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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I’m responding to some things in some recent posts. Just to be clear, it was in 1990, not in 1977, that I was involved in trying to save the marriage which Ben M was breaking up.

John and I both now believe that Ben’s weeping (see The Thread of Gold, p 162, “A Weeping Brother”) was evidence of his being convicted, while still in Houston, about his failing moral condition. After the “weeping meeting,” Ben followed up with John and me concerning our fellowship in that meeting about church couples needing marriage help and told us that he also believed this was a real need. He wanted to do something in the church there to help in that vein and wanted us to be involved (The Thread of Gold, p. 169, at the end of “A Baton Rouge Outpost”).

We now believe that Ben’s weeping and his subsequent fellowship with us about help for marriages was evidence of his being in a frame of mind to take steps towards possibly getting help with his own problems. If he had remained as the leading elder in Houston and been allowed to try to do something on behalf of couples and marriages, he might have been saved from the terrible path he traveled down. Benson and Ray’s control of him put a stop to this possibility.

John and I believe that Ben’s removal from Houston may have been due to (1) Ben having “lost his authority” (in Benson and Ray’s minds) when he showed weakness by weeping in front of others and (2) Ben possibly telling Ray of his desire to do something to help couples in Houston. Marriage help was definitely not in the Witness Lee program; and, those of us who know Ray, know that if he heard of such an idea, alarm bells would have been set off in his Lee-saturated psyche; i.e., an elder who wanted to do something in the church in Houston to help couples could not be left in place as the leading elder.

Ray was in the “weeping” meeting (7 people present); and, we learned years later from Ben, that Ray called Benson (in Dallas) immediately after that meeting to report on it. It was only a matter of months after this meeting when the boom descended on us and also when Ben was moved away from Houston. I don't think this was the reason they came down on us, but our situation and Ben’s were not unrelated.

Thankful Jane

Care for marriages is something that is in need. As much now as it was when you and John were in Houston.
Is this what you were set aside for; wanting to help couples? It's our soul that needs shepherding.
It's fine if you have meetings every night of the week, but if there's unresolved matters in a marriage, meetings won't make the matters go away. Unresolved issues will still be present for the brother and the sister when they go to their home. These couples enduring the problems are the ones that have to live it.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Terry

Care for marriages is something that is in need. As much now as it was when you and John were in Houston.
Is this what you were set aside for; wanting to help couples?

The reasons for what happened to us are not simple, but I would say, yes, part of what we got in trouble for was moving/thinking outside the LSM box. (You know, like thinking about people and their needs ). Note that we never said a word against Lee or his ministry (because at the time we had no idea that his teachings and practices were at the root of the problems we were seeing). We were, however, beginning to have questions about some in the Texas leadership, but these were voiced privately to only a few people we were close to (including one of the Houston elders, Joe Davis). We thought our concerns were in line with the Bible and the Lord, who clearly cares about people.

It seems that some of the powers that existed saw us as promoting things that might weaken the all important LSM focus. To talk about meeting people's needs in any way other than saying they just needed to call on the Lord was a bit too radical.

[OBW]

Jane,

Thanks for bringing several of the otherwise diverse items from the book together, as well as some additional clarification. I must admit that I was doing nothing more than suggesting a possibility when I mentioned a "smoke screen." I don't think I knew, or recalled, anything that indicated that BP or RG did nor didn't know about BM's issues. But getting a quick review of the events surrounding the "weeping" meeting does clear some things up. I had always wondered how it was that they could make reference to the so-called rebellion as causing the fall of a brother if it was about his ultimate problem. That was his own failing and no one else's.

But even at that, I can't figure out how to say that anyone else was at fault for his "falling." Unless they really didn't care about the weeping, but only about BM's apparent interest in your direction, which they took as being some kind of rejection of Lee's direction and therefore a falling away from the Lee-ordained truth.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by OBW

But even at that, I can't figure out how to say that anyone else was at fault for his "falling." Unless they really didn't care about the weeping, but only about BM's apparent interest in your direction, which they took as being some kind of rejection of Lee's direction and therefore a falling away from the Lee-ordained truth.

Hi OBW,

You are welcome.

If I understand correctly what I quoted above from you, you are thinking about why I would place any blame on the brothers for what Ben did in Arlington/Irving and later in 1990. There are several reasons I place some blame on them for what happened with Ben.

1) The first is that both Joe Davis and Ray saw their fellow elder, Ben, sobbing uncontrollably with his head in his hands. That was pretty atypical behavior for him, I'd say. Ben clearly had some kind of serious problem. It seems to me that a normal course of action would be for Ray and/or Joe to find out what was wrong and seek to help him. Did they? I don't know, but it seems doubtful.

I won't speculate about how far Ben had fallen at that time, but his tears showed that his conscience was still functioning and if they had pressed him, he might have confessed his problem. The facts that 1) they moved him to an eldership position in Arlington, where he continued to fall, and 2) his sin wasn't discovered until he was an elder in Irving, seem to indicate that they didn't discover the reason for his weeping in Houston. Of course, I could be wrong about what they did or didn't do (and even why Ben wept). I am only speculating based on the evidence I have in hand, but this is what I think and will continue to believe until I am given reason to think otherwise.

2) Secondly, when Ben's sin was found out in Irving, the involved Texas brothers are clearly to blame for not helping him at that time. Don R acknowledges this in his post. Instead, they took unbiblical advice from Lee and moved Ben away. Then they basically left him to find his own way. We know how that turned out. Only the Lord knows what happened with Ben during the ensuing years until 1990, when he made his move on the elders' wife.

So, yes, Ben's falling was his own sin and he bears the primary responsibility for it, but I believe that his fellow elders and companions of many years, who did not love him enough to go the distance to rescue and restore him, will have to give account for their failure to love him. In my view, Ben was ultimately sacrificed to preserve the reputation of the Texas Local Churches and Witness Lee's ministry. In 1990, their cover-up came back to bite them. I am not expecting others to embrace my view. I'm just sharing it. I was too closely involved in the 90s event and know too many details about that time to be able to think otherwise.

And after having said all this...if I have misunderstood your pondering and have responded in a way that is far off track, I'm sorry. Just let me know with some clarification and I'll try again .

Thankful Jane

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

And after having said all this...if I have misunderstood your pondering and have responded in a way that is far off track, I'm sorry. Just let me know with some clarification and I'll try again .

Actually, that was not what I was talking about. But if I had, then I would agree with you.

I was noting that back in 1977, what on earth could they have called the failure (or whatever word) of one of them if they knew nothing about his propensity to roam in the way that he may have before (unknown) and ultimately did.

I have concluded that if something you (generically, those of you proposing this "new thing") said caused Ben to weep so strongly, and got him openly interested in the proposal, then the other elders might arguably have "one of them" who had slipped out of the "toe-the-Lee-line-and-nothing-else" fellowship. That would be a great failure in their mind. It wasn't until this little discussion that I figured out what it was they were talking about.

Since Ben was in Arlington so quickly after that, it makes you wonder whether that was already under way or they really do control things so completely with respect to the "truly committed." (I think they should all be committed — truly. )

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

It seems that some of the powers that existed saw us as promoting things that might weaken the all important LSM focus. To talk about meeting people's needs in any way other than saying they just needed to call on the Lord was a bit too radical.

Jesus was radical. His Ministry was in oppsition to the status quo; the world system. In His speaking and in His parables, Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of religion.

Matthew 23:1-3
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, this is very clear.

"Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. "And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. "Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. "But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. "On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Luke 10:30-35

Jesus' parable shows the priest and levite did not do the deeds they talk about. Why did Jesus use a samaritan in His parable? Maybe in part because Samaritans were despised and Hebrews wanted nothing to do with them. Jesus was radical in exposing the Pharisees of their hypocrisy in the parable. What the pharisees would not do, a despised Samaritan (a type of Christ) did do.
My point is just as Jesus was despised for being radical, so were you Jane for not conforming to the system. For all the zeal the brothers had and still have for Witness Lee's ministry, you did not. You wanted to follow Jesus and in doing so, you were not bound by ministries of men.