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

[John]

Originally Posted by Terry

John, first what a pleasure it is to read your post. I will say my first reaction when I read your post was, WHAT! A need to know basis? Why?
If there was a definitive reason Jane needed discipline, that should have been told to the church.
When it's a need to know basis, one week a sister or couple could be very warm and receptive to Jane. The next week these ones become as a certain Levite or a certain priest crossing the road to avoid Jane. I want to know while Jane was being disciplined, WHO in the Church in Houston leadership ministered Christ to Jane with oil and wine [see Luke 10]?
As this is now 33 years later, some may say this is old news. This happened a long time ago. Local church elders may diminish the events as ancient history. On the contrary, this was an offense. An offense that does not have time constraints. As long as the parties are still alive, there are opportunities to repent. If not, leave it to the Judgment Seat. God will be the Judge. One way or another, there is resolution.

Terry,

For me, the phrase to highlight in your post is “should have been.” By reading the Bible, I think that most of us know what should have been done in the Local Church with various people in their different situations. Instead, the sheep were mistreated. If you have read Jane’s book, letters, and posts, you would, hopefully, realize that we have done our part in trying to address the issue from those years, but to no avail.

You asked “WHO” in the leadership ministered to Jane afterwards. I’m not sure if this was rhetorical or not, so the answer is: “None of them.” However, Jesus did minister to us. It was just really difficult to hear Him after being run over by the leaders and Jane being told that she was so far off base that she was basically following the devil.

I simply wrote to show that things are not always as they seem and maybe to show just a little bit about the inner workings of the system. Jane was actually very easy for the elders to control. She was compliant and obeyed them. If she had wanted to do the kinds of things she was accused of, she could have had quite an impact and caused them a lot of trouble. She had much influence with many, especially the young sisters. She was directed not to speak with anyone about the situation, and she didn’t.

We were left alone, only able to speak to God. Other than the day after, we didn’t even speak to each other about what occurred in the so-called “fellowship room” in 1977. It was too painful, and there was a huge conflict in each of us. That experience lasted for over two years in Houston and was the most miserable time of my life. When we went to Oklahoma City, the discipline followed us. There, she was not allowed to speak to a certain person or to be in a baby-sitting situation with her because that person had been involved with Jane. (To attend the meetings, we ended up paying for a sitter.) She accepted that discipline as well.

Some have come out on the forum to write that it was just not their experience. I understand when people like ZNPaaneah state that it wasn’t their experience in the church in some place and time. The people who say it wasn’t their experience, in fact, didn’t experience some horrible discipline and probably didn’t pay any attention to little things that might have given them a clue as to what was going on in the inner circle. I did the same for many years.

Most of us, I imagine, wanted to think the best of everyone and give them the benefit of the doubt, because this was the church, “God’s best.” I mean, after all, aren’t we brothers and sisters in the Lord? Isn’t that what first brought us into the Local Church? Etc.

If you didn’t experience the corruption or know someone that did, does this mean that the church in your place wasn’t influenced by leaders who had become corrupted within a corrupted system? At least as far as The Church in Houston was concerned, I know a little bit about how things were done, having arrived there with the initial migration. I would maintain that ZNPaaneah did experience the corruption, at least to some degree, but was unaware of it. It was as if he were in a body diseased with cancer: Whatever part of the body he was, wasn’t heavily impacted by the disease, but I can tell you for sure that some of us were very much impacted.

Anyway, Terry, thanks for your reply. I just used your post as a jumping off point to elaborate a little bit. I hope that I didn’t get too carried away and that you find my perspective helpful. (ZNPaaneah, I see that you have responded to the content of my earlier post while I was working on this one. I hope to be able to address your thoughts soon.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

Terry,
I simply wrote to show that things are not always as they seem and maybe to show just a little bit about the inner workings of the system....

We were definitely taught not to poke our noses in anyone's business when they went to have fellowship with the elders. I had just assumed that if you had something serious to talk to the elders about you didn't need to have 200 other saints theorizing why you went to talk to them (Problem with their marriage? Are they moving? Financial troubles? Do you think they'll make that brother an elder? etc.)

I was once brought into that fellowship room and told that "I had two strikes against me". This was a shock. I didn't have a clue that I had one strike and now they are telling me I already have two, and yet I still didn't have a clue what these two strikes were or how I got them. Clearly it was a form of intimidation to get me to speak a certain way. The problem was I didn't really have any clue as to what way that was. So instead I just decided that seeing that I had 2 strikes and could strike out at any time, better make sure I release my full burden when I speak, because who knows, it could be my last time.

I experienced other forms of intimidation which I have already shared testimonies about some of those cases. I am guessing that I was never excommunicated in part because of Jane A, the elders were keenly aware of the price involved. Also, I did all of my speaking in the meetings, so everyone in the church was well aware of what I was saying, it is much harder to mug someone who is standing in a spotlight where 200 people can see. Also, for as much intimidation as I received from the "LSM faithful" I received twice as much support from the silent majority in the church.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We were definitely taught not to poke our noses in anyone's business when they went to have fellowship with the elders.

I was once brought into that fellowship room and told that "I had two strikes against me". This was a shock. I didn't have a clue that I had one strike and now they are telling me I already have two, and yet I still didn't have a clue what these two strikes were or how I got them.

I am guessing that I was never excommunicated in part because of Jane A, the elders were keenly aware of the price involved. Also, I did all of my speaking in the meetings, so everyone in the church was well aware of what I was saying, it is much harder to mug someone who is standing in a spotlight where 200 people can see. Also, for as much intimidation as I received from the "LSM faithful" I received twice as much support from the silent majority in the church.

ZNP, how you ended the post is how I perceive why the elders don't want to tell it to the church. That is also why it tends to be a private matter restricted to 10-12 elders and deacons. As I expect as a private matter it's not to bring shame to the individual. If I was the individual being disciplined in private, I would want the matter to be a church matter. Point being no questions and no misunderstandings. Just as you said ZNp, it's much more difficult to mug someone when there's 200 other people watching.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

You asked “WHO” in the leadership ministered to Jane afterwards. I’m not sure if this was rhetorical or not, so the answer is: “None of them.” However, Jesus did minister to us.

Some have come out on the forum to write that it was just not their experience. I understand when people like ZNPaaneah state that it wasn’t their experience in the church in some place and time.

Most of us, I imagine, wanted to think the best of everyone and give them the benefit of the doubt, because this was the church, “God’s best.” I mean, after all, aren’t we brothers and sisters in the Lord?

John, when I asked WHO it was a statement as much as it was a question. In recent weeks I've been seeing some things relative to your posts. If what I've seen is comparable to your experiences and even Jane's experiences, the level of care a sister or a brother receives is relative.

I have not posted on it, but the ministry of Jesus is a picture of how short we are of Christ and how much further we have to go. For example the parable of the Good Samaritan. One example is it's a picture of our relationship with Jesus. He brought us home to the church, His Body. Another example is a picture of us in relationship to fellow brothers and sisters. I leave the rest for another time. So you see why WHO is both a statement and a question.

John, a phrase I have been bothered with is it wasn't my experience. What does that mean? What is the implication of such a statement? I could say such a statement, but mean your experience was a product of imagination. Or I could say such a statment with compassion. Meaning I have empathy for your experience and thankfulness to God I have not endured what you have. This goes for you, me, forum posters, and lurkers; say what you mean. Just maybe in doing so misunderstanding or misinterpretations will be avoided.

Yes we do tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Likewise we should not be so doubtful to other's experiences, that it cannot happen. Giving the benefit of the doubt should not be construed to giving trust. Once we as believers trust in man, deception is bound to follow.

[ZNPaaneah]

I was asked if I could have known Jane A when I was in Houston. I think this depends on if Jane A knew Raul Tapp and Don Abadie. I remember that first summer Raul taking me to a sister's home. Something was clearly wrong and they were definitely not willing to discuss it. We read Proverbs 1, and it seemed to have a very big impact on everyone. Also, I remember that this sister and her family were in the process of moving.

Otherwise, if that was not her, I doubt she would talk to me in the meeting with everyone watching her, and I doubt she would invite me for fellowship directly while under a cloud of suspicion. When you are new there is no meeting where everyone stands up and introduces themselves, so she could definitely have been in the meeting at the same time as me without me knowing her name. Also for my first year I was very quiet and after her meeting with the elders she also was probably quiet.

[John]

ZNPaaneah,

With this latest post of yours (#45), it seems that you may have come around to considering the ramifications of my presentation in #31, which I appreciate, considering the way you tried to dismiss it earlier. I have read all your responses and may reply to them in more detail later. (I never feel compelled to rebut everything thrown at me.) I think that most readers realize without me spelling it out for them that my main point (the fact that we were in Houston along with you) destroys your contention that there was no control by the elders in The Church in Houston during your time there—even though you threw around words like “laughable” and “absurd,” while only relying for support on your experience within the confines of Rice University and your opinion of others who had been involved with Rice.

Before I consider getting into the details that would be necessary to have a full discussion of the c-word (control, that is) as it relates to The Church in Houston, I want to find out where you stand, now that you’ve had a few days to ruminate on the impact of my revelation. (By the way, it should not have been a revelation to you, since you stated in your #39 that you had read Jane’s account, and she clearly stated in The Thread of Gold that we moved in 1979, not 1978.) Also, if you will read pertinent parts of the book again carefully, you will find another instance of a “gross violation” of control by an elder in the affairs of another family that occurred in The Church in Houston after we left, in the early 1980s. (I’m not going to research the exact date; because, if you are willing to admit that there was control present in the Church during your first year [Jane’s case] and to admit to control in the Church just after you were gone or thereabouts [case described in The Thread of Gold], I would think that you would find it difficult to explain, much less to prove, how the control mysteriously disappeared in between.)


Didn’t you go off topic?

After you deal with the gross control in The Church in Houston, I believe we could then have a decent discussion about possible campus control at Rice, but that was not exactly the topic I signed up for when I replied to your #27, point #6. If we do, I would then amend the topic to include more nuanced control and not just the “gross violation” that was occurring in the Church.

I think that the last sentence in my #31 may have led you to apply it only to Rice University. Actually, I merely intended that sentence to be a very brief synopsis of how control generally lined up with Anaheim in its flow, not to offer a way for ignoring my main point. I tacked it on to reflect my total Church experience in multiple Churches over a 20-year span, which includes our experience at the University of Houston and with U of H students who continued living with us after we moved away from the campus. From your point of view, however, after re-reading it, I can see how you might have taken it and applied it only to your experience at Rice, and I apologize if it misled you. Even with this mea culpa, keep in mind that I did not say that the elders were controlling the ones on the campuses. However, I have also not stated that they were not. Also, if it will help you to focus on the ramifications of the two main events that exhibited gross control in The Church in Houston, one in the ’78 and ’79 time frame, and the other one around, say, ’81 , then please ignore my last sentence in #31.


If a tree falls in a forest …

If you are simply going to repeat that it wasn’t your experience at Rice, I’ll just let you remain behind that cloistered wall. I’m not trying to be mean, but I do get bothered when someone states unequivocally that control didn’t exist in the very Church that was controlling my wife and me and those around us with whom we had worked faithfully for almost a decade, as well as controlling another family that left Houston after us. The control in both cases was carried out by Ray from Houston in concert with Benson from Dallas; so, I hope you will excuse me if I believe that you have a naïve view of their relationship. In addition, it seems to me that your understanding of the Max event, and Benson and Ray’s involvement in it, is also deficient.

After I get an answer to my question at the end of this post, I will consider discussing with you the elders in Texas, including those in Houston, and their conspiracies. Also, I might be willing to discuss the situation at Rice and whether or not there was any control there. Jane and I experienced the elders’ hands of control at the University of Houston, which you might factor in to your experience at Rice. Even though it was a few years earlier, I don’t imagine that control just disappeared since a culture of control had been established, especially not as long as Ray was still there. In such a discussion, I am quite willing to let you be the expert about all things Rice. If a tree fell in those woods, I wouldn’t have heard it.


Main point

So, here is my main point again: You asked for an example of a “gross violation,” and I gave you the elders’ treatment of Jane Anderson. In 1978, Jane was in The Church in Houston under very strict, stern, and unreasonable discipline by the elders; in 1979, she was still there, suffering an almost indescribable torment on a daily basis. In 1978 and 1979, you were there, too (and so was I). The fact that you didn’t even realize that she was there when she had not too long before been a prominent sister (my words, not hers), just further proves my point that there was discipline, that it was severe, and that it succeeded in taking her out of her “function” for the duration of our time there. Jane and I were suffering a hellishly-inspired discipline that almost drove Jane mad and me into the hospital. You were in the same local body we were in; and, don’t forget, when one member suffers, all suffer with that person.


Question

So, I ask you, based on the experience of John and Jane Anderson, was there unwarranted gross control by the elders over the members of The Church in Houston during part of your time there?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by John

Question
So, I ask you, based on the experience of John and Jane Anderson, was there unwarranted gross control by the elders over the members of The Church in Houston during part of your time there?

John, if I could ask in all sincerity, was there overriding "control" before the events described in chapter one of ToG? It seemed to me, after reading the book over 5 years ago, that Jane and her husband were completely blindsided by what happened that day. They had no prior "warning" to prepare them for the "discipline" which occurred.

In other words, taking BP's recent (2-3 years ago) inflammatory statements about Jane in the training, it seemed like he acted that Memorial Day weekend in 1977 as a WL "copycat," assuming, without prior investigation, that local events in Houston were conspiratorially linked to Anaheim. In your opinion, were these events in question the beginnings of "abuse/control," or just a continuation?

[John]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John, if I could ask in all sincerity, was there overriding "control" before the events described in chapter one of ToG? It seemed to me, after reading the book over 5 years ago, that Jane and her husband were completely blindsided by what happened that day. They had no prior "warning" to prepare them for the "discipline" which occurred.

In other words, taking BP's recent (2-3 years ago) inflammatory statements about Jane in the training, it seemed like he acted that Memorial Day weekend in 1977 as a WL "copycat," assuming, without prior investigation, that local events in Houston were conspiratorially linked to Anaheim. In your opinion, were these events in question the beginnings of "abuse/control," or just a continuation?

Ohio,

In my opinion, the events of 1977 were just a continuation of abuse and control. I do appreciate your open-ended question and a request for my opinion. (You do realize that, as Jane’s husband, I may not be the most objective person about certain events related to her, right?) And, since I’m in a writing mood …


Now the serpent was more subtle …

First, I’d like to begin with Genesis 3 , where Satan, the great manipulator, deceived Adam and Eve. From there, skip millennia to the genesis of the Local Church in China and its resurrection in Taiwan. There, Witness Lee was a heavy-handed controller (see Morris Fred’s master’s thesis). Some of the leaders in Taiwan warned the original elders in Los Angeles (John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and James Barber) about Mr. Lee, but they ignored the warning (see the letter from these elders, also in Fred). Lee eventually manipulated the situation to his benefit.


Meanwhile, back at the ranch

Meanwhile, a young Benson Phillips felt he was destined to do big things for Jesus (per his testimony). He linked up with a psychology major, Ray Graver, and also with Witness Lee, who impressed them with “The Vision”; and the rest, as we say, is history. These people had certain character traits that allowed them to be used by the deceiver. Mr. Lee provided Benson and Ray the system within which to work and fathered them in his control techniques (if they needed his help).

Over time, other brothers were drawn in and fathered in the same control style of Mr. Lee. People came in over time and were enamored with various aspects of the system. The cup was gilded on the outside. Each of us had a honeymoon time with the Local Church, happily receiving the indoctrination and not realizing where it would eventually lead us.

As has been shown, the Deputy Authority teaching was sown into Texas in the very beginning in Waco, pre-Houston. Through this, as well as other teachings and methods, persons could be controlled and manipulated, some more, some less. I know I was excited as a new one to be going hither and thither and doing what-what (a Leeism, I believe) for God. To speak in worldly terms, I have come to understand the leadership dynamic in the Local Church by comparing it with that of big business and politics; however, under the auspices of religion, the dynamic is much worse. Religious leaders can more easily and thoroughly exploit the sheep who genuinely desire to please God.


Religious control from 30,000 feet

The control mechanisms were utilized as needed to keep people in line with the program. The more you wanted to participate in the inner circle with its secrets, the more of your soul you had to sell. I found an apt description in The Two Babylons, a book that described being admitted to the mysteries among the ancient pagan priests. (My description may be offensive to some, but I’m just telling you things that have helped me to understand what happened to me and my family. (In other words, I didn’t begin at Genesis 3 for nothing.)

Because of this, some could be on the periphery of the system and not realize the evil that was going on. That is why we often get at each other on the forums, I believe. Some were almost all the way into the inner circle, and others were way on the outside. If you provided “revenue” for the system (money, status, power, image, whatever), you could be a part and not really realize what you were a part of. The system could even tolerate an amount of criticism, depending on who you were and what you had to offer on the positive side of the ledger (a risk-reward analysis).

All of that to say that control and manipulation were going on from the beginning. I thought this little tour of the world would help you better understand my opinion about control in Texas. The Houston elders didn’t emerge from the indigenous ones who had been meeting there before our migration. Lip-service was paid to these original folks; but, when Benson and Ray and about 70 others arrived from three different localities and set up shop, it soon became obvious who was in charge. In fact, a small meeting was arranged to authenticate elders (although it wasn’t advertised that way), and Benson and Ray were two who volunteered for the job! Just a little manipulative, I’d say.

Now that we’re back in Texas, let me cite three more occurrences that should give you a better idea of the kind of leaders we had there, and more reasons why I am of the opinion that control, manipulation, and intimidation were occurring before 1977. You can decide for yourself how high this rates on your control meter; but, for me, especially in a Christian setting (not to mention God’s so-called “Best”), it pretty much pegs mine.


Driven to despair (case #1)

The first case occurred in the late 60s and early 70s, but we didn’t learn of it until 1992. In 1992, Jane received a letter from a sister who had been abused by the Texas leadership. This sister wrote to Jane after receiving a copy of a letter we mailed to those who had started with us in Houston. Jane’s letter was sent because of Benson’s refusal to meet with us to try to rescue the marriage of an elder who had served with him. In the letter, we had described the abuse that had been exercised over the elder’s wife in 1977. The sister who wrote Jane explained that she had also been labeled as rebellious and negative. Her depression was so great from the experience that she had attempted suicide, was in a coma for four days, and barely survived. (If I’m still in a posting groove, I may put out some excerpts from her letter so you can hear it from her, since it is so powerful and sad.)


Physical violence (brief-case #2)

The second case I will mention occurred pre-1977 in Houston. While trying to get a young brother to accept the “fellowship,” Ray actually threw his book bag and hit him with it! This happened in the meeting hall after a meeting, although it was in a private room; so, no one else saw it other than a third brother who witnessed the event. This witness brother was, at some point, being groomed to be an elder. When he was given elder status and admitted into the inner sanctum, he was so shocked and appalled by the way that the elders, in their meetings, discussed the saints, he retired from the eldership but remained in “God’s Best.” He was then transferred to the mother church in Anaheim and told that he was going there for further training. Of course, it was obvious that they couldn’t afford to have someone hanging around who had quit the eldership because it went against his conscience.


Moving the chess pieces and assessing their value (case #3)

Were Benson and Ray the only ones? A brother recently told us about his experience in Houston with all the elders. In 1972, during the time of the migration to Denver, this brother and his wife worked out a plan to move in with another church couple for a few months so that they could save money for migrating to Denver. When the elders got wind of it, Benson called the brother in. All four elders sat across the table from him. Benson did the speaking. As the brother put it, they “reamed him out” for moving in with the couple without fellowshipping with the elders first and getting their permission to do so. They also told him that Denver was not in the cards for him but that he should plan to go to Philadelphia, which he did. At this time, he began to back away from the elders in heart. He saw a side that he hadn’t known was there. A couple of years later, after the Philly experiment failed, he said that the members in Philly were given a choice of either moving to Boston or to Florida. A Boston elder actively recruited him, so he decided to move his family there. Two years later, after getting his law degree, he moved back to Houston.

As an interesting sidebar, in Houston, while serving with a brother to process contributions, he learned that saints were measured and categorized by how much money they gave. He said that before this time, he had given to the church by check; but, upon discovering they were keeping tabs, he had switched to giving cash. He knew this would look to them like he had stopped giving, and he wondered if this would change the way they treated him. He said that it did; since, for one thing, they no longer asked him to share messages.

So, was there overriding control in Texas before 1977? From my perspective, there definitely was.


The Thread of Gold and the run-up to John and Jane’s isolation

In your questions to me, you also started with Mr. Phillips’ statements about Jane and stated that it seemed that he acted like a copycat. First, I would never start with anything that Benson said. Remember, think politics. To be clear, Benson’s public statement at the 2005 winter training about what they did to Jane in Texas in 1977, and why they did it, was not truthful. This is explained in posts about that event which can be found on the Bereans forum. For one thing, Benson said he saw what Mr. Lee did with the sisters in Anaheim and then had to do the same thing in Texas. The truth was that Witness and Benson acted simultaneously on Saturday night of Memorial Day weekend. Also, Mr. Lee did not call out the Anaheim sisters as “the three holy sisters” as Benson claimed. Jane talked to Sandee for the first time in 2006, and Sandee said that Benson’s account about this was not true. We asked another one of the three sisters what her recollection was of the event, and she corroborated Sandee’s account.

I recommend that you re-revisit The Thread of Gold for the answer to your question about what led up to the 1977 “fellowship” room experience by reading pages 151–189. We spent thousands of hours on the book, and in it you can find the signs that were manifesting themselves before the Memorial Day weekend. There is a wealth of information in The Thread of Gold about Mr. Lee, the elders in Texas and Oklahoma (although the pseudonyms can be frustrating), and what it was like for us and others. I can recommend the book more freely now that it is available as a free download from our website (www.TheThreadOfGold.com). I, myself, refer to it periodically for research (and I not only edited it, I also lived it). Even when talking about the creeping level of control that seemed to sneak up on us in the Local Church, Jane and I sometimes refer to it as the frog-in-the-pot syndrome—“A Frog in the Pot” being one of the chapter titles. One day, we had a good laugh when each of us said something like, “Hey, I just re-read a portion of The Thread of Gold and really got some help from it!”

[Ohio]

John, thanks much for the lengthy response. My basic question about "overriding control in Texas before 1977" included my suspicion that neither you nor Jane were initially aware of it. Btw, I should also change the words "overriding control" to "abuse," since the word "control" is subject to one's own personal interpretation. There is no question in my mind that what happened to you that May '77 weekend, and the long years which followed, was abuse. My initial suspicion that you two were initially blindsided by what occurred, seems to be confirmed by your learning much later of what happened in each of those "3 cases."

My observations were somewhat similar. After personally enduring some unfair abuse, I began to hear reports from many other saints. I began to learn the "real" story hidden from us for years. Past events which had bothered me, and were forgotten, now became more alarming, as a definite pattern was seen on all levels. Like a snowball rolling down the hill, (sorry, you guys can't relate to that thing called snow,) I was just overwhelmed with the amount of unchecked leadership abuse covered up over the years.

It's interesting that you mentioned Hislop's book. Being from a Catholic family, that book got incorporated into my "gospel" preaching. How unfortunate. It has been discussed how poor Hislop's research really was. A number of scholars have rebutted his many claims. WL used that book to drive a wedge between many saints and their families.

I appreciated your observation, "Because of this, some could be on the periphery of the system and not realize the evil that was going on. That is why we often get at each other on the forums, I believe." To further that thought, I may have been at the very center of my local church life, yet concerning the events in Anaheim and Cleveland (or Texas or wherever,) I and all those with me were on the "periphery." We thought we understood what was happening, actually we were told lies. Worse than lies, because we then joined in with their hypocrisy and unrighteousnesses.

In your questions to me, you also started with Mr. Phillips’ statements about Jane and stated that it seemed that he acted like a copycat. First, I would never start with anything that Benson said. Remember, think politics. To be clear, Benson’s public statement at the 2005 winter training about what they did to Jane in Texas in 1977, and why they did it, was not truthful. This is explained in posts about that event which can be found on the Bereans forum. For one thing, Benson said he saw what Mr. Lee did with the sisters in Anaheim and then had to do the same thing in Texas. The truth was that Witness and Benson acted simultaneously on Saturday night of Memorial Day weekend. Also, Mr. Lee did not call out the Anaheim sisters as “the three holy sisters” as Benson claimed. Jane talked to Sandee for the first time in 2006, and Sandee said that Benson’s account about this was not true. We asked another one of the three sisters what her recollection was of the event, and she corroborated Sandee’s account.

It seems to me that both sides of this account could be true. If BP talked to WL prior to that May '77 meeting, and we know they talked much, and WL describes events in Anaheim to him about "three holy sisters" needing a public rebuke, then BP connected the dots and made leaps of assumptions and played "copycat" in Houston, as if the supposed "sister's rebellion" had come to town. I may be wrong about this. Far more serious in my mind was WL's public humiliation of Max Rapoport's wife for the sole reason that Max confronted Philip Lee about molesting sisters in the LSM offices. That to me "stinketh to high heaven." I can be tolerant of the "mistakes" of many christian leaders, but not this.

Regarding the book ToG, my very first post on the other forum concerned it. I asked if there was some code available to decipher the pseudonyms, since I knew all the players, yet not the details to connect them all. If I can find that book, I will look at those pages. Thanks again.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by John

The first case occurred in the late 60s and early 70s, but we didn’t learn of it until 1992. In 1992, Jane received a letter from a sister who had been abused by the Texas leadership. This sister wrote to Jane after receiving a copy of a letter we mailed to those who had started with us in Houston. Jane’s letter was sent because of Benson’s refusal to meet with us to try to rescue the marriage of an elder who had served with him. In the letter, we had described the abuse that had been exercised over the elder’s wife in 1977. The sister who wrote Jane explained that she had also been labeled as rebellious and negative.

John,
Case #1
It may be just my opinion, but in cases as this sister, Jane, among others, when these ones are set aside for being negative, leprous, etc. It's not a case of Titus 3:10. There are other reasons for it and whatever the reasons may be, it's as Hope said in one of his posts, fellowship flows downstream. As you well know John, it's not fellowship. It's an expectation to conform to Group Think. If you don't conform, you'll be out of the group. If you do conform to Group Think, it will be as taking fellowship.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by John

ZNPaaneah,

With this latest post of yours (#45), it seems that you may have come around to considering the ramifications of my presentation in #31, which I appreciate, considering the way you tried to dismiss it earlier.

I am unaware of ever trying to dismiss anything you said.

I have read all your responses and may reply to them in more detail later. (I never feel compelled to rebut everything thrown at me.) I think that most readers realize without me spelling it out for them that my main point (the fact that we were in Houston along with you) destroys your contention that there was no control by the elders in The Church in Houston during your time there—even though you threw around words like “laughable” and “absurd,” while only relying for support on your experience within the confines of Rice University and your opinion of others who had been involved with Rice.

I am sorry if I implied that "there was no control by the elders in Houston". That was not true. That was also not my testimony, and I have shared my testimony extensively both on this forum and on the Bereans forum. However, I do not believe that elders exercising control of a congregation is in and of itself a condemnation. Over the last 9 months I have come to see that there was a lot more to what was going on. I have come to see that the behavior of RG and BP towards JI in the early 80s was in my mind inexcusable. That said, the elders also exercised a form of control over me while in Houston, but I am not nearly as clear that this was as worthy of condemnation as what happened with JI. Hebrews says that we are all under discipline and if we aren't then we are bastards. I cannot look back on my experience in Houston as a new brother and see anything that could clearly be described as anything other than discipline as described in Hebrews. I could be mistaken, but this is my experience and if new information comes to light I will consider it.

Before I consider getting into the details that would be necessary to have a full discussion of the c-word (control, that is) as it relates to The Church in Houston, I want to find out where you stand, now that you’ve had a few days to ruminate on the impact of my revelation. (By the way, it should not have been a revelation to you, since you stated in your #39 that you had read Jane’s account, and she clearly stated in The Thread of Gold that we moved in 1979, not 1978.)

As far as I can recall I did not know Jane A. I don't think that either of you ever introduced yourself to me, I don't think I ever visited your home that I can recall, and I am not aware that you shared personal testimonies in the meeting. It is possible that I am wrong. But, the fact that we were in the same meeting hall together at the same time does not mean that I had the faintest idea who you were or what your situation was. As you mentioned she was under strict, stern and unreasonable control before I came in. Based on that it is reasonable for me to assume that she did not have any real personal contact with me and so I in fact did not know her. When people ask me if I knew her I say no, not because we weren't both in Houston at the same time, but because I didn't know her.

Also, if you will read pertinent parts of the book again carefully, you will find another instance of a “gross violation” of control by an elder in the affairs of another family that occurred in The Church in Houston after we left, in the early 1980s. (I’m not going to research the exact date; because, if you are willing to admit that there was control present in the Church during your first year [Jane’s case] and to admit to control in the Church just after you were gone or thereabouts [case described in The Thread of Gold], I would think that you would find it difficult to explain, much less to prove, how the control mysteriously disappeared in between.)

Once again, based on my experiences in Houston, which I have shared on public forums I do not doubt your story in the least. However, I was not aware of your situation, I was not aware of the other situation (I moved to Irving in June 1981), and in my own personal experience I was not aware of anything that could not be construed as being disciplined similar to the way a father would discipline a child. I did not stick my nose in other people's affairs, so unless you and Jane talked to me personally about your situation I would have been unaware of it.

Didn’t you go off topic?

After you deal with the gross control in The Church in Houston, I believe we could then have a decent discussion about possible campus control at Rice, but that was not exactly the topic I signed up for when I replied to your #27, point #6. If we do, I would then amend the topic to include more nuanced control and not just the “gross violation” that was occurring in the Church.

I think that the last sentence in my #31 may have led you to apply it only to Rice University. Actually, I merely intended that sentence to be a very brief synopsis of how control generally lined up with Anaheim in its flow, not to offer a way for ignoring my main point. I tacked it on to reflect my total Church experience in multiple Churches over a 20-year span, which includes our experience at the University of Houston and with U of H students who continued living with us after we moved away from the campus. From your point of view, however, after re-reading it, I can see how you might have taken it and applied it only to your experience at Rice, and I apologize if it misled you. Even with this mea culpa, keep in mind that I did not say that the elders were controlling the ones on the campuses. However, I have also not stated that they were not. Also, if it will help you to focus on the ramifications of the two main events that exhibited gross control in The Church in Houston, one in the ’78 and ’79 time frame, and the other one around, say, ’81 , then please ignore my last sentence in #31.

I shared this because my experience is quite different from others. Particularly BB, who shared his testimony about what happened when he met with Christians at UT in Austin. His experience took place at virtually the same time I was at Rice, yet I met with Christians frequently without any interference. Some have expressed incredulity at this and so I have come to realize that my experience was different because the elders and LSM hacks did not have access to our campus. Without a doubt there was a big difference between the campus work on Rice and the campus work on UH. Without any doubt the elders and LSM hacks did control the campus work on UH and that work, in my mind, was a dismal failure.

If a tree falls in a forest …

If you are simply going to repeat that it wasn’t your experience at Rice, I’ll just let you remain behind that cloistered wall. I’m not trying to be mean, but I do get bothered when someone states unequivocally that control didn’t exist in the very Church that was controlling my wife and me and those around us with whom we had worked faithfully for almost a decade, as well as controlling another family that left Houston after us. The control in both cases was carried out by Ray from Houston in concert with Benson from Dallas; so, I hope you will excuse me if I believe that you have a naïve view of their relationship. In addition, it seems to me that your understanding of the Max event, and Benson and Ray’s involvement in it, is also deficient.

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding here. I am not disputing your experience. I don't doubt that the TOC is an accurate portrayal of that experience. What I am saying is that the elders and LSM hacks did not control the work on Rice. Nothing more than that. I am not the one making blanket statements. It may be that they wanted to control it, but it was outside of their jurisdiction and they were unable to control it. Second, in my senior year at Rice we had 6 brothers, all of which were brought into fellowship with the church through the Gospel. By comparison UH had about 12, none of which were the result of the gospel. Why on earth would we want them to take control of our work? To my mind there was no gospel work on UH, they had a campus work and a brothers house, but no gospel.

After I get an answer to my question at the end of this post, I will consider discussing with you the elders in Texas, including those in Houston, and their conspiracies. Also, I might be willing to discuss the situation at Rice and whether or not there was any control there. Jane and I experienced the elders’ hands of control at the University of Houston, which you might factor in to your experience at Rice. Even though it was a few years earlier, I don’t imagine that control just disappeared since a culture of control had been established, especially not as long as Ray was still there. In such a discussion, I am quite willing to let you be the expert about all things Rice. If a tree fell in those woods, I wouldn’t have heard it.

They did exercise a lot of control. The biggest joke was whenever we had a gospel meeting the brother's most responsible for the work would run that meeting. These are brothers who you could know by their fruit, i.e. they were barren. However, DC, who was probably the most fruitful brother in Houston was only asked once to share a testimony, and never once asked to share one of those meetings. One reason was that he was a poor public speaker. Isn't it funny that here is a person that preached the gospel every day, who brought new gospel contacts to the meetings every month, and often every week, and yet he was a very poor speaker. To me that was a testimony that God is not a respecter of man's person. But it was certainly a bone of contention my last year at Rice. I and the other brothers on campus would share weekly our experiences in the gospel. We had fruit, we had experiences and we were not under the control of anyone. Yet, the gospel meetings were run by LSM hacks that had no fruit.

Main point

So, here is my main point again: You asked for an example of a “gross violation,” and I gave you the elders’ treatment of Jane Anderson. In 1978, Jane was in The Church in Houston under very strict, stern, and unreasonable discipline by the elders; in 1979, she was still there, suffering an almost indescribable torment on a daily basis. In 1978 and 1979, you were there, too (and so was I). The fact that you didn’t even realize that she was there when she had not too long before been a prominent sister (my words, not hers), just further proves my point that there was discipline, that it was severe, and that it succeeded in taking her out of her “function” for the duration of our time there. Jane and I were suffering a hellishly-inspired discipline that almost drove Jane mad and me into the hospital. You were in the same local body we were in; and, don’t forget, when one member suffers, all suffer with that person.


Question

So, I ask you, based on the experience of John and Jane Anderson, was there unwarranted gross control by the elders over the members of The Church in Houston during part of your time there?

Why would you ask me? Is there any reason why you would think that I was aware or had any knowledge of what was going on with you and Jane? Do you think I have some knowledge of this case or had fellowship with RG and know his mind on it?

Based on what I read in the TOC I believe the elders exhibited extreme control. Based on the time frame this took place at the same time that I met with the church.

The real issue is "was it unwarranted". In hindsight I think it clearly was based on false accusations made from Anaheim. But I remember the atmosphere at the time. Was it unwarranted for RG and BP to respond to those accusations? Of course not. Was it unwarranted that they responded in the way they did? Before I answer, one little aside...

Let's be realistic, RG had a full time job to support his family in addition to being elder and BP didn't live in Houston, these brothers didn't have the time or resources to do an investigation. Does this justify their actions? No. But this is a problem that all churches have when accusations are made, how do you respond. Look at how the Catholic church dealt with priests that were accused of being pedophiles. The reality of many congregations is that there are many unsubstantiated rumors and accusations made over the years and no one has adequate resources to deal with them. The Catholic church did not quarantine those priests and they are now being damned for it, RG and BP did quarantine you and they are being damned for it.

OK, the question you are asking should be asked of the Lord Jesus. It is not for me to judge if RK and BP were unwarranted in their actions, it is for Him to decide. I suppose if I heard their side of the story I would be better equipped to judge, but who am I? I have no more knowledge of this case that anyone else in the LRC other than the fact that I was in Houston. Proverbs discusses the things that God hates and making false accusations to cause division between brothers is at the top of the list. Therefore I believe the ones responsible for the false accusations should be held most accountable.