Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
Don,
How was it you were accused of "leading the rebellion in the Southeast"? Just because you did not want to go along with what was happening across the recovery?
My view of you for years had been a leading brother who wasn't named as one of the quarantined brothers, and since you could not go long with it, the Lord led you out of the recovery. As had been the case with other brothers. Personally, I'd rather have you speaking than to remain silent.
Terry
|
Terry,
It beats me how I got that moniker. “Leader of the Rebellion in the Southeast.”
Well, let me see now. I invited John Ingalls to hold a conference in NC at the same time WL was holding a conference in Cleveland. When John could not come due to the turmoil in Anaheim, I gave most of the conference. This was seen as a competitive move against WL. My oh my!
In the conference, I spoke from the book of Ruth. WL had yet to give a training on this book so I must have been doing my own thing and bringing the Southeast into another flow. During the conference, I shared how Ruth was excited about what she had gleaned. I applied that to helping young believers get something from the Word for themselves and openly said it is best not to quote footnotes but rather the pure word and your own personal labor. At that time, there was a contagion of declaring "I have a footnote" or "I enjoyed a footnote" etc.
I was pulled aside twice and informed that I was violating the direction of the ministry by giving messages rather than just repeating a WL message or "allowing" the saints to recite a message and several were very unhappy with me for the statement about the footnotes.
In addition several from Atlanta and Florida asked me in personal fellowship if I was happy with what the office and the new way implementers were doing. I did not lie but told it like it was. Just the unvarnished truth.
There were some LSM would be missionaries who had come to the Southeast. Brother did they not like me!! I guess I did not show enough respect. (That is hard for an old country boy from the woods of Arkansas to do.) I did not cheerlead for them and I suppose that weakened their ability to ramrod the LSM program down the brothers and sisters throats.
I suppose this is part of where that label came from.
I know my dear brother and good friend Witness Lee had hopes that I would be recovered and he charged Benson to come and see me and to help me to return. This may have been part of the reason I was not put with Mallon, Ingalls and So. Bless their hearts; they took most of the heat. Yet I was with them in nearly all of their fellowships regarding the problems. In fact, I was very guilty of stirring up Bill and John.
I did talk to the brothers in Raleigh and told them I would no longer support the LSM office and what they were doing. In addition, I informed them that I had learned of immoral conduct on the part of Phillip Lee and would not be associated with anything he was working on.
I was invited to NY City and spent a week-end with the elders there. I was very open with them regarding my reservations and they too, especially James Chu, were very concerned about the direction coming from WL and the office.
There are other instances where I did not support the office or the new way. I guess if you put it all together the future BBs in their paranoia had to come up with a leader of the rebellion in the southeast.
Hope, Don Rutledge