The LCS Factor

[Matt Anderson]

Preface:

The other posts to this thread since last night are interesting and good. I'm sticking with another theme (idolatry) a bit longer. Just call me little drummer boy. I've got my one little drum right now and I'm still banging away. I wrote something last night and didn't post it. I knew I didn't have the utterance for what I was trying to say yet. I woke up this morning with some more light on the matter.

I am going to say it. Hopefully, I can share what I have been seeing. I'm sharing it just as insight and nothing more or less.

Hope, I am not on the attack, but I am using your words as example to try and reframe and redraw a line which I believe you have set in the wrong place. I'm not proclaiming to have set it in the right place. I'm just going to try and uncover the core issues that help us know how to set the line in the right place. I may or may not get it in this attempt.

The Dividing Line on the "Vision" and Idolatry

By means of example, Hope has started to set a dividing line on the issue of idolatry. In summary, it goes like this: If you attached yourself to a group, a ministry or an allegiance to a man (i.e. WL) as some did then you were entering into a level of idolatry. Here is the quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

The vision was the big thing for me from the very beginning. I did not attach myself to a group or a ministry. This was difficult to explain to friends and family at the time. Everyone assumes you are attracted to personalities. James Barber always stressed that his vision was a man and that he followed WL just like Timothy followed Paul. For James, it was not Christ who is our life and the church as the Body of Christ but the ministry of WL. Benson Phillips had a very similar view. WL was God's man of faith and power for this hour. Thus, he attached himself to WL. Ray Graver was similar to Benson but with an even stronger view that included rendering service to the man of faith and power for this hour and seeking to duplicate that man in life and work. They were very successful in bringing this view into many of the local churches. Matt, here is where your premise of idolatry comes in.

When you set the line between that which is idolatrous and that which is not idolatrous in the way you describe, then it leaves room for the following idea:

A. There is a good "vision" that is okay.
B. There is a bad "vision" that is not okay.

Now, we have touched on the "vision" and I believe others have rightly agreed that the "vision" was something other than Christ alone. I believe you are seeing this something other than Christ alone as the attachment to a group, a ministry, or a man. I am not seeing it that way.

I am seeing the something other than Christ alone to include an ideal, a concept... A "vision"... even a good "vision".

Putting some more meat on the "vision"

Here is what I have come to understand about the "vision". In simple terms, the "vision" was a vision of the practical expression of the oneness of the Body of Christ on the earth through the testimony of a group of saints gathering together on the ground of locality.

In my mind, this is where the idolatry lies. I won't be able to fully explain my last statement in this post, but let's go to the Word before anyone gets too upset with me for such an extreme view!

Digging down on Idolatry

I've studied the issue of idolatry on a number of occasions. The first time was when I was about 17-18 years old. I read through Kings and Chronicles and was struck by all of the idolatry. It was everywhere. I looked up idolatry and read the definition. It was talking about graven images. I immediately thought about the Catholic Church. They had idols, but then in my little brain I had a second thought...

If idolatry was so widespread and pervasive among the children of Israel, I don't think it just went away or ended up in the Catholic Church alone.

This was a thought that opened a question for me with the Lord that hasn't closed even unto this day.

If you study the OT you will find that the definition of idolatry remains consistent. It's about physical objects that are images of things in heaven above, on the earth or in the sea. The definition doesn't really change throughout the OT.

So, how in the world can I (me, Matt) change the definition to point to an ideal, a concept... A vision?

Here is how. Paul did it, not me. Paul moved the idolatry from a physical object to the condition of one's heart. He tied it to covetousness. It's a pretty big leap, but a valid one.

Ephesians 5:5

ASV - For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

KJV - For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

NASB 95 - For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Let's get a reminder of "covetousness". In this case it comes from the following Greek word.

Strongs 4123 - [pleonektes /pleh-on-ek-tace/] n m. From 4119 and 2192; Four occurrences; AV translates as 'covetous' four times. 1 one eager to have more, esp. what belongs to others. 2 greedy of gain, covetous.

Here I will pause and give Hope a reminder... I'm going to use the most object example I know of with confirmable facts/deeds.

Hope, do you remember Benson in front of his world map? Look at the territory that he surveyed and decided that he was going to go after in the name of the Lord. Think about it again in light of what I am saying.

Benson attached himself to Lee and the LSM because he was already acting in idolatry. He did not commit idolatry because he attached himself to a group, a ministry or a man other than Christ. The idolatry was already there. Benson wanted something. Benson had already had a "vision" of leading a worldwide christian organization. The LC, the LSM and Lee were a means to an end... The satisfaction of Benson's covetousness for something other than Christ.

Now, I know I am speaking judgmentally. God forgive me. I'm judging with the same judgment that I have been judged. I've committed idolatry too. I wanted something and set my heart on it. In His mercy, God stopped me. Thank God.

Short-circuited Conclusion

I've said enough for now. I hope I am opening a window for at least some people to look through. I think I will need to say more, but for now I am going to add one more passage to this post and stop.

Titus 1:5-16 (NASB95)
5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. 10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' 13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

Matt

P.S. I am committing an apparent error of logic if this post is viewed in isolation when I use "idolater" vs. "idolatry" somewhat interchangeably. If someone sees it and questions it, I can prove out in the verses in Ephesians 5 that what I am saying is still valid.

[Hope]

Good Morning Roger,

I think you post is pretty much right on. I can remember thinking "why did you call me about that?" I always tried to treat all with respect and dignity but to tell a saint that what they had brought up for "fellowship" should be taken care of by themselves caused some to think you did not care for them. It was a catch 22. This whole fear of the hierarchy undermined any possibility of a healthy church and stunted everyone’s growth.

I can prove on almost any issue that was a chronic problem that deputy authority or some permutation of it was the root problem.

Perhaps later today I can make further comments. But basically I would only agree and maybe add a little twist here and there.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Hope]

Matt and others who have taken on the "Vision" thing.

Vision can cut both ways. A flawed vision or false vision can lead to all kinds of problems. Constantly talking about vision can lead to the ridiculous circle of vision about the importance of vision. The whole New Testament is an unveiling or revelation regarding out wonderful Father God and the blessed Savior Jesus Christ. If your vision of the Christian life does not have the Love of God as a center piece then at best your vision is 10,000 miles off the mark.

Actually there is quite a bit in the N T about vision or revelation. Here are just a touch of verses:

Acts 26:19, Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
Eph 3:9-11, And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Rom 16:25-26, Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Eph 3:3-5, that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

Hey Matt, thanks for getting why I put that in about Benson's vision of leading the worldwide Christian organization. See, I knew you were very very smart. If you have this piece of information, you can understand a lot of what eventually unfolded. If you put covetousness with idolatry then things are pretty clear.

I must leave for the day. I believe the discussion currently going on does indeed get to the heart of many matters. I would like to say more but my time is gone. I will be praying tonight specifically for some of the saints' whose families are suffering and would welcome any to join in. Sheryl and I will be fasting at supper in order to have the time to pray for this need.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Hope

Actually there is quite a bit in the N T about vision or revelation. Here are just a touch of verses:

...

Rom 16:25-26, Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;

Hope, Don Rutledge

Just a quick thought on the "vision" thing...

Paul's conversion is often cited as one marked by receiving a "vision." Witness Lee points out that Paul saw that even though he was persecuting a whole group of individuals, he realized that he was simply just persecuting Jesus Himself. And thereby, it is said, Paul from the start had a vision of the Body.

I think there is some validity to this. I want to emphasize another aspect of that conversion experience:

"Who are you, Lord."

Before Paul understood anything about the Christian faith, he understood that the One speaking to him was his MASTER. Paul knew He was "Lord" before he saw anything else.

We can say much about what Paul "saw" thereafter and throughout his ministry. But this was the cornerstone - obedience to the Lord's voice.

Perhaps, this is why in the Romans 16 verses which Hope quoted, the outcome of the "revelation of the mystery" (i.e. "vision") is "leading to obedience of faith.

If a larger "vision" preceeds understanding that ONLY HE is Lord, then we can, even with good intentions, end up serving Masters other than our Lord - and we can do it "in His name." (See Matt. 7). When our "core" vision is "the church" or "building God's house" or whatever, we can "hear" God's commands to us in ways He really might not be speaking - if you know what I mean. We "see" and "hear" God in places where he is not in actuality. And ironically, we do this in service of Him and in service of "the vision."

And yet we forget the most foundational revelation: He is Lord.

Just some quick, disjointed thoughts.

Grace to you,

Peter

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Matt

Hope, do you remember Benson in front of his world map? Look at the territory that he surveyed and decided that he was going to go after in the name of the Lord. Think about it again in light of what I am saying.

Benson attached himself to Lee and the LSM because he was already acting in idolatry. He did not commit idolatry because he attached himself to a group, a ministry or a man other than Christ. The idolatry was already there. Benson wanted something. Benson had already had a "vision" of leading a worldwide Christian organization. The LC, the LSM and Lee were a means to an end... The satisfaction of Benson's covetousness for something other than Christ.

Now, I know I am speaking judgmentally. God forgive me. I'm judging with the same judgment that I have been judged. I've committed idolatry too. I wanted something and set my heart on it. In His mercy, God stopped me. Thank God.

Excellent point.

Of course someone will point out that we all have some sort of vision about something in our life that is not Christ, but does not replace Christ. Surely we do not go through life with no direction. To have a "vision" of something beyond the immediate future is not necessarily a problem.

Unless that vision usurps Christ's place. So it is not entirely about having a vision, but of the prominence that vision receives in our life.

I'm sure that an LC apologist would try to make the case that this lesser vision was what Benson had. But the track record does speak of something much greater than that. It got between him and any kind of proper dealing with others. Even if you are willing to accept some reasonable hierarchy, the one he lead in the Texas region was beyond reasonable. If you expect an elder to be a shepherd, it is odd that shepherds do not go around slaughtering a sheep that they think is getting too far outside the flock. Instead they should leave the flock and diligently search for a lost sheep.

Here are the sheep in the LC. Here are the stories of the LC faithful who were railed upon, humiliated, meddled with, and in some cases cast aside — all for the glory of "Christ and the church": (Just fixed one of those subliminal errors. I originally wrote "gory.")

"I went downstairs, outside. I crept up into the barn. I was so scared to look inside, but I had to."
"And what did you see, Clarice? What did you see?"
"Lambs. The lambs were screaming."
"They were slaughtering the spring lambs?"
"And they were screaming."

I know. This is way over the top, and the "vision thing" may be somewhat off topic (I'll let others decide). But as I wrote the part about an elder as a shepherd, this immediately came to mind.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Matt

Here is what I have come to understand about the "vision". In simple terms, the "vision" was a vision of the practical expression of the oneness of the Body of Christ on the earth through the testimony of a group of saints gathering together on the ground of locality.

In my mind, this is where the idolatry lies.

I think the teaching is fine in and of itself, but even as a teaching it's not nearly as big a deal as the Local Church made it out to be and among them it was in fact turned into something that is probably rightly called idolatry.

If you and I meet seemingly randomly at the grocery and we end up sharing the verses we've been enjoying so that I can see the Lord's shining on your face and you can see Him shining on mine and those around us can see it too (tell me I'm the only one this has ever happened to) then, right at that moment, what do you have? I'm in this place and you're in this place and when we meet and Christ is displayed there, we are the assembly in this place. You have "the practical expression of the oneness of the Body of Christ on the earth through the testimony of a group of saints gathering together on the ground of locality," as long as you don't require that the "whole church" come together to satisfy some religious locality test.

It's really not rocket science.

The reality of Christ manifesting practically in the meetings of the believers constitutes something very unique and very important in the universe. But the Local Church takes a couple of little verses in Matt. 18 and turns it into the excuse to have standing orders from LSM for the latest HWMR books. The stretch is incredible and I'm sure no one else made the leap with me just now. Let me try phrasing it this way: once you have your "church you can go to" then you must have all these other things in place and handled correctly according to the teachings of the "universal church," which of course includes all the things we've all been vomiting up here for weeks and months.

Poppycock!

When we receive one another freely without judgment wherever we happen to be and Christ is present in those meetings and thereby glorified in His saints, that poor little locality doctrine just has nothing else to do.

Please don't try to turn it into the foundation of another particular flavor of "universal church" whatever you do!

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by OBW

and the "vision thing" may be somewhat off topic (I'll let others decide).

OBW,

Here is why I think laying hold of and committing yourself ("bow down and serve") to any kind of "vision" is still on track for this thread when the "vision" is something other than Christ. The original question was about the impacts of the LCS on the next generation.

Take a close look at the commandment on idolatry. I've rebolded another section of it that ties to this thread.

Ex 20:2-6
I am the Lord thy God that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not maken unto thee any graven image nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them neither shalt thou serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous god, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me and showing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me.

Bluntly put, look what happens to the subsequent generations of fathers who enter into the iniquity of idolatry. This can be stopped through repentance, but repentance is required.

This is part of the story of my family. The Lord put another key example in my personal path that has helped to clarify this further for me.

Matt

P.S. Amen to Peter's thoughts on this subject. And YP's for that matter too. Okay, well, you too, Mom.

[OBW]

Matt,

I was not suggesting that it was necessarily off topic. I had my own thoughts both ways. I have had even more thoughts since then.

Actually, I think that idolatry is probably a very real issue. There might also be other issues. But as part of my further thoughts on the issue, I'm beginning to wonder if throwing the term "idolatry" around might be sort of like my tendency to throw the "C" word around.

I'm not saying that either is not true, but that idolatry is a term that, no matter how we show it to mean more than bowing to a graven image, it has charged meanings that differ among the various people participating and lurking here.

The real issue is in the make-up of the fact that we call idolatry. It is in the expanded definitions. It is about the heart and intent. It is about what comes first (and who's on second).

At some level, the only thing we clearly know is the fruit of the tree. We can point to certain things and think that maybe the issue is the soil, or the water, or a need for fertilizer. But the thing that clearly marks the tree is the fruit.

There are ways to sweep ambition, misguided following, closed-minded dogma, and much more into "idolatry." I'm not sure that it helps the conversation. Instead, it sweeps us into a frenzy.

Now we need the energy of that frenzy at times, but what does collecting a lot of symptoms into a label do? It will alienate those who ride the fence or are still quite “in” the LC but are open to consider.

Rather than talk about idolatry, we can talk about specific instances of LC abuse. For example, Benson has essentially said that he is proud of his actions relating to Jane. He says he did it for the church. When I look at the things he did then, I would have to ask myself, “what kind of church needs this kind of bullying to protect it and would tolerate such a person as one of its primary leaders?” That is clear. We have observed the fruit and can honestly question the source even if we do not know the details about it. Since the examples are coming out of the woodwork, can we let them speak of the fruit of a bad tree? We can separately (different thread?) discuss the fullness of what we believe is the problem with the tree (idolatry, among others).

This is not a complaint about the actual content of the idolatry discussion. It is an opinion about this thread which began as “what role, if any, do you think the LCS played in the development of these behaviors?” We’ve seen Benson’s role in some cases. A couple of them have been heralded strongly. We are now seeing a few others. I expect there to be more. Some will be stronger than others. Some will border on uncertainty about how clearly the LC was responsible. I think if you look at what I wrote to BlessD about myself you can see that the LC played a big part, although not as clearly as it did for her.

Is it necessary that within this thread we figure out what spiritual label to put on these evil doers? Is allowing the evidence of the various ones who were actually affected by the LC without distraction from other things worthwhile? Might a separation of the “why” discussion from the “how it played out” discussion be useful?

Just some honest questions. (BTW. If you are up on Meyers-Briggs personality types, look up INTP. It says volumes about the way I stick myself into these kinds of things. It also tells why I don’t always understand why others complain sometimes. No excuse — just what I’m dealing with.)

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I think that idolatry is probably a very real issue. There might also be other issues. But as part of my further thoughts on the issue, I'm beginning to wonder if throwing the term "idolatry" around might be sort of like my tendency to throw the "C" word around.

I understood most of what you were saying in your post. The one distinction I think should be drawn between "idolatry" and the "C" word is that the "cult" word is just a label that is a noun.

Idolatry is a specific act of sinfulness described by the Word of God that our behavior can be measured against. I used the Benson example because it was so extreme and clear. I think there are lesser examples that still have application, but it is left to the reader to approach the Lord for their own part. I'm pointing at the Word (with some level of implication) on this subject of idolatry. Without seeing and understanding it, it can be just another label, like the "cult" word.

It's been a 17 year journey for my eyes to slowly open to see it more clearly in my own life. As the light shines, I'm getting better focus on it. It's another one of those things that even with all my good efforts, I can't really get it right apart from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Psa 19:1-14 For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. (2) Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth knowledge. (3) There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard. (4) Their line is gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, (5) Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. (6) His going forth is from the end of the heavens, And his circuit unto the ends of it; And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (7) The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul: The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple. (8) The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes. (9) The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring for ever: The ordinances of Jehovah are true, and righteous altogether. (10) More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb. (11) Moreover by them is thy servant warned: In keeping them there is great reward. (12) Who can discern his errors? Clear thou me from hidden faults. (13) Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me: Then shall I be upright, And I shall be clear from great transgression. (14) Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in thy sight, O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer.

Matt

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Matt

I understood most of what you were saying in your post. The one distinction I think should be drawn between "idolatry" and the "C" word is that the "cult" word is just a label that is a noun.

Idolatry is a specific act of sinfulness described by the Word of God that our behavior can be measured against.

And I agree. But even when you take it to the action level, it is still a label, albeit of an action. It is also a state of being of the heart. For that reason, the limits of its reach could be enormous. But discussing idolatry does not demonstrate how the LC played a role in the development of behaviors. It is trying to find out why the LC played a role.

I am not disparaging the actual discussion. I think that the how and the why should be separated. Let the two carry on separately. Here is why I think that separation is worthwhile:

I think this may have been one of the problems with the little fiasco of the past couple of days. The original issue was how. But even the originator of the thread started trying to answer why. And Don stepped in provided examples of how he tried to avoid those things. We now have three topics going on simultaneously; how (with examples), why (with analysis and accusations), and how not (also with examples). In hindsight, no matter where it started, it begins to seem that each person saw the whole of the thread in terms of the angle they were addressing (how, why, why not, how not) and not reading others within their proper contexts. When “why” is read as “how,” it suddenly says something different than was intended. We all got caught up in it. We brought BlessD into the mix and seemed to be disparaging her account, although I do not believe that was ever intended. I eventually saw certain things. I may think I was clear on some of them, but I probably was not on all, and maybe none.

I read people on both sides who quoted the person with whom they were disagreeing and then read their characterization and wondered if it was entirely fair and accurate. I did not keep notes on specifics, but I could go back in and find some. I would rather not. We all would probably be embarrassed at some level — including me.

That leads me to question whether we are doing ourselves a favor to continue to have two different aspects of one thing discussed at the same time when we have already seen an example of what can go wrong. Yes, we could try to be more careful. But it may not be worth the risk.

I know I could be beating a dead horse. It is still just an opinion. If you understand my concern and still disagree, I’m quite OK with it. I just want to be sure you understand my concern.

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, I think that idolatry is probably a very real issue. There might also be other issues. But as part of my further thoughts on the issue, I'm beginning to wonder if throwing the term "idolatry" around might be sort of like my tendency to throw the "C" word around.

Mike,

Yes, we must take care. The term "idolatry" as defined by individual Christians, can eventually be used to exclude everyone. Sometimes it almost seems that idolatry is in the eyes of the beholder.

There are dear brothers and sisters in the Living Stream Church who don't have the slightest clue that they are engaging in idolatry. And you know what? If in their hearts they don't know it, then the Lord will ultimately only judge them according to what they know in their hearts.

So, I guess you are right Mike. We must be careful how we sling words around. Did I say that? Guess I did.

I think it's important to expose the problems, while at the same time know how to preserve those who are innocently following.

Roger

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Roger

So, I guess you are right Mike. We must be careful how we sling words around. Did I say that? Guess I did.

Yep, and so should I. I know I gave you an earful recently. I've had terrible misgivings over it even though I felt so strongly justified at the time.

(I had privately told Pat that he had just stepped lower than I had ever seen him go. I told him to count to ten, take his wife to dinner, go to a meeting. Then I turned around and lambasted you in public. Go figure. Some phrase about pots and kettles comes to mind.) (That smilie will have to do. There isn't a red-faced embarrased, sheepish look guy in there to pick from.)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

Hope, do you remember Benson in front of his world map? Look at the territory that he surveyed and decided that he was going to go after in the name of the Lord. Think about it again in light of what I am saying.

Benson attached himself to Lee and the LSM because he was already acting in idolatry. He did not commit idolatry because he attached himself to a group, a ministry or a man other than Christ. The idolatry was already there. Benson wanted something. Benson had already had a "vision" of leading a worldwide christian organization. The LC, the LSM and Lee were a means to an end... The satisfaction of Benson's covetousness for something other than Christ.

Nearly every time WL discussed our history of "storms and rebellions," he attempted to set the "axe to the root" and called it "hidden ambition." We all bought into that explanation. We thought he was a wise, old brother who could discern brother's hearts. I have now, for the most part, rejected that explanation.

Based on your comments here, Matt, why was the blame never placed on ones like BP, who was so "absolute." He was never called "ambitious." Whether he used WL or whether WL used him is another matter also. In the past 50-60 years, just about every brother of conscience, who steps forward with heartfelt concerns, was silenced and judged as being "ambitious."

In other words, following your line of thought, all those who leaned towards idolatry, by being absolute for WL and his ministry, later were rewarded by WL with positive encouragement and praise, while all those who ever resisted some part of his ministry, for conscience sake, were judged as "ambitious."

I find this part of WL's ministry just plain rotten.

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nearly every time WL discussed our history of "storms and rebellions," he attempted to set the "axe to the root" and called it "hidden ambition." We all bought into that explanation. We thought he was a wise, old brother who could discern brother's hearts. I have now, for the most part, rejected that explanation.

Based on your comments here, Matt, why was the blame never placed on ones like BP, who was so "absolute." He was never called "ambitious." Whether he used WL or whether WL used him is another matter also. In the past 50-60 years, just about every brother of conscience, who steps forward with heartfelt concerns, was silenced and judged as being "ambitious."

In other words, following your line of thought, all those who leaned towards idolatry, by being absolute for WL and his ministry, later were rewarded by WL with positive encouragement and praise, while all those who ever resisted some part of his ministry, for conscience sake, were judged as "ambitious."

I find this part of WL's ministry just plain rotten.

Ohio,

Thanks for bringing out this fact. Benson and Ray were two of the most focused persons I have ever known. They were the poster boys for "Purpose Driven." And what was the focus? You guessed it. They wanted to be in charge. There was one sure way to get on Benson's bad side. That was to exert initiative without his approval. On the other hand there was a sure way to get on his good side. Be "useful" for his objectives. Of course you can find this phrase "useful to me" in Philemon. When he referred to a saint in a favorable way, he almost always used the phrase he or she is useful. I have heard him discuss up coming marriages from the vantage point of will the usefulness of the brother or sister be increased or decreased.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS My memory has failed me on who won that game with Texas for the national title. Help me out.