|
| 02-18-2016 12:37 PM | ||
| TLFisher |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
|
|
| 02-18-2016 10:23 AM | ||
| Ohio |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
|
|
| 02-18-2016 10:21 AM | ||
| Freedom |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
I must admit that I was always troubled by the fact that there was no such opportunity for the rank and file to provide their own input. Eventually, I stopped going to such 'fellowship' meetings all together. It was a complete waste of time, and I couldn't see the need for a meeting if a decision was made already. I supposed they wanted to make it seem like there was some mutuality, but it's not hard to see what was really going on. We know now that this is a practice that has happened in the LC right from the very get-go. Apparently, it's a practice that stems from leaders like Benson who were unable to let anyone else be involved in the decision making process. |
|
| 02-18-2016 09:58 AM | ||
| HERn |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
|
|
| 02-17-2016 07:45 PM | ||
| TLFisher |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
|
|
| 02-17-2016 07:12 PM | ||
| Freedom |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
Benson shared with me that when he was in high school he had received a special call from the Lord. One evening he went out to a golf course and lay on a green as he prayed. The Lord showed him that he would head a world-wide religious organization. He also shared with me that he had had a desire to reform the Southern Baptist Convention. When he read the The Normal Christian Church Life by Watchman Nee and then heard Witness Lee, he was clear that this was what his call was all about. According to Don, it seems at some point early on, Benson believed the LC to be his calling, and he saw himself as an eventual leader. It is interesting that he would see his goal as heading a world-wide religious organization. I guess after all these years, Benson accomplished his goal. But that's about all he has accomplished. There are a few other interesting excerpts from Don's writings that give some insight into Benson's quest for power: Shortly after we arrived in Houston, Benson announced that there would be a meeting of any brothers who felt the burden to be in the lead of the church. All of the men except for Don Looper and myself attended the first meeting. Don and I had fellowshipped that this was surely not the way of the New Testament and we could not see any New Testament examples where someone put themselves forward as the leader. Did not the Lord declare in Matthew 23:11-12, “But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled: and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted”? ... Benson, Ray and Ben were all teaching at the same public school and rode to work together. At the school they made decisions regarding the church and carried them out at the “leading brothers” meeting, where other brothers were present also. Ray and Ben were dedicated, fine Christian men, but I doubt that many (if any) of the brothers and sisters in the three churches that came together looked to them for leadership. Their major qualification was a close friendship with Benson Phillips, going back to college days. They both had a deep dedication to, and admiration for Phillips. The “leading brothers” meeting eventually disintegrated. Some of the brothers told me there was no coordination there. Rather, these three brothers had already decided everything in advance. Eventually, this type of pattern became the way things were done among the elders and co-workers in many places. The inner circle would decide ahead of time and then execute their decision at the general meeting, all the while giving the impression of having had open fellowship... ... The church in Dallas continued to grow under Benson Phillips’ leadership... Now, only the elders plus Bob Bynum set the direction of the church. We always had general prayer and then we went over Benson Phillips’ “to do” list. At the end of the elders’ time together, Bob Bynum and I would be given the opportunity to bring up something. |
|
| 02-17-2016 11:48 AM | ||
| TLFisher |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
I'll say now as I've said before the ambition story is one used to explain why such a well loved and respected brother left the local churches. Some type of an angle had to be used to explain. To just give the brother grace and say he choose to leave wasn't good enough. It could have been at the suggestion of Benson and Ray since they're ambitious, that John's leaving was due to ambition. |
|
| 02-17-2016 10:55 AM | ||
| Freedom |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
There is an aspect to this that is a bit more intriguing, however. If I might generalize, I think it would be safe to assume that WL knew Benson to be ambitious, but he allowed it since Benson was one of his main promoters of the ministry office and Philip Lee. Titus Chu on the other hand, is not someone I see as primarily concerned with promoting WL, even back in the day. As a leader of a whole region, it would follow that Titus had his own ambitions. It seems that while WL may have never been particular fond of him, nonetheless, Titus was tolerated and WL. I am not aware of any attempt by WL to oust Titus. Thus both Benson and Titus are LC figures whom we might call 'ambitious', and more importantly they both had something to lose. That's not to say there is anything inherently wrong with being ambitious, but it's interesting to note two ambitious LC figures who were allowed to exist in the LC environment. Now, consider someone like John Ingalls, who I can't find a shred of evidence to suggest that he was ambitious. Did he promote WL at one point in time? Yes. Was he a well-known LC figure at one point in time? Yes. Despite his profile, it would seem that his only true ambition was to support WL's ministry according to his convictions. After he became disillusioned with WL, he had nothing to lose by speaking out, since he was not seeking to be WL's successor. I know that at one point, LSM accused Titus of having some discussion about who would succeed WL. I don't know if that is true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. The blendeds, although they vehemently deny it, also have been the main ones to speak of who was WL's successor. After all, it was the blendeds (and probably mainly Benson) who coined the name "brother We". What kind of nonsense is that? All of the blendeds, and probably Titus too, had something to lose by speaking out about WL. Why? Because they had their own ambitions. Isn't this ironic that in the LC, those who have certain ambitions might be the least likely to speak out? This is more or less common sense (just think of politics), but it needs to be made know that the 'ambition' boogeyman is not at all what it is claimed to be by LC leaders. It actually is quite the opposite. It is all a game of smoke and mirrors being played by LC leaders. Sadly, there is a great amount of darkness and deception involved. |
|
| 02-16-2016 06:06 PM | ||
| TLFisher |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
Years later.....when I met and saw John in 2010, he mentioned two brothers he'd like to resume fellowship with are Benson and Ron. |
|
| 02-16-2016 04:56 PM | ||
| Freedom |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
|
|
| 02-16-2016 04:52 PM | ||
| Ohio |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
|
|
| 02-16-2016 04:51 PM | ||
| NewManLiving |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal If my memory serves me correctly, was it not Benson that stated that "God" gave him a dream that someday he would lead a large religious movement, or something along those lines. Perhaps this is what motivated him all these years - good or bad. But of course they only see life, regardless of what tree it comes from. We life you death. 
|
|
| 02-16-2016 04:07 PM | ||
| Freedom |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Quote:
This brings some other questions to mind. I remember hearing that Titus was perhaps viewed suspiciously long before the time that WL passed away. Did Benson knowingly take advantage of this by giving Titus an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to Lee? If so, then Titus was a just pawn for Benson during the late 80's and perhaps remained so for at least 15 years until his eventual excommunication. Another question is why Benson saw John Ingalls as such a threat. John was critical of the ministry office (which Benson had been promoting), but this was supposedly an issue that WL was addressing himself. From what I know about WL, no one would be able to interject themselves in WL's affairs unless he had asked them to be involved. To that extent, maybe Benson was one of the 'spies' that WL said that he had. This would explain why Benson was behind the scenes orchestrating things, and drafting letters that would appear to be written by someone else. What deceptiveness! It really says a lot about brothers like Benson, who elected to run around in the shadows rather than to address these matters in an appropriate forum. |
|
| 06-17-2015 10:33 PM | ||
| TLFisher |
Re: Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal Something I wanted to get out onto this forum is what Norm posted on thebereans.net regarding the late 80's turmoil: "In the future I may refer back to more items during this time period. For now I would like to move on. I will touch a few items during the so-called 1980’s turmoil. I remember when the ten points from the brothers in Anaheim first came out. It seemed to me that what they expressed was exactly what was going on at that time. The churches were becoming ministry churches. But then an attack was made on those brothers and their ten points were declared to be ten bullets directed at the heart of Bro. Lee with the intention of destroying his ministry. As this was stressed more and more and I really did not hear any of the other side, my sentiments began to change. Being in the Mid-west and not really knowing what was going on, only through second hand reports, eventually I felt to stand with what the brothers were saying about an attack on Bro. Lee. Yet, there was always a hidden reserve. When I later read what and how John Ingalls and John So wrote about this time I realized there had been a smear campaign. However, there are two specific events in which I was personally involved that I will relate here. First was concerning a letter that was written to John Ingalls by some of the older co-workers. One day Titus Chu called a brother, who now serves in Toledo, and me into his study. When we entered we found him reading a letter. He handed it to us and asked us to read it. I was really troubled by the language and tone of the letter. It was a letter to John Ingalls addressing his attack on Bro. Lee. After we finished reading the letter we were asked what we thought about it. Quickly I spoke up and said it was unfair. It had taken some of John’s speaking and twisted it, some of his lines were rearranged to say something he never said. I said it looked like something from someone who had done an understudy of The Godman. The other brother fully agreed. Titus gave us a copy of the letter and asked us to go back and make it decent and civil. When we finished the rewriting we went back to Titus’s study. He read the revised latter and felt much better. At that point he made a phone call. He had asked us to remain in the room while he spoke on the phone. Up to this point we had no idea who had written that letter. We just knew it was one or more older brothers in the recovery. We were shocked when we heard, “Benson, concerning that letter you drafted related to John Ingalls . . .”. |
|
| 02-18-2012 12:17 PM | ||
| UntoHim |
Christians Criticizing Christians - Can It Be Biblical? Christians Criticizing Christians Can It Be Biblical? by Bob and Gretchen Passantino From the Viewpoint column of the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1992, page 39. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/.../crj0117a.html Mike Warnke, whose lucrative career careened through four marriages and more than one affair, says God will judge Cornerstone magazine for printing a report disproving his ex-satanic high priest "testimony" and exposing his moral lapses. Healing movement televangelist Benny Hinn says God will attack CRI president Hank Hanegraaff and his family because he criticizes Hinn and his Faith movement colleagues. Lauren Stratford's supporters charge Bob and Gretchen Passantino as agents of Satan because we published evidence that Stratford's best-selling testimony of satanic ritual abuse was false. When it comes to Christians criticizing Christians, the battle lines are drawn. But are the lines biblical? Is it wrong to publicly evaluate the teachings of a Christian pastor, expose the immorality of a Christian leader, or tell the truth about a popular Christian media figure? Evangelicals warn people about the false teachings and practices of the cults, which claim compatibility with Christianity and yet deny cardinal Christian doctrine. Our standard is truth and our judge is Scripture. Yet when apologists turn to false teachings within the Christian church, some evangelicals apply a different standard. Frequently heard objections include, "Jesus said it's wrong to judge," and, "Criticism is unloving and divisive." Christians who voice these protests fail their own test -- they criticize and judge other Christians for criticizing and judging other Christians. Furthermore, these critics fail to understand that without such scrutiny, Christians are misled into heresy and duped by those whose public ministries promote false teachings and/or hide private immoral behavior. Careful, biblical criticism expresses true Christian love and affords essential safeguards to faith. Good discernment and moral accountability should be practiced among believers. The Old Testament establishes this pattern. Instructions concerning false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 assume the prophet arises from the congregation of Israel. People are admonished to banish idolatry from their families: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend..." (v. 6). Deuteronomy 13 instructs the Israelites how to practice good discernment within their communities: "You must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly." If the community is idolatrous, it must be dealt with publicly (v. 14). Psalm 50:18 states that one who sees a crime and doesn't report it has moral culpability. The New Testament continues the theme of good discernment within the believing community, most notably when the Bereans test Paul's teachings (Acts 17:11) and the Thessalonians are commanded to test all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Judgment is not excluded, but unrighteous judgment is. Jesus declared: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24). Jesus expelled the money changers from the temple, denounced the Pharisees and scribes, and rebuked the teachers of the Law. He reprimanded Peter in front of the other disciples (Matt. 16:22-23). Paul followed Jesus' example, naming false teachers in the church (2 Tim. 2:14-19) and openly criticizing Peter (Gal. 2:11, 14). When immorality occurs in the church (Titus 1:15-16), the Bible says to deal with it truthfully and constructively. The procedure for public leaders caught in false teaching or immorality is for them to be rebuked publicly "so that the others may take warning" (1 Tim. 5:20). A congregation member who sins privately against another Christian is not to be exposed publicly unless he (or she) persists in sin, in which case he is to be rebuked before the church and we are to "treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector" (Matt. 18:15-17). Paul followed this procedure concerning the Christian who persisted in sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:3-12), and affirmed that judgment belongs to the church. Christian leaders are accountable to God's people, whom the leaders serve, and should be "above reproach," "respectable," and "able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader who is a false teacher or immoral should be rebuked to encourage reform (Titus 1:13), and cannot separate his ministry from his life, expecting God to bless his preaching while privately he sins; he is "disqualified for every good work" (vv. 15-16). Telling the truth about false teaching or immorality in the church corresponds with the ethics and truth which are to characterize the church. The church is the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:13-14) only if characterized by truthfulness (v. 11) and righteousness (v. 16). The Christian leader has an obligation to "hold firmly the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9). No Christian is happy when false teaching or immorality arises, but we cannot neglect responsibility for doctrinal and moral accountability. Christians sometimes are uncomfortable with criticism within the church because they assume that public criticism, since it is painful, is also destructive. On the contrary, the "pain" of biblically conducted confrontation produces individual growth (1 Tim. 4:16), encourages others to Christian maturity (1 Tim. 5:19-20), promotes church strength (Eph. 4:15), and preserves the church's reputation in the world (1 Pet. 2:12). All emphasis added ------------------------------------------------------- end of article ------------------------------------------------------------ Gretchen Passantino totally abandoned what she and her late husband Bob wrote in the article above ^ in her recent "reassessment of The Local Church". Neither the late Walter Martin nor Bob Passantino would have ever gone along with such a farce such as we see in CRI's "We Were Wrong".(http://journal.equip.org/articles/we-were-wrong) Witness Lee was not able to pull the wool over Dr. Martin's eyes, nor was Bob Passantino swayed by all the word dancing of Lee and his followers back in the day. They called a spade a spade and had no care about being sued. Gretchen Passantino has apparently lost her apologetic backbone, and as for Hank Hanegraaff...well...dear dear Hank...not sure he ever had a back bone.(apologetic I mean) |
|
| 02-18-2012 11:22 AM | ||
| TLFisher |
Turmoil in the Local Church by Christian Research Journal News Watch by William M. Alnor A column from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1988, page 5. The Editor of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller. Turmoil in the Local Church The "local church" movement may be experiencing its most severe crisis since it was imported to America from China in the early 1960s. Led by Witness Lee, former co-worker with the popular Watchman Nee (d. 1972), the movement has often experienced controversy and conflict with other Christian groups. But a growing dissatisfaction with the practices of Lee and his son Phillip Lee has given rise to unprecedented dissent within the movement, from Taiwan, to Europe, to America. A 20-page pamphlet, Reconsideration of the Vision, has helped to fan the flames of dissent. Since its January 1988 publication in Chinese (since translated into English), much has happened in the movement. The pamphlet, anonymously published and widely circulated to many local church congregations in Taiwan and the US, alleges that a "Mr. X," identified by people close to the church as Witness Lee, has engaged in questionable business practices, and states that he "arranged to have his eldest son as president" of a firm that went bankrupt. "Many saints were pressured to give their life savings to this business." When the firm went bankrupt, Lee asked one of his co-workers to persuade the investors "to consider the investment as a donation and not seek to be reimbursed," it states. "Many were stumbled at this and left the churches, and others who continued to demand reimbursement were ignored by Mr. X." It also suggests that "Mr. X" may no longer be a"true apostle," and calls for the "saints" in the local churches to obey the Scriptures, not man. It accuses "Mr. X" of departing from the teachings of the Bible, as well as those of Watchman Nee. For example, it accuses him of teaching that every age is only allowed to have one spiritual leader -- with himself being that leader for today. It also questions "Mr. X's" behavior in several areas, accusing him of being "puffed up," of not disciplining his seriously erring "second son" (identified by former church members as Phillip Lee), of improperly insulting co-workers and elders, and of seeking to replace older and more spiritually mature leaders who might call him to accountability with "arrogant" but loyal younger followers. The "local church" teaches that there should only be one church in each city, and that the movement spearheaded by Witness Lee is God's last days "recovery" of the church which will precede Christ's second coming. The church's teachings on such doctrines as God, Christ, man, and the church have been called into question by many Christian authors, including Walter Martinand the Christian Research Institute (The New Cults, 1980). (Martin does not accuse them of being a non-Christian cult, however.) Lee has used the courts to remove at least two books critical of him from publication, including The God-Men (1981), by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP (i.e., the Spiritual Counterfeits Project in Berkeley, California). Referring to opposing books that were written against the sect, the pamphlet Reconsideration of the Vision states: "Although they did not state the truth in its entirety, many of their observations regarding Mr. X were accurate and not fabricated from their imaginations. Due to the fact that the points in question were deleted from the written publications of Mr. X's ministry, verifications cannot be made. However, numerous cassettes and videos bear witness to the observations of the so-called opposers. During the lawsuit [against SCP] the saints were warned and pressured to keep silent, and many voluntarily kept silent for the sake of the Lord's Recovery. On some occasions when outsiders sought to interview saints, only special ones were selected who were 'safe' to be interviewed." The effects of the controversy have been far-reaching. Former elder Robert Smith says that several congregations around the world have doubts about their continuing association with the Living Stream Ministry office (the publishing and ministry arm of the worldwide movement, which is run by Phillip Lee and which represents the authority of Witness Lee). At least one congregation, The Church in Rosemead (California), has broken ties altogether. The extent of disaffection varies widely. Some are not yet willing to abandon Lee, but they do believe he has erred in some respects and needs to be restored. Others believe Lee has erred in practice to such an extent that he should no longer be personally followed; and yet they continue to adhere to his doctrines and call for a reformation within "the Lord's Recovery." Still others have broken with Lee's teachings as well as his leadership. Many in this latter category are now attending churches outside of the movement. William Freeman, a former leader of the movement in America, has broken with The Church in Seattle, where he was an elder, and moved to Arizona. Freeman figured prominently in the legal action filed against the SCP. According to Smith, Freeman has suffered some disillusionment and is presently neither entirely in nor entirely out of the sect. The Church in Anaheim, which for years had been the leading church in the movement (with Lee residing in that city), has been one of the churches hardest hit by the controversy. "We've obviously been having some difficulties," said John Ingals, a leading elder at the church. However, Ingals said the church has not achieved a complete break with Lee. He would not elaborate on many specific problems facing the congregation. According to a transcript of a meeting at the church on August 28, an elder told members that "we dissassociate ourselves from those practices and" conduct found in the Living Stream Ministry office, and that the office has "no authority over this church." Further, the elder said, "We do not want the elders of any other churches to be telling us what to do. I feel very sorry that we have let this kind of thing happen here in Anaheim." Tapes of a stormy October 9 meeting at the same church reveal that the root of the church's grievance with Lee (as well as that of other churches, such as The Church in Stuttgart [West Germany]) is Lee's longterm failure to deal with the "sinful" behavior of his son Phillip. It is contended that "gross immorality" and other sins were committed by Phillip Lee over a ten-year period, with Witness Lee's knowledge, and that Lee and his co-workers tolerated and covered up this behavior. Not only this, dissenters maintain, Lee and his associates have more recently identified Phillip with Witness Lee's own ministry (as the one who would carry it on), and promoted him to a place of unofficial but effective authority over the churches. Phillip Lee was reportedly in Taiwan, and could not be reached for comment. http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/.../crj0094a.html |
|
