Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” (An Open Letter)

John · 05-15-2011, 03:38 PM

Can the Local Church leadership say, “We were wrong?” While doing some research related to a previous post, I re-read a letter from Benson Phillips, dated October 23, 1992. In it, I may have found some evidence that they can—in a back-handed sort of way. When I compared what Benson wrote with what came out of his mouth in 2005, I may have found evidence of a miracle. See what you think.

The letter

Here was what Benson wrote to me in a 1992 letter:

In your letter dated June 4, 1992, you wanted me to respond to a question as to whether I considered your wife and Jim’s wife as rebels. I feel the liberty to tell you directly that I have never condemned them as rebels, nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever had such a thought. I had not even considered this matter before it was bought to my consciousness by your letter. However, there is clearly one rebel in this universe, and even Christians are subject to his rebellious instigations and become involved in actions that are not profitable for the Lord’s interest and frustrate or damage the building of the Lords’ church. Such was the case in 1976 and 1977 when some sisters in a few of the local churches in the United States rose up to speak unhealthy words and engage in certain activities that became a damaging factor to some individuals and the church life in those places, but, to my realization, those that became involved were surely not rebels; at least the ones that I knew in this region were not such. …

If you have read it carefully, which you have to do, since they often use words like lawyers, Benson actually stated that he never condemned the sisters in Texas as rebels. In other words, he still may have considered them as rebels, but he didn’t exactly say so. Then, he stated that there is one rebel and that those sisters who rose up in 1976 and 1977 were subject to his rebellious instigations and blah, blah, blah. Okay, so he says that they were not rebels; instead, they were only subject to Satan’s rebellious instigations. Whew, what a relief. For a minute there, I thought he was going to say something bad about Jane … uh … I mean “some sisters”

.

The footnote

Keep in mind that the letter, from which I previously quoted, was written by Benson after he received a letter from Jane about another sister’s situation (who was also labeled as rebellious in 1977). In her letter, she wrote that to call someone a rebel is to not only go against the Lord’s word in Matthew 5:22, but also to go against Witness Lee’s footnote on the verse.

Mr. Lee brought out that to call someone “Moreh,” or “a fool,” is to use a “Hebrew expression of condemnation indicating a rebel,” and that this makes a person liable to the judgment of the Gehenna of fire. Possibly, wanting to move himself out of reach of Lee’s footnote, Benson tried to obfuscate the matter and tap dance around the word, “rebel.” Nevertheless, he still left a certain “unnamed” sister in his category of one who had been involved in rebellion (but somehow not quite a rebel?).

The modus operandi

Later in his letter, Benson wrote the following, testifying for the leading brothers in the region (not just the elders in Houston, of which he wasn’t one) that they followed due process:

Also, you consider that I and the elders acted according to rumors and half-truths when we dealt with the problems that were manifested in 1976 and 1977. I want to testify for the brothers that this was altogether not the case. We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment. The attitude of the leading brothers in this region has always been to deal with negative matters so that those involved may repent and be recovered.

One little problem with Benson’s wide-ranging investigation and judgment: He never presented his “evidence” to the accused. He just pronounced the judgment. In addition, he apparently didn’t give much weight to what the leading elder in Houston had to say; he just had him replaced.

In what I’ve quoted from Benson’s letter, it was as if he could remember nothing of what he did to Jane in 1977. I mean, he just couldn’t remember mistreating Jane at all. He just wrote of nameless sisters motivated by the devil. Who’s to say who they were? All he and the brothers seemingly did was “protect” the Local Churches from those who were being motivated by the devil. All he did was just co-ordinate all the leading brothers in the region to render a judgment about some sisters who were engaging in certain activities that became a damaging factor … blah, blah, blah.

The motive

Now, let’s look at why Benson might have written to me in 1992 as he did. Consider the following background:

About the early 1980s, Witness Lee, Benson, and Ray Graver, along with three other leading brothers in Texas, had swept Ben McPherson’s sexual sin under the rug. Thereupon, Ben was “secretly” transported away from the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex to a small, off-the-beaten track meeting situation. This secret was kept close, and lies were told to support the story of what happened to Ben.

About a decade later, in the early 1990s, Ben’s condition came to the surface again when he was caught in adultery with a metroplex elder’s wife. This time, Jane and I found out about it too, and we intervened to try to save the sister’s marriage. We asked Benson to get with us and her to listen to her problem, since Benson and the Local Church had negatively impacted her marriage, but he stalled and stalled and never did it. Eventually, Ben and the one he had seduced divorced their spouses and married each other.

After this, I wrote Benson to confront him about the rebel issue as it related my wife and to get him to honor his earlier commitment to meet with us (which he never did honor). What I have quoted previously in this post was part of his reply.

The politics

In the 1990s, Jane and I didn’t know about Benson’s mishandling of Ben’s earlier sexual escapades in the 1980s. Benson probably thought that he needed political cover, because he was the one most responsible for having put Ben into leadership in three different localities, and he was also the one in Texas most responsible for hiding Ben’s sexual sin of the 1980s. So, in 1992, Benson realized that if he got into the light with Jane, this sister, a few others, and me that we might find out that Ray and he, as well as other leading brothers in Texas, under the advisement of Witness Lee, had colluded to cover up Ben’s sexual sin rather than deal with it biblically, thus leading to the whole sordid mess.

If the cover-up was discovered, Witness Lee, Benson, and the others could have been seen as indirectly responsible for the break-up of the two marriages; since, if they had dealt with Ben properly in the 1980s, Ben might have gotten help to overcome his temptations, most in Texas would have known about Ben’s problem and tried to help him, and the sister whom he seduced would have been on guard when he contacted her. But, instead, to protect The Vision and God’s man on the earth, Benson went a different route. “What to do?” he might have thought. “I’ll just do a little dance and feign innocence; and, if necessary, we can always blame Jane. Hey, it worked before when it came to the great sisters’ rebellion.” Actually, we did hear later that Ray told another person that it was Jane who was responsible for the break-up of two marriages!

The message

Now, let’s compare the statements in the above letter with what Mr. Phillips said in 2005 per portions of the 2005 Anaheim Winter Training transcription that we were given:

In order to maintain good order in the church, a factious, divisive person should be refused, rejected after a first and second admonition. … In 1987 [sic], we had some sisters out on the West coast—they started building up a kind of group around themselves. They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything. Then it spread to Texas. I don’t know where else it spread to, but anyhow, some sisters in Texas got into the same flow. And, because it had happened here in Anaheim and there in Texas, we brothers had to do something. … Brother Lee … said, “You three holy sisters, would you stand up? (I think he asked them to stand up.) Well, I learned a lesson there—he did not mess around with factious people. … Would you have the boldness to do that? Well, maybe one day you will have to do it.

Then, in Texas, let me tell you this, they had their so-called, you know, party. … Well, this one sister that we had to deal with, she was the leader. That was over thirty years ago by now. You know what she just came out with? A book against the recovery! Was she the right kind of person? Did we do the right thing? Absolutely, we did the right thing! … Brothers, these kind of people, the factious people, those who form parties within the church, they have to be dealt with. Why? Because they are destroyers of God’s building.

The lesson

Benson began with a very serious topic: rejecting a divisive person. Of course, in the Local Church environment, where everyone is judged according to oneness, being divisive is something akin to being a murderer. He mistakenly identified the year as 1987 instead of 1977. Then, he let us know that it’s about some sisters, and he tells us their heinous crime:

They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything.

Uh-oh, sisters were getting into the Word; and, maybe worse, they were talking about doctrine! “Then it spread to Texas.” Well, that did it; those brothers just had to do something to save those poor, weak, misguided sisters from their Bibles and the big, bad doctrines. Then, he inserted what we now know was a lie, stating that Witness Lee said in a public meeting to the Anaheim sisters, “You three holy sisters ….”

Next, we’re told that Benson learned a lesson from Mr. Lee. “What did he learn?” you might ask. He apparently learned how to smash sisters without hesitation. Then, he suggested that the rest of the brothers should learn from him, too, because, I suppose, they might be called upon to intimidate sisters one day.

The miracle

Benson continued with his message: “Then, in Texas, let me tell you this, they had their so-called, you know, party.” So, you’re telling us, Benson, that the sisters themselves called what they were involved in a party? I doubt that. Anyway, here’s how it works as far as Benson is concerned: Sisters are not allowed to be in a party; only the elders get to be in a party. Then, with the following statements, he inadvertently admitted that he was wrong in his 1992 letter:

Well, this one sister that we had to deal with, she was the leader. That was over thirty years ago by now. You know what she just came out with? A book against the recovery! Was she the right kind of person? Did we do the right thing? Absolutely, we did the right thing!

It’s a miracle! Benson admitted he was wrong; or, … wait a second … maybe he experienced a healing and his memory was restored! He remembered that Jane was not only just one of the nameless sisters, she was the one who was leading the rebellion, or party, or whatever he wanted to call it that day. The point is: His memory was now crystal clear, 28 years after the 1977 meeting!

The conclusion

What can we possibly conclude about the major discrepancies between the 1992 Benson and the 2005 Benson? In 1992, Benson seemed to have absolutely no idea of why I would bring up to him what he did to my wife in 1977; but, in 2005, 13 years later, Benson’s memory miraculously returned when it became expedient to excoriate Jane again because her book threatened The Vision. If his new mental clarity wasn’t the result of a “miracle” for the 2005 meeting, then I would have to conclude that Benson was lying in 1992. Come to think of it, that is my conclusion.

Since those who form parties within the church have to be dealt with, as Benson himself says, then I would say that the elders are the ones who most need to be dealt with, since they are the ones most responsible for the factions that exist in the Local Churches.

Finally, after Benson did some big talking about how he exercised his “authority” to put down some sisters, he went on to tell us why he just had to deal with those Bible-reading, doctrine talking sisters: “Because they are destroyers of God’s building.” Wow, and I thought that being the leader of a sisters’ rebellion in Texas was bad.

The stand

The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception, where up is down, and down is up. In short, the leaders in both entities cannot be trusted.

This is why it is so important that we stick with our Christian virtues and, even, enhance them, as Peter says, lest we fall into the same vices. To faith, we are to add virtue, or excellence, not lying and playing politics, especially with others’ lives and their freedom to follow the Lord. Jesus is our Lord and Master; and, it is before Him that we stand or fall.

05-15-2011, 03:38 PM	#112
John Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 62	Phillips vs. Phillips Can the Local Church leadership say, “We were wrong?” While doing some research related to a previous post, I re-read a letter from Benson Phillips, dated October 23, 1992. In it, I may have found some evidence that they can—in a back-handed sort of way. When I compared what Benson wrote with what came out of his mouth in 2005, I may have found evidence of a miracle. See what you think. The letter Here was what Benson wrote to me in a 1992 letter: In your letter dated June 4, 1992, you wanted me to respond to a question as to whether I considered your wife and Jim’s wife as rebels. I feel the liberty to tell you directly that I have never condemned them as rebels, nor, as far as I can recall, have I ever had such a thought. I had not even considered this matter before it was bought to my consciousness by your letter. However, there is clearly one rebel in this universe, and even Christians are subject to his rebellious instigations and become involved in actions that are not profitable for the Lord’s interest and frustrate or damage the building of the Lords’ church. Such was the case in 1976 and 1977 when some sisters in a few of the local churches in the United States rose up to speak unhealthy words and engage in certain activities that became a damaging factor to some individuals and the church life in those places, but, to my realization, those that became involved were surely not rebels; at least the ones that I knew in this region were not such. … If you have read it carefully, which you have to do, since they often use words like lawyers, Benson actually stated that he never condemned the sisters in Texas as rebels. In other words, he still may have considered them as rebels, but he didn’t exactly say so. Then, he stated that there is one rebel and that those sisters who rose up in 1976 and 1977 were subject to his rebellious instigations and blah, blah, blah. Okay, so he says that they were not rebels; instead, they were only subject to Satan’s rebellious instigations. Whew, what a relief. For a minute there, I thought he was going to say something bad about Jane … uh … I mean “some sisters” . The footnote Keep in mind that the letter, from which I previously quoted, was written by Benson after he received a letter from Jane about another sister’s situation (who was also labeled as rebellious in 1977). In her letter, she wrote that to call someone a rebel is to not only go against the Lord’s word in Matthew 5:22, but also to go against Witness Lee’s footnote on the verse. Mr. Lee brought out that to call someone “Moreh,” or “a fool,” is to use a “Hebrew expression of condemnation indicating a rebel,” and that this makes a person liable to the judgment of the Gehenna of fire. Possibly, wanting to move himself out of reach of Lee’s footnote, Benson tried to obfuscate the matter and tap dance around the word, “rebel.” Nevertheless, he still left a certain “unnamed” sister in his category of one who had been involved in rebellion (but somehow not quite a rebel?). The modus operandi Later in his letter, Benson wrote the following, testifying for the leading brothers in the region (not just the elders in Houston, of which he wasn’t one) that they followed due process: Also, you consider that I and the elders acted according to rumors and half-truths when we dealt with the problems that were manifested in 1976 and 1977. I want to testify for the brothers that this was altogether not the case. We brothers listened to many testimonies and admissions before making any judgment. The attitude of the leading brothers in this region has always been to deal with negative matters so that those involved may repent and be recovered. One little problem with Benson’s wide-ranging investigation and judgment: He never presented his “evidence” to the accused. He just pronounced the judgment. In addition, he apparently didn’t give much weight to what the leading elder in Houston had to say; he just had him replaced. In what I’ve quoted from Benson’s letter, it was as if he could remember nothing of what he did to Jane in 1977. I mean, he just couldn’t remember mistreating Jane at all. He just wrote of nameless sisters motivated by the devil. Who’s to say who they were? All he and the brothers seemingly did was “protect” the Local Churches from those who were being motivated by the devil. All he did was just co-ordinate all the leading brothers in the region to render a judgment about some sisters who were engaging in certain activities that became a damaging factor … blah, blah, blah. The motive Now, let’s look at why Benson might have written to me in 1992 as he did. Consider the following background: About the early 1980s, Witness Lee, Benson, and Ray Graver, along with three other leading brothers in Texas, had swept Ben McPherson’s sexual sin under the rug. Thereupon, Ben was “secretly” transported away from the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex to a small, off-the-beaten track meeting situation. This secret was kept close, and lies were told to support the story of what happened to Ben. About a decade later, in the early 1990s, Ben’s condition came to the surface again when he was caught in adultery with a metroplex elder’s wife. This time, Jane and I found out about it too, and we intervened to try to save the sister’s marriage. We asked Benson to get with us and her to listen to her problem, since Benson and the Local Church had negatively impacted her marriage, but he stalled and stalled and never did it. Eventually, Ben and the one he had seduced divorced their spouses and married each other. After this, I wrote Benson to confront him about the rebel issue as it related my wife and to get him to honor his earlier commitment to meet with us (which he never did honor). What I have quoted previously in this post was part of his reply. The politics In the 1990s, Jane and I didn’t know about Benson’s mishandling of Ben’s earlier sexual escapades in the 1980s. Benson probably thought that he needed political cover, because he was the one most responsible for having put Ben into leadership in three different localities, and he was also the one in Texas most responsible for hiding Ben’s sexual sin of the 1980s. So, in 1992, Benson realized that if he got into the light with Jane, this sister, a few others, and me that we might find out that Ray and he, as well as other leading brothers in Texas, under the advisement of Witness Lee, had colluded to cover up Ben’s sexual sin rather than deal with it biblically, thus leading to the whole sordid mess. If the cover-up was discovered, Witness Lee, Benson, and the others could have been seen as indirectly responsible for the break-up of the two marriages; since, if they had dealt with Ben properly in the 1980s, Ben might have gotten help to overcome his temptations, most in Texas would have known about Ben’s problem and tried to help him, and the sister whom he seduced would have been on guard when he contacted her. But, instead, to protect The Vision and God’s man on the earth, Benson went a different route. “What to do?” he might have thought. “I’ll just do a little dance and feign innocence; and, if necessary, we can always blame Jane. Hey, it worked before when it came to the great sisters’ rebellion.” Actually, we did hear later that Ray told another person that it was Jane who was responsible for the break-up of two marriages! The message Now, let’s compare the statements in the above letter with what Mr. Phillips said in 2005 per portions of the 2005 Anaheim Winter Training transcription that we were given: In order to maintain good order in the church, a factious, divisive person should be refused, rejected after a first and second admonition. … In 1987 [sic], we had some sisters out on the West coast—they started building up a kind of group around themselves. They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything. Then it spread to Texas. I don’t know where else it spread to, but anyhow, some sisters in Texas got into the same flow. And, because it had happened here in Anaheim and there in Texas, we brothers had to do something. … Brother Lee … said, “You three holy sisters, would you stand up? (I think he asked them to stand up.) Well, I learned a lesson there—he did not mess around with factious people. … Would you have the boldness to do that? Well, maybe one day you will have to do it. Then, in Texas, let me tell you this, they had their so-called, you know, party. … Well, this one sister that we had to deal with, she was the leader. That was over thirty years ago by now. You know what she just came out with? A book against the recovery! Was she the right kind of person? Did we do the right thing? Absolutely, we did the right thing! … Brothers, these kind of people, the factious people, those who form parties within the church, they have to be dealt with. Why? Because they are destroyers of God’s building. The lesson Benson began with a very serious topic: rejecting a divisive person. Of course, in the Local Church environment, where everyone is judged according to oneness, being divisive is something akin to being a murderer. He mistakenly identified the year as 1987 instead of 1977. Then, he let us know that it’s about some sisters, and he tells us their heinous crime: They were inviting sisters, and they were getting into the Word and were talking about doctrine, and they were getting clear on the church, getting clear on everything. Uh-oh, sisters were getting into the Word; and, maybe worse, they were talking about doctrine! “Then it spread to Texas.” Well, that did it; those brothers just had to do something to save those poor, weak, misguided sisters from their Bibles and the big, bad doctrines. Then, he inserted what we now know was a lie, stating that Witness Lee said in a public meeting to the Anaheim sisters, “You three holy sisters ….” Next, we’re told that Benson learned a lesson from Mr. Lee. “What did he learn?” you might ask. He apparently learned how to smash sisters without hesitation. Then, he suggested that the rest of the brothers should learn from him, too, because, I suppose, they might be called upon to intimidate sisters one day. The miracle Benson continued with his message: “Then, in Texas, let me tell you this, they had their so-called, you know, party.” So, you’re telling us, Benson, that the sisters themselves called what they were involved in a party? I doubt that. Anyway, here’s how it works as far as Benson is concerned: Sisters are not allowed to be in a party; only the elders get to be in a party. Then, with the following statements, he inadvertently admitted that he was wrong in his 1992 letter: Well, this one sister that we had to deal with, she was the leader. That was over thirty years ago by now. You know what she just came out with? A book against the recovery! Was she the right kind of person? Did we do the right thing? Absolutely, we did the right thing! It’s a miracle! Benson admitted he was wrong; or, … wait a second … maybe he experienced a healing and his memory was restored! He remembered that Jane was not only just one of the nameless sisters, she was the one who was leading the rebellion, or party, or whatever he wanted to call it that day. The point is: His memory was now crystal clear, 28 years after the 1977 meeting! The conclusion What can we possibly conclude about the major discrepancies between the 1992 Benson and the 2005 Benson? In 1992, Benson seemed to have absolutely no idea of why I would bring up to him what he did to my wife in 1977; but, in 2005, 13 years later, Benson’s memory miraculously returned when it became expedient to excoriate Jane again because her book threatened The Vision. If his new mental clarity wasn’t the result of a “miracle” for the 2005 meeting, then I would have to conclude that Benson was lying in 1992. Come to think of it, that is my conclusion. Since those who form parties within the church have to be dealt with, as Benson himself says, then I would say that the elders are the ones who most need to be dealt with, since they are the ones most responsible for the factions that exist in the Local Churches. Finally, after Benson did some big talking about how he exercised his “authority” to put down some sisters, he went on to tell us why he just had to deal with those Bible-reading, doctrine talking sisters: “Because they are destroyers of God’s building.” Wow, and I thought that being the leader of a sisters’ rebellion in Texas was bad. The stand The web of deception that I’ve documented helps to explain why it is so difficult to understand the Living Stream Ministry and the Local Churches. They are full of deception, where up is down, and down is up. In short, the leaders in both entities cannot be trusted. This is why it is so important that we stick with our Christian virtues and, even, enhance them, as Peter says, lest we fall into the same vices. To faith, we are to add virtue, or excellence, not lying and playing politics, especially with others’ lives and their freedom to follow the Lord. Jesus is our Lord and Master; and, it is before Him that we stand or fall.