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

[Thankful Jane]

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”


Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619



Thankful

[countmeworthy]

If they believe wholeheartedly they have never said or done anything wrong, how can they admit they were wrong?

The local church leadership can only say they were/are wrong through the conviction of God the Holy Spirit...just as each of us were and are convicted by the Holy Spirit when we were in darkness and when we fall on our faces today.

I think there are very, very few people in Christian leadership (LC and otherwise) who humble themselves when they err. Very few ever admit they make mistakes. (Some DO thankfully but they are far & few between imho.)

As for your letter..... WOW JANE ! I trust and pray for the Blood of Jesus to cover you, protect you and envelop you and your family. I pray for MIGHTY angels of God to encamp themselves around you...and your family.

I pray for the Peace of God to restore the joy of fellowship IN TRUTH in Christ Jesus among all saints.

I find it curious the LSM jumped for joy that CRI under Hank Hanagraaf wrote a piece placing the LSM under favorable light when Lee's ministry trounced Christianity from way back when. Hank and company are still part of Lee's view of 'degraded Christianity'. But perhaps arrogance begats arrogance. Hank is one of the most arrogant and self centered 'christian' leaders around. I used to listen to the Bible Answer Man in the 80s and 90s. I'm not sure if he was hosting it back then. But in the last few years, not only can I not tolerate listening to him but I don't agree with some of his positions.

And P.S. God does hate the works of the Nicolaetons ! So do I.

[OBW]

Thanks for once again spending more time than you probably should to tell the the real "inconvenient truth."

I just wish that we could expect that at least some might find a chink in their "we are right even when we're wrong" attitude. One can only hope and pray.

[Paul Cox]

Hopefully, what has become so obvious to us will become more and more obvious to current LC members who lurk these forums. Humility is the top characteristic of a Christian. Repentance means recognizing that you were wrong and then openly admitting it, and turning around. Anything else is obstinacy and pride.

We have yet to see the Local Church admit to, and openly confess to even the slightest error. After much debating, and a lot of straining, and getting them undeniably cornered, the most anyone can hear from them is "Mistakes were made."

So, LSM, if you are ever willing to show any indication of actually following the Lord, and are willing to say "We were wrong," we are all Obama ears.

Roger

[OBW]

Having never read Nee's Spiritual Authority, it was quite an eye opener to see the gross errors in his reasoning on the matter of what is now called deputy authority. In this one work of fiction, he has denied everything that Paul wrote concerning church discipline and turned it on its head. There is no way to bring a charge against an elder in the LC because they are taught to not even respond. Further, they are taught that they have the authority to silence the ones bringing the charge.

I keep bringing up Nee's logical errors in arriving at his ground of the church doctrine. I must admit that I have always had a sort of nagging consideration that even the things he taught correctly are more because his natural inclination was proper on those points while other points, like the ground, and now the whole spiritual authority thing, were not. He based too much of his teaching on observations of others, stories, and not enough on what the scripture actually said. He added overlays, as did Lee, that did not spring from the scripture, but we forced upon it and made to fit.

For example, in the little book Sit Walk Stand he provides a viable overlay for the whole Christian life through the view from these three positions. But the way he goes about it is not entirely true to the scripture, but instead relies on examples, added metaphors and such. The last time I read it, I was impressed that he was only one additional thought from turning Sit into the "wait on the dispensing" teaching that Lee concocted. And if he had taken it that far, there would be no need to read about Walk and Stand because it would naturally flow from us once enough dispensing had been received. We did not need to study about it.

Yes, many have received spiritual help from some of his books. But even the best of them must be read with care.

[countmeworthy]

OBW wrote:
Having never read Nee's Spiritual Authority, it was quite an eye opener to see the gross errors in his reasoning on the matter of what is now called deputy authority.

Mike, how can you write SA was quite an eye opener if you have never read it ?

I read part of Spiritual Authority a few years ago. I still have it. There WERE some horrible gross errors in his reasoning that appalled me so I stopped reading it. I also have Sit, Walk and Stand. I tried reading it when I was in the LC but could never get through it. I tried reading it last year and I still cannot get through it.

Thank GOD for His WORD. The Holy Spirit truly enlightens me when I read the Word of God, speak it (HIM) and Pray it (HIM).

In this one work of fiction, he has denied everything that Paul wrote concerning church discipline and turned it on its head. There is no way to bring a charge against an elder in the LC because they are taught to not even respond. Further, they are taught that they have the authority to silence the ones bringing the charge.

Did someone tell you or did you read a portion of this book in someone's post ? Just wondering because you wrote you have never read his book.

He based too much of his teaching on observations of others, stories, and not enough on what the scripture actually said. He added overlays, as did Lee, that did not spring from the scripture, but we forced upon it and made to fit.

I think he based a lot of his teachings on his culture as did Lee did. They ought to have looked to God's Word to the Iraelites, the Jews, the Hebrews and Jesus' fullfillment of the law rather than their cultures, imho.

Yes, many have received spiritual help from some of his books. But even the best of them must be read with care.

I've received SOME help for his works...more than I did from Lee's works. But one thing I am grateful for during my tenure in the LC was my encouragement to read, pray the WORD of GOD......before the LS messages came into existence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Having never read Nee's Spiritual Authority, it was quite an eye opener to see the gross errors in his reasoning on the matter of what is now called deputy authority.

Yes, many have received spiritual help from some of his books. But even the best of them must be read with care.

Now you know why we were advised to not read Spiritual Authority. That alone is why I read all three volumes.

After reading I understood his points about deputy authority, but couldn't quite get behind them, or it.

Strikes me as funny that we were told not to read SA, and yet deputy authority was all over in the LC. Maybe that's why we were discouraged, cuz we'd catch on to what was going on around us, and disagree with it.

The reason, howbeit, that they gave for not reading it was, possible demon possession, not deputy authority.

Now I wonder if deputy authority isn't demon possession.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?”
Thankful

I read this letter way back when, but it was so convoluted with "who said what to whom at what time" that I couldn't keep track of it.

So I would like to make a general comment.

If you have a ministry or associated organization which has a long and pretty much unrelieved history of contention and strife with fellow christians you might at some point want to look in the mirror and ask yourself if perhaps some of it is your doing.

It reminds me of the movie star who was on her 8th husband, and the reporter was trying to timidly raise the issue of her marital history, and the star said that her only fault was picking bums and losers for companions. "I was too naive and trusting", she said.

I could only smile, ruefully. You would think that at some point a light would go on, and you would wonder, Gee, Is there possibly something wrong with me, that nobody wants to hang out with me? Or is it always the other guy's fault?

As history accumulates, and as turmoil follows turmoil, the math starts to get pretty daunting; I mean the probability that the trouble is always due to the other party and never from you.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by aron

from you.

A few corrections. BP was not frequently in Houston during the time frame I was, but he still owned a day care and would come to Houston to take care of it. I spent one afternoon helping him roof the place.

Second, the brothers responsible for the campus work on Rice were not controlled by the elders. RK was on the campus but had virtually no impact on the work. DC was not affiliated with the church leadership and the idea is laughable, JF and PF left the year I came in. So then by implication you are saying that I was and that is false.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A few corrections. BP was not frequently in Houston during the time frame I was, but he still owned a day care and would come to Houston to take care of it. I spent one afternoon helping him roof the place.

Second, the brothers responsible for the campus work on Rice were not controlled by the elders. RK was on the campus but had virtually no impact on the work. DC was not affiliated with the church leadership and the idea is laughable, JF and PF left the year I came in. So then by implication you are saying that I was and that is false.

Can you elaborate? Your quote of aron was reduced to two words and I cannot find any reference to RK, DC, JF and PF anywhere in any post. Seems to be missing some context and therefore is probably missing some of the meaning you intend.

I did mention BP. But we both agree that he was not in Houston much in your time frame. Just highly influential, even potentially controlling whether it was or was not obvious.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Can you elaborate?

Sure, and sorry for the RK, I meant KR. The key brothers saved off of Rice that I was familiar with were Clem (who became an elder), James and Pat F who both served in the LSM. Clem was already gone when I came in (I went to his wedding which was a very special meeting). James F stayed an extra year to help me out but was rarely on campus that year. KR is Kerry R. KR was definitely the only brother associated with Rice that was clearly controlled by the elders but he had nothing at all to do with the campus work on Rice. He never preached the gospel, never joined us. He had one failed attempt at trying to run a Bible study using LSM materials that failed after only one meeting.

David C had nothing to do with the elders and neither did I. So the idea that any unseen hand from the elders was controlling the campus work at Rice while I was there is bunk.

Also I cannot see anything sinister in the elders seeking help and fellowship from Benson. BP was highly regarded, even revered in Houston when I came in. I think any elder or pastor could have a mentor and that would be seen as a positive thing spiritually and BP was spoken of as a mentor to RG.

But you cannot use the influence that BP may have had in fellowship with RG as a basis to say another church controlled Houston, that is absurd.

Hindsight is 20/20. Perhaps now we know that the case of Jane A was wrong, but I am not convinced that BP or RG knew it was wrong at the time. Although I did not know anything of that incident, I did know that the feeling at the time was that Max had tried to engineer some kind of rebellion. Of course we realize that the truth is much different now, but I doubt that RG or BP could have guessed the truth at the time. And this impression of mine is based on my reading of Jane's account.

[OBW]

I see your perspective. I never suggested that outsiders had a hand in everything that was going on in Houston.

But there were always things that the scripture taught that did not square with ministry teachings. Or with the practice, which was considered right, was out-of-sync with certain teachings which were also considered right. So how were those made to coexist? There was some kind of contradiction of one that used an overlay, such as "its not about right and wrong, but the spirit" or "deputy authority is always right."

These kinds of things are an insidious control. You become entrenched in a world that is contradictory but are given a reason to accept it. Since outsiders will not go along with the contradictions, you become isolated and at the mercy of those providing the contradictions. And in terms of control, it has begun at a low level. The comments about the leadership really deals with the fact that they, even at dates in the 70s, knew the whole story — or more of it — and had to deal with those who were trying to be more "absolute" for the LRC and might recognize the contradictions. So they were given things to say that would make it better. The things that put the contradiction front and center, but provided a reason to accept it. The less absolute were willing to ignore some of the contradiction, not because they didn't see it, but because they thought something else was more important and a little stupidity could be tolerated.

But if we always looked at the single thing put in front of us "today" and accepted that as a discrete truth, then looked at its contradiction on another day and then accepted it as a discrete truth, we may simply have never realized the contradiction. So if right and wrong are unimportant, only the spirit, then how do we reconcile that the mind set on the Spirit, walking by the Spirit will fulfill the righteousness (the "right") of the law. For many, they just don't think about it that way. For those that do, they end out like AZ, frustrated at the contradictions. Yes, he was probably happy with a few back in the late 70s, but became thoroughly frustrated with them by 89.

But even in the 70s, it began a level of mental control. Then the events in Berkley, Chicago, Houston, Austin, Anaheim, and others at Memorial Day started a move of control. The exertion of authority over the elders started then. Then the following year, when they chased off Max, it was increased. We did not see it. But the elders did.

An amazing letter, Jane. And so is your book "The Thread of Gold". The LC seems to be based on a deception. The New Testament with all the Witness Lee interpretations which someone gave us, we cannot use, it is contaminated. Only the Word of God is cleansed 7 times.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”


Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619



Thankful

I liked this one sentence,

"Your AFW Judgment gives me opportunity to demonstrate, before others, that when the Local Church (LC1) leadership is confronted about their sins, they cannot say they were wrong."

To me this is one clear distinction between a genuine believer and a false prophet/false teacher and false brethren. A false teacher is intentionally deceiving you for personal gain, they cannot admit to their sin without forfeiting the personal gain. Likewise, false brethren are trying to bring you into bondage. Again, they cannot say they were wrong without losing all personal advantage.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I liked this one sentence,

"Your AFW Judgment gives me opportunity to demonstrate, before others, that when the Local Church (LC1) leadership is confronted about their sins, they cannot say they were wrong."

To me this is one clear distinction between a genuine believer and a false prophet/false teacher and false brethren. A false teacher is intentionally deceiving you for personal gain, they cannot admit to their sin without forfeiting the personal gain. Likewise, false brethren are trying to bring you into bondage. Again, they cannot say they were wrong without losing all personal advantage.

Disappointing and disheartening to see one of ZNPaaneah's posts again. His insights and information were always appreciated by me. His knowledge and defense of The Lord and the Bible seems to be needed more than ever on this forum.

[TLFisher]

Thanks to Nell for bringing this thread back up. I wonder if DCP/LSM ever responded to Jane's Open letter?
I doubt DCP has responded. DCP/LSM usual action to a counter-response such as Jane's article is to go into bunker mode. Same can be said when Steve Isitt wanted to make an appointment with DCP; conveniently unavailable.
If DCP did respond to Jane's article, "Can the Local Church Leadership Say, "We Were Wrong", I would stand corrected.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Terry

Thanks to Nell for bringing this thread back up. I wonder if DCP/LSM ever responded to Jane's Open letter?
I doubt DCP has responded. DCP/LSM usual action to a counter-response such as Jane's article is to go into bunker mode. Same can be said when Steve Isitt wanted to make an appointment with DCP; conveniently unavailable.
If DCP did respond to Jane's article, "Can the Local Church Leadership Say, "We Were Wrong", I would stand corrected.

There is little reason for them to respond. Benson Phillips' behavior toward the Andersons is par for the course in the Lord's Recovery. It's how their system operates.

As for the LSM, wouldn't they say that it was a local matter there in Houston anyway? And as for DCP, wouldn't they say they are a separate entity from the LSM, and the local churches?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

There is little reason for them to respond. Benson Phillips' behavior toward the Andersons is par for the course in the Lord's Recovery. It's how their system operates.

It constitutes the system, going back to Lee and prolly Nee. Remove it and the system dies. That's why it will never change, and there will be no apologies.

We're now but it's fun ... I don't know why. I think the LC knocked me out of whack. Don't y'all agree?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

As for the LSM, wouldn't they say that it was a local matter there in Houston anyway? And as for DCP, wouldn't they say they are a separate entity from the LSM, and the local churches?

Their words are as quicksand. There is volume, but lacking stability. Content of their words fluctuates as it benefits their agenda.

[Nell]

bringing forward...sorry for the broken link. Unto, you may want to combine the attachments with the Hanegraaff Sings Praises To The LC/Recovery With A Lengthy Explanation thread. I was past the edit window or I would have edited the post myself.


This document references on page 6 (Truth Matters section) an "Open Letter by the 74". That 3rd party open letter is attached also. It is posted on a website open-letter.org.

More than 70 evangelical Christian scholars and ministry leaders from seven nations have signed an unprecedented open letter to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”

...

Thankful

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”


Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619



Thankful

A companion topic, rebuttal open letter by Jane Anderson.

Nell

[Nell]

A rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have attached an open letter entitled “Can the Local Church Leadership Say, ‘We Were Wrong’?” which is addressed to Bill Buntain, Dan Sady, and Dan Towle at “A Faithful Word.” The “Introduction” to the letter explains some about the contents of this very lengthy open letter and describes the audiences I am addressing and why. It also explains how the catalyst for my deciding to write both the letter to AFW and the letter to Lyndol Butler was the recent Christian Research Journal in which CRI says “We Were Wrong.”


Please note that the “Lyndol letter” (which is referenced in this letter to the Local Church Leadership) can be found at:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...read.php?t=619



Thankful

[TLFisher]

Thirteen years later and the answer still appears to be no. Until pride among the Local Church leadership is replaced with humility, I don't expect anything to change because the have no ministry of reconciliation. No matter how many years go by, I don't expect Local Church leadership to be repentant. I hope I am wrong, but this is how I feel.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by TLFisher

Thirteen years later and the answer still appears to be no. Until pride among the Local Church leadership is replaced with humility, I don't expect anything to change because the have no ministry of reconciliation. No matter how many years go by, I don't expect Local Church leadership to be repentant. I hope I am wrong, but this is how I feel.

Until they become willing to have open and frank discussion with current and former members in a very public way, there is really no chance. And I don't mean just some worthless articles on a few websites and some public statements by leaders at conferences. I mean ALL the congregations sitting down and really taking a hard look at everything that's happened over the years. Take a look at John Ingalls' testimony and the testimonies of others. John Myers, Jane Anderson, Andrea McArdle, Jo Casteel. HERE. Instead of all this "death" and "poison" nonsense, they can look at the testimonies of their brothers and sisters in Christ and really take the scriptures and use them to examine the so-called "Ministry."

When the narrative is controlled, people like Jo Casteel and John Ingalls will only ever be "rebels" who were "used by Satan" to "attack" the church rather than concerned brothers and sisters who are trying to open people's eyes and really make The Lord's Recovery a better place by dealing with their issues properly.

And of course the voices of outsiders like the ones that wrote the Open Letter, God bless them, will likely hold even less weight than the voices of current or former members. If you are current and speaking in such a way, you are contentious. If you are a former member speaking in such a way, you are leprous. If you are an outsider speaking in such a way, you are deformed and degraded.

It's that nonsense right there: that nonsense of shutting down critical thought needs to stop, and on a widespread scale. Most people can smell that SOMETHING is wrong, but don't want to take the time to really sit down and analyze it to identify what the problem is and to prepare REAL solutions for dealing with it rather than just "get out of your mind and eat Christ."

Until saints are willing to sit down and really take a hard look at what they're doing on a large scale, anyone who speaks up will just be another Ingalls or another Casteel. Poisoned, leprous, death-bringing rebels who should be ignored not because they're wrong but because "death."

Rightly was it written that "because of the increase of wickedness, the hearts of most will grow cold."