The LCS Factor

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Roger

Do as you like on your forum.

Roger

It's not my forum. You should note that on the Berean's I never brought this subject up. Did I suddenly become unreasonable? Or has my view always been different than others?

I didn't bring it up because I did have some "lordship" over there and it would have been inappropriate for me to do it in that environment. It is appropriate here.

Originally Posted by Ohio

One of the common threads with them both is that neither had any positive experiences in the LC's, that I have heard of. Their point of view is not balanced by anything sweet of Christ

I understand that you haven't heard about any positive experiences of mine in the LC, but to claim that my point of view isn't balanced by anything sweet of Christ is completely false.

I've actually had some of the exact same kind of experience that many here talk about in the "early days" of the LC where the Lord was among you and He was the head over the meetings in a body of believers who were not under any kind of deputy control. I really enjoyed those times.

In fact, those meetings were with ex-LCer's who claimed that although the meetings weren't as large, they were just as rich with the Lord among us.

So let me re-emphasize that point: I have tasted the presence of the Lord and seen the work of the Holy Spirit in a christian context much like what you experienced in the early days of the LC. God arranged it for me with witnesses who can attest to the fact that it was like that. This was in the early to mid 90's.

I believe that on every point of "credentials" you can throw at me, I am "credentialed". I have no "credentials" from men. No degree. No seminary education. I have never been a "member" of a denomination. I have only consecrated myself to the Lord plus nothing. I meet with other believers in an elder driven church which has the freedoms that the LC lacks. I am steeped in the teachings of the inner life and can testify to "Christ in me, the hope of glory". God has been real to me in my personal walk with him. The Body of Christ has ministered to me over many years to bring me from a bad state towards one with a healthier walk in the Lord. What else do you want to try me on? Make a list.

Note: Keep in mind. My witness is not just my own. It's backed up by two parents who have all the time you require and desire for someone to be able to speak up on this subject.

I am not being prideful. I am checking your statements against the facts of my life. Your statements don't hold.

Feel free to trot out here and perform some character assassination. I can deal with it. I'm not being belligerent. I'm just going to be steadfast in presenting some information about idolatry.

Matt

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

I understand that you haven't heard about any positive experiences of mine in the LC, but to claim that my point of view isn't balanced by anything sweet of Christ is completely false.

I believe that on every point of "credentials" you can throw at me, I am "credentialed". I have no "credentials" from men.

Feel free to trot out here and perform some character assassination.

Brother Matt,

I never implied that you have never tasted the sweetness of Christ, not at all, only that it was not in an LC context. Are you now saying that during your time in the LC, you had many sweet times in the Lord?

I understand you to mean that there were ex-LC'ers present, but that isn't the same. I'm sure those times were rich and sweet indeed. So ... you were disagreeing with something I didn't say. Sorry about the confusion ...

I don't think being in the GLA LC's from the mid-70's makes me at all "credentialed." But your comments about the church in Dallas, as Hope described it, neither makes you adequately "credentialed" to dispute him, don't you think? If you have not lived in Dallas for a period of time in the church while Hope served there, how can you discredit his comments while there?

I only compared your views on "idolatry" with Moran's views on "cults." There was no character assassination. It is a valid observation, is it not? Both of you had some first hand experience with the LC's, so your views are very important. But those views are not balanced by a memory of sweetness. That was my only point. The point is not derogatory of you personally. Many others have only bitter memories of the LC's. To date, I have only heard of those times when you "resisted the program," if that was a fair way to describe it.

The only rebuttal you can make about my last post is to come forth and tell the posters that the sweetness of Christ, i.e. "Taste and see that the Lord is good," was tasted by you while you were meeting with with the LC's.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I understand you to mean that there were ex-LC'ers present, but that isn't the same. I'm sure those times were rich and sweet indeed. So ... you were disagreeing with something I didn't say. Sorry about the confusion ...

It's the same Lord. It's His little ones gathered together in His name. It's His Spirit moving and speaking. If it's not the same sweetness, then either

a) something is wrong with the group I was meeting with
b) something is wrong with the group you were meeting with
c) there is something special about the group you were meeting with that makes the presence of the Lord there more in some way than the presence of the Lord in the gathering I was in.

Do you have additional options? Please present them. I'm interested.

What you have to think about here is the very real possibility that I have experienced the same thing you have in a different setting (not LC specific).

The meetings I have been to most recently were in LSM driven localities and they were not good. When I went to some other Midwest localities, they were better.

I don't think being in the GLA LC's from the mid-70's makes me at all "credentialed." But your comments about the church in Dallas, as Hope described it, neither makes you adequately "credentialed" to dispute him, don't you think? If you have not lived in Dallas for a period of time in the church while Hope served there, how can you discredit his comments while there?

I lived for 15 years in Dallas and know a number of young people that grew up there. I have attended meetings in the Church in Dallas after Hope's departure. My parents helped to initiate the Church in Dallas at it's inception before it was "organized" under the LSM/LC.

But no, I'm not specifically "credentialed" to dispute Hope on the topic of Dallas. I am "credentialed" enough to object to his characterization that it was better from the "systematic" point of view.

You need to read back through what he says and realize that the main party he is carving out of the picture is himself. When challenged on issues related to Dallas the response is that he and his family tried to do it differently. I do believe him and there is fruit demonstrated even here on this forum that what he says is true about his own efforts.

These efforts do not counter the environmental effects of the LC environment.

When Hope indicates that he started removing his own children from LSM driven activities this is a clear indication that even he knows the system was messed up and would have an adverse impact on the 2nd generation.

I don't really have to have my own "credentials" in regards to Dallas. I have the witness of others including Hope himself. There are other witnesses that have spoken up on this very forum (at least two: bookworm, Process).

Dallas shouldn't be painted black, but it shouldn't be painted white either. It should be painted with the same color of gray as the rest of the LC with a little whitening effect for the time that Hope was there. What about now? I can tell you that now it is the same color of gray as the rest of the LC. It is an LSM/LC church. It's no exception in 2008. It succumbed to the strong influence of the LC system just like many others have.

I have personal access to quite a few members of the church in Dallas and we could have a very direct conversation with direct witnesses on this subject in a face-to-face mode. I'm willing for truth to be established concretely.

Final Note:

Brother Ohio,

Truly, I'm not offended with you Ohio. I'm just holding your statements up to the light, just as you are doing to some of what I am saying.

Questions:
a) Would you ever go back into the RCC? Why not?
b) Would you ever go back into an LSM/LC driven church? Why not?

Matt

[Nell]

Matt,

I appreciate your obedience to the Lord. I don't want to stand before Him one day with any sin in my life of any kind. The light is bright on this thread and I want to pay attention to what He is saying to me about sin. Judgment begins at the house of the Lord, and as I look around at what's going on, I think we must be there.

Nell

[Hope]

Hello Forum and special greetings to Matt,

Quote from Matt
My initial reaction to this thread and my decision to post here was based on a key fact. Hope was trying to exclude his locality from the rest of the Texas bunch. I stood up in opposition to this attempt. The reason I did is not because Dallas was the best or worst, but because it was part of a whole set of churches that were under the strong sway of an idolatrous system that was engineered and whose engineering started all the way back in the mid-60's.

This quote says a lot Matt. Actually I was attempting to counter the broad brush approach of dj and a few other posters. I had no idea we were headed toward a discussion of idolatry. This is a false premise, simple and basic. I prefer to speak about what I know personally and directly. Often you see the phrase in the NT “seen and heard.” The apostles spoke about what they had seen and heard. I would prefer to only address what I do know. Of course there were many commonalities among the various churches in Texas. For the most part they all flowed out of Houston and then also out of Dallas and then Austin etc.

Benson Phillips was the very dominating leader. In my opinion he possessed the first gift mentioned in Rom 12:8, he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. NASB Benson was an incredible leader. He shaped everyone and one thing he will never be accused of is being lazy. Look up the word diligence in the dictionary and you will find his picture. But isn’t it interesting that showing mercy follows the mention of the gift of leading and is of equal importance with all the other gifts of teaching, prophesy etc. The mutual life of the believers in the Body of Christ cannot work well without some of the members having this gift of showing mercy. (I love to fellowship on Romans chapter 12 and the gift of showing mercy.)

Matt, your above quote shows the mindset, bias, to throw everyone into the same bucket. Unfortunately when anyone tries to point out to you that your view may be anything less than a true report or conclusion or it is time to reconsider at least a little, you take offense that people are trying to shut you up. Perhaps you could consider ole Billy Shakespeare, when he said “me thinks thou dost protest too much.”

Hope's warning based on Edom has validity, but it must be set in context. Edom is a type of the flesh and God will completely and utterly deal with the flesh.

Types are good. I think sometimes we can overwork types. Witness Lee may have been among the all time best teachers of types but he often missed the simple points of an OT passage. Matt, I appreciate your study of the OT and of idolatry. I have studied the OT some myself and have found idolatry to be very relevant to today’s society and church. But many times it is best to just first of all take the OT story for what it is and let the Lord speak to the reader regarding his own current situation. I believe the story of Edom could have a message for the former members of the LC who have a valid interest in pointing out the errors of the system.

Is Hope saying that everything being said against the LC is just coming from the "flesh"? If not, how does Hope separate it out in his mind? As an estimate what percentage of what is being said is from the "flesh" versus what percentage is coming from some acting like the prophets? Jeremiah weeped because he saw the judgment coming on Judah and it broke his heart. This is from the Spirit of God. Edom mocked and ridiculed Judah when the judgment was coming. This was not from the Spirit of God, it was in the "flesh". (Note: I don't claim to be a prophet, nor do I claim to operate solely apart from the "flesh")

Matt, I assume you were speaking rhetorically when you called of my take of the percentage of flesh vs the percentage of Spirit. I prefer not to get too fine in analysis and then too sweeping in conclusion. This is a common error I see among zealous Christians.

What will we do if and when the LC is judged? Where is our heart? Notice I say, "if". I don't presume they will be in any way that is completely obvious from an outside viewpoint.

I am not presuming, be assured that judgment is coming and has already begun. The LSM will be judged in this age and the coming age. As it is unfolding, I do not want to be with Edom.

If our words against the teachings and practices of the LC come from the "flesh" then we should integrate some Godly fear. If however, we speak more like the prophets attempting to remind a people whose ears have been closed, then we should fear not speaking more than we fear this warning from Hope.

How about fearing both without prejudice. I know that is not easy.

If it is a reference to the "testimony" of the individual saints and the Lord in their lives, then there is absolutely no disagreement.

However, If it is a reference to the "testimony" of the group as a collective, then it is quite another thing. We move closer to the heart of the problem and why I think there is still a thought being held that is wrong according to the Lord.

Yes, and yes, the Lord’s testimony is the Lord’s testimony. Our job is not to parse out which context we like or do not like but to recognize whatever God has done. If my history continues, I now realize I will need to bring out more of the positive experiences of the group as a collective as well as individual experiences. Thank you for the input.

1. What do you propose we should keep from the "collective" / "corporate" experience of the LC? Let us see it and inspect it in the light of God's Word. Please be as specific as possible. This is a kind of challenge, but not because I am trying to cause you a problem. I really want to know what are the good things you are holding onto from the "collective" / "corporate" experience of the LC.

Matt, as a student of the OT, you know there was always a mixed bag with the Israelites, the Kings etc. They had good days and bad days. The same with the early churches and with the seven churches in Revelation chapters 1-3. The Bible is faithful to tell of both. How about us? The LSM can only speak of the good days, real or imagined. They can only refer to John Ingalls, Bill Mallon etc in evil terms, real or imagined. Lord save us from their example.

I pray and trust I am not holding onto anything from the past. I have a great hope for the future. The Lord's principle is that the glory of the later house will be more that the glory of the former house. Also, whatever the Lord does is new. He always does a new thing. We have much to look forward to.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Hope

Hello Forum and special greetings to Matt,

This quote says a lot Matt. Actually I was attempting to counter the broad brush approach of dj and a few other posters. I had no idea we were headed toward a discussion of idolatry. This is a false premise, simple and basic.

Hope,

Yes, it does say quite a lot. You are correct, but it's not about bucketing everyone the same. I hadn't been posting on this forum at all until what happened on this thread.

a) You reacted to dj and a few others (mostly dj).
b) I reacted to your reaction.

Thus the cycle that brings us here began. During times of difficult communication, I try to spend a few minutes each day to think back through what everyone is actually saying. I want to make sure that I am hearing while I am talking. I know it appears that I am hearing nothing in this case. That's an appearance. I didn't suddenly fall off my rocker.

I will be brief this morning. I have a lot to do today, but I do have a bit more to say in response to your post later one. You brought up the point about false premise. Here is the definition of a "false premise".

Definition of a False Premise:
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. A syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form.

I want to make sure I understand your usage of "false premise" here. It may be important. I cannot clearly deduce your meaning from the text of your message.

Can you elaborate on the details of the "false premise" in this case? (Note: I am not trying to point out logical argumentation error. I am trying to understand the substance behind your use of "false premise".)

Note to others: This may seem like a technical detail that is irrelevant to most, but Hope is a really smart guy and he doesn't use a phrase like this without having a specific meaning. I want to make sure I hear the meaning before I say more.

Thanks,

Matt

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Matt

Hope,

Yes, it does say quite a lot. You are correct, but it's not about bucketing everyone the same. I hadn't been posting on this forum at all until what happened on this thread.

a) You reacted to dj and a few others (mostly dj).
b) I reacted to your reaction.

Thus the cycle that brings us here began. During times of difficult communication, I try to spend a few minutes each day to think back through what everyone is actually saying. I want to make sure that I am hearing while I am talking. I know it appears that I am hearing nothing in this case. That's an appearance. I didn't suddenly fall off my rocker.

I will be brief this morning. I have a lot to do today, but I do have a bit more to say in response to your post later one. You brought up the point about false premise. Here is the definition of a "false premise".

Definition of a False Premise:
A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. A syllogism is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form.

I want to make sure I understand your usage of "false premise" here. It may be important. I cannot clearly deduce your meaning from the text of your message.

Can you elaborate on the details of the "false premise" in this case? (Note: I am not trying to point out logical argumentation error. I am trying to understand the substance behind your use of "false premise".)

Note to others: This may seem like a technical detail that is irrelevant to most, but Hope is a really smart guy and he doesn't use a phrase like this without having a specific meaning. I want to make sure I hear the meaning before I say more.

Thanks,

Matt

The phrase in bold is from me not Matt. Thanks again Matt for the complement. Boy, do you ever put me under pressure. Now all the posters will be looking at my posts is a much more critical light. Thanks for nothing friend. Does Matt ever have the advantage now!

Your definition is fine by me. Let me go over some of my thinking.

Quote from Matt
My initial reaction to this thread and my decision to post here was based on a key fact. Hope was trying to exclude his locality from the rest of the Texas bunch. I stood up in opposition to this attempt. The reason I did is not because Dallas was the best or worst, but because it was part of a whole set of churches that were under the strong sway of an idolatrous system that was engineered and whose engineering started all the way back in the mid-60's.


Quote from dj

Hope I think the fact there is an enemy seeking whom he may devour is a given for most Christians. But this cannot be the catch-all excuse for a lack of responsible parenting. It appears the issue with the LCS is not: we did everything we could to raise our kids in a healthy well adjusted manner etc but at the end of the day many just went off the deep end. But rather: our children were raised in an environment that was basically anti-family so it's a miracle that any of them survived and became healthy adults.__________________

I believe if you go back to my original post #13 I wrote very generically about the issue of children of Christian parents who get into trouble. I believed I clearly expressed that this is a genuine concern and is very important to me. Then dj in the post quoted above made his case and position much clearer. (Bold words are from me not dj.) I responded to this charge based on what I personally knew. There were many wonderful parents and families that I knew well. In Dallas, not Houston or Austin or OK City, I was intimately acquainted with parents and many of the children. I held them in high esteem and realized it is not easy raising children in the current environment.

Your conclusion of the idolatrous system going back to the mid-60's applying across the board and thus all church members got the same result is the premise that needs to be re-examined. You must consider many factors in why children developed the way they did. There are cases in the same family where the outcomes are widely different.

Finally for your argument of parental neglect, little church autocrats hurting children and bad teachings or lack of healthy teachings to be true, you do not have to subject each and every individual to the same analysis and conclussion. If some current or former lc believer reads that all are the same, they most likely will focus on what was not the same and reject the fundamental facts of your argument.

Just a little brother trying to get along the best he can.

Hope, Don Rutledge

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Hope

...Benson was an incredible leader. He shaped everyone and one thing he will never be accused of is being lazy.

There's no question about Benson's leadership skills. The question is: who was leading Benson? Was Benson following a man, or was he following the Lamb? Was Benson leading all of us to follow Christ? Let each of us be persuaded to answer these questions in their own minds.

Look up the word diligence in the dictionary and you will find his picture.

Again, the question, diligent for what? Was Benson diligent to follow the Lamb himself, and diligent to help others to follow the Lamb? Or, who or what was Benson following?

But isn’t it interesting that showing mercy follows the mention of the gift of leading and is of equal importance with all the other gifts of teaching, prophesy etc. The mutual life of the believers in the Body of Christ cannot work well without some of the members having this gift of showing mercy.

Do you mean that Benson was a diligent leader who showed mercy to those he was charged with the responsibility of leading? Sorry, Don. I'm just not sure about what you're saying.

Nell

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Hope

...Matt, your above quote shows the mindset, bias, to throw everyone into the same bucket. Unfortunately when anyone tries to point out to you that your view may be anything less than a true report or conclusion or it is time to reconsider at least a little, you take offense that people are trying to shut you up. Perhaps you could consider ole Billy Shakespeare, when he said “me thinks thou dost protest too much.”

From my vantage point, it appears to me that there has been a lot more "protesting too much" on the parts of Mike, Ohio, Roger, SC and you too, Don. Matt has stood his ground and made efforts to present his case. I think it's clear that a lot more effort by some, (Mike comes to mind...sorry Mike) has gone into trying to shut Matt up than to listening to what he's saying. I would get a little upset by this dogpile on the rabbit, too. Especially if I was the rabbit.

Matt has pretty thick skin, in case anyone doesn't know that by now. However, he's still a person with something to say. God has put it in his heart to deliver a message to a tough crowd.

Nell

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Nell

There's no question about Benson's leadership skills. The question is: who was leading Benson? Was Benson following a man, or was he following the Lamb? Was Benson leading all of us to follow Christ? Let each of us be persuaded to answer these questions in their own minds.

Unfortunately a believer may have a genuine gift and misuse it. Some have brought up the matter of vision or calling. Benson had a personal calling or vision and used his gift plus diligence to carry it out and to fulfill it. His calling or vision was deficient and contrary to God's administration and thus he is responsible for many tragedies.

Again, the question, diligent for what? Was Benson diligent to follow the Lamb himself, and diligent to help others to follow the Lamb? Or, who or what was Benson following?

Do you mean that Benson was a diligent leader who showed mercy to those he was charged with the responsibility of leading? Sorry, Don. I'm just not sure about what you're saying.

Benson did not show mercy. He desperately needed brothers and sisters around him who had the gift of showing mercy. The Body of Christ needs both of these gifts to work in tandem. Unfortunately the teaching of deputy authority and the way it was practiced overrode mercy.

By the way consider the verse in Hebrews, Heb 13:17, Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. NASB This verse is best translated as "Be willing to be persuaded" rather than obey and submit. The leading in the Body of Christ is not one that expects obedience and submission but rather gently seeks to persuade those over whom they are tenderly watching.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I enjoy this type of analysis and seeking to match the scriptures with various practices that we all might learn and progress in our walk with Christ.

Thanks Nell for the questions and the opportunity to make my observations clearer.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Matt

It's the same Lord. It's His little ones gathered together in His name. It's His Spirit moving and speaking. If it's not the same sweetness, then either:

a) something is wrong with the group I was meeting with
b) something is wrong with the group you were meeting with
c) there is something special about the group you were meeting with that makes the presence of the Lord there more in some way than the presence of the Lord in the gathering I was in.

Do you have additional options? Please present them. I'm interested.

Final Note:

Questions:
a) Would you ever go back into the RCC? Why not?
b) Would you ever go back into an LSM/LC driven church? Why not?

Brother Matt,

We need an ... (e) none of the above.

Regarding your final questions ... I have visited both, with the saying in heart, "hate the system, but love the people."