, not an asset, to the program.

I personally now believe that most of the condemnation by LSM upon the so-called "religious class" of pastors was contrived and self-serving, rallying the saints to a common "enemy" without, while a far worse "enemy" within grew unchecked.

OBW

01-14-2009, 05:55 AM

"Two legs bad! Four legs good!"

Or was it:

"Four legs good! Two legs better!?!?"

Igzy

01-14-2009, 06:57 AM

Oregon: Thanks for your post. Your story about your divorce broke my heart. I appreciate your input here and hope you get some benefit from the board.

Ohio and Hope: From what I've seen and heard, Titus was a bit more of a bully than anyone in Texas (except maybe Ray Graver). They were quite different though in that Ray always worked behind the scenes, whereas Titus was very public with his weight-swinging.

Texas wasn't so much about bullying as it was about being legalistic about adhering to WL and Benson's vision. Benson was viewed as pretty much a junior apostle, with extra-local authority. All the elders in Texas deferred to him.

I was aquainted with most of those guys in the 70s and early 80s and let me say that I liked all of them. Benson was a little enigmatic, and Ray was less likable, but I had fondness for most of them. They were generally cheerful and devoted. It was just that they were all pretty much sold out to be "one with the ministry," although I felt that George Whittington chaffed at the semi-mindless conformity. George struck me as more free-thinking and intelligent than the typical elder.

Let me say something about Don Looper, who passed away before his time. I was in Austin when he moved there to be the leading elder, replacing George Whittington. It was felt that Austin needed a leader who communicated well with young people, Austin being primarily a college town in those days. Everyone felt Don had the appropriate gifts for that job. So he moved from Houston to Austin in '75 or '76, I'm not sure which.

I actually helped him and his family move. Myself, Don, and his wife with two young daughters in tow, loaded up a U-HAUL and drove it to Austin. I became attached to the Loopers right away. Don's wife was almost always bubbly and cheerful. I remember she giggled a lot. The UHAUL didn't have a gas cap and Don was concerned about the safety and insisted that he alone drive it. But halfway home he became sleepy because he'd been up all night, and I convinced him to let me drive. It was one of those sweet, practical church experiences that you remember. No great theology was exchanged, just being together and working together.

Don was a special brother. He had a fineness about him that was attractive. He was gentle, perceptive and intelligent. The success that Austin experienced in the mid to late '70s can mostly be attributed to him.

Don knew how to assimilate what was coming from Anaheim and present it in a manner which was most beneficial and appropriate to our needs. We had a little oasis in Austin for awhile. But by the early 80s the bloom was gone and, as they say, with the bloom went I.

Don, you are missed and I appreciate what you did for all of us. You weren't perfect and I wished you'd never heard of "deputy authority," but I myself was better for knowing you.

Hope

01-14-2009, 08:56 AM

Brother Igzy,

One of the best 35,000 foot summaries of things in Texas. See what I put in Bold from your post. I particularly agree with you assessment of George and of Don Looper.

If the worst you can say about ole Don Rutledge is that he was not perfect, then we are buddies for life. I am sure the saints in Dallas can get you straight on that.

Yes, indeed, I wish I had never heard of "deputy authority."

And you become a bigger mystery to me with each of your posts!!! No one can not speculate regarding who is who. You had me thinking you were a Jr. Higher in the late 70s and 80s and probably from O K City. I missed that one!!

It is ironic but Don's move to Austin was part of the power grab that was going on by Max Rapoport. He wanted to get George out of Austin. He was greatly mistaken that he could control Don Looper. Don was an extremely nice person but he had a will of iron. I knew him not only as a brother in the Lord but as an all-conference star baseball player and top athelete. I also wish Brother Don Looper had never heard of deputy authority.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Hope

01-14-2009, 09:15 AM

"Two legs bad! Four legs good!"

Or was it:

"Four legs good! Two legs better!?!?"

Mike, Quit making me laugh. I do admit that I enjoy clever analogies. Humor can be an extremely powerful way to critique. This one was about as good as it can get. I think you will be hard pressed to top this, but I do not want to low rate your wit.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I believe we can realize more through this style of criticism rather than by making everything a Greek Tragedy. I remember how often I was shocked by dear ole WL and how he could get carried away by some little next to nothing that became a cause Celebes. Once someone called a wrong hymn at the Lord's Table in Anaheim. The hymn was based on a passage in Revelation that probably referes to the nations that come out of the great tribulation. My oh my. It seemed that God's move on the earth was in danger. This was at one of his elders/co-workers meetings and we endured this for a meeting and a half.

Igzy

01-14-2009, 09:26 AM

And you become a bigger mystery to me with each of your posts!!! No one can not speculate regarding who is who. You had me thinking you were a Jr. Higher in the late 70s and 80s and probably from O K City. I missed that one!!

Ha, ha! I was a little older than that, but not much. I was probably 20 or 21 when Don Looper came to Austin. "Young and dumb" as we used to call ourselves.

I was pretty quiet and shy in those days. I'd rather handle a snake than give a testimony. I remember one time I finally got up the nerve, jumped up, blurted something or other out and sat down. A sister was sitting next to me. She sardonically handed me my supplement. In my excitement at jumping up I had tossed it into her lap. I was totally humiliated. :lol:

Igzy

01-14-2009, 09:42 AM

Hope, do you have any idea what became of George? I heard he was in West Texas leading a small LC.

Hope

01-14-2009, 10:42 AM

The last I heard George was in San Antonio. Cleo, his wife had very severe MS. I was in San Antonio about six years ago and called him. I had supper with him at his home. The LSM has completely beaten him down and he has had many heartaches from life. His second daughter died tragically. There were other difficult things they experienced but that is too private for the forum. They are a most precious couple which meant a lot to me.

Hope, Don Rutledge

Igzy

01-14-2009, 11:41 AM

When I first joined the LC in Austin, times were simpler. It was all about "enjoying the Lord" and serving him. Things then revolved around the University of Texas. One brother and his wife owned a ramshackle coffee shop near "the Drag," the main street in front of the campus. We'd gather there and drink coffee and eat their special doughnuts, which were made mostly with eggs.

Adjacent to the coffee shop was a little health food store which George and Cleo ran. It suited them. George looked and talked like a campus academian, right down to the tweed jacket with suede elbow patches.

George had a pointed sense of humor. I remember one Friday about fifteen or so members of a nearby burning little black church visited our love feast. We invited them because they were so on fire for the Lord. "They are just like us!" was our comment to each other. In the meeting they readily jumped up and gave testimonies of the Lord's work in their lives. A couple of the men kept saying that they used to be thugs, and Jesus had saved them. But in their brogue they kept saying "tugs" for "thugs." Later that evening George happened to stop by our brothers house, and he started calling us all a bunch of "tugs." That's the way he was.

Cleo never seemed fully comfortable in the LC. She, like George, seemed too intelligent and liberal to fully play the role.

Hope, you spoke of their daughter that died. That wasn't Grace, was it?

OBW

01-14-2009, 12:42 PM

Hope, do you have any idea what became of George? I heard he was in West Texas leading a small LC.George is in San Antonio. My nephew, who lives in Austin, got married to a sister who was from SA. So the wedding was in SA (about 2-1/2 years ago now). I saw George and Cleo at the wedding. I’m not sure she really knew who I was, but I could almost say the same about George. The man who I so highly revered as very practical and seldom prone to excessive religious hyperbole (that I ever saw) essentially only could say “Praise the Lord, brother” to me. That is an uplifting thing. But in the context of the gathering of people for a wedding — one in which he spoke — it was not what I considered to be the George Whittington I knew from Dallas.

BTW. While I already thought we were close to the same age, you have now confirmed it to be closer than I previously thought.

Igzy

01-14-2009, 12:51 PM

OBW, I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at about George. What was different from what you remembered about him?

OBW

01-14-2009, 01:15 PM

Hope, you spoke of their daughter that died. That wasn't Grace, was it?It was not Grace, but the younger one — I believe Martha (Ginny was in the middle I think, although my memory is slipping at the moment). Her entire saga, beginning at least with their return to Dallas, was somewhat tragic. That it would end in such an early death is even more tragic.

My sister keeps up with Grace a little.

OBW

01-14-2009, 01:16 PM

OBW, I'm not quite understanding what you are getting at about George. What was different from what you remembered about him?He seemed distant and more about "toeing the line" in terms of his comments at the wedding. He had never seemed distant before.

YP0534

01-14-2009, 01:28 PM

...too intelligent and liberal...

Boy, there's a real thread starter for some future date - Liberalism in the Recovery!

(Might be a short thread, tho...)

Igzy

01-14-2009, 01:29 PM

Is George an elder in "the church in San Antone?"

Hope

01-14-2009, 02:15 PM

The daughter of the Whitingtons which is deceased is Ginny.

George was serving at the pleasure of the LSM in San Antonio.
He would have been an elder. But this was at least six years ago.

I would not have said Cleo was more liberal etc she just had her own personality.

Of course George would have been different from his time in Dallas. A lot of water has gone under the bridge. His life has not been a flower strewn pathway with sky always blue. Besides serving the "ministry" is a real kick in the solar plexus. I have had my share of health problems and plenty of stress but I assure you I will look 10 years younger than any of my contemporaries from that era. Walking in the Freedom in Christ is great for your health and stress relief. Gal 5:1, It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. NASB

Hope, Don Rutledge