The LCS Factor

[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

[Thankful Jane]

Dear Hope,

You have not responded to my earlier question in this link:

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...&postcount=570

Did you see it?

Thankful Jane

[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

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

Let's see: a lot more "protesting too much" from Mike, aaand Ohio, aaand Roger, aaand SC, aaand Don. But the lone Matt has got it right. Oooookay.

If Matt has a case to make, then let him make it. He is free to post here no matter what we say. Why doesn't he ignore us and just do so. He should stop protesting counsel from the Body of Christ and just do what what he wants to.

I may be overstepping here, but I get the distinct impression that Matt is not someone who can be persuaded from doing what he wants to. Of course, I don't really know him well enough to make that judgment. Just commenting what I've seen of him here.

But I still think it would be better for him to start a whole nuther thread on "idolatry," instead of trying to smother all of us out with book excerpts.

Roger

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Roger

Let's see: a lot more "protesting too much" from Mike, aaand Ohio, aaand Roger, aaand SC, aaand Don. But the lone Matt has got it right. Oooookay.

Naaoooowwwwwwwww Roger, I didn't say "lone Matt" got it right. Did I?

If Matt has a case to make, then let him make it. He is free to post here no matter what we say. Why doesn't he ignore us and just do so. He should stop protesting counsel from the Body of Christ and just do what what he wants to.

I may be overstepping here, but I get the distinct impression that Matt is not someone who can be persuaded from doing what he wants to. Of course, I don't really know him well enough to make that judgment. Just commenting what I've seen of him here.

Do you mean the Baaaaaaahhhhhddddyyyy? Sorry. I couldn't resist.

I think you'd enjoy getting to know Matt in person. In fact, that's gonna' happen one day.

Sorry to point the finger at you guys, Roger. Matt is a strong guy and he has a good heart. I have the same thought about you.

Nell

[blessD]

A funny and interesting response...

I spoke to a wise counselor about many experiences I had while in the LC. I spoke objectively, not drawing any conclusions - just stating factual incidents that occured. I tried to remain unbiased and speak fairly.

His response... "Soooo, you were in a cult". I laughed. Hey, I didn't say it. I spent so much effort and time trying to make everything sound okay and average. In the end, it still got called a cult.

I still laugh about it when I remember his response.

[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.

[Matt Anderson]

Originally Posted by Hope

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.

TJ recently brought this exact same point to my attention. It is an excellent point and worthy of much consideration in light of how the "obey and submit" rendition of the verse has been used in so many settings (not just the LC).

Matt

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Hope

...Benson did not show mercy. He desperately needed brothers and sisters around him who had the gift of showing mercy. ...

Don,

Benson also needed people around him who had the gift of speaking the truth in love. WL had that same desperate need, as do we all.

You were close to Benson. I know there were times you've told us about when you were in Dallas (at least I think I know this) that you were in the difficult position of telling Benson "no." Did you speak a word of truth to him along with that "no"? You don't have to answer that. I know there are plenty of opportunities I would like to have back when I could have spoken truth and didn't. I usually think of the best "stuff" after the opportunity is long gone.

I've also had the experience of "the truth in love" coming to me in the form of a "2 by 4". It was pretty bad. Ultimately I realized Lord's word to me was for my highest good.

Here's another sharp breaking curve on the outside corner knee high : have you spoken with Benson since you left Dallas? I think you said you spoke with him around the time of Don Looper's passing, but I mean conversations of substance regarding the past?

Nell

[blessD]

Originally Posted by Hope

...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.

Wow, I read the latest posts and found them very insightful and motivating. The genuine concern appears to be important to all as continually identified by the amount of responses and views on the subject.

It boggles my mind when I hear my mom recollect events where her children were mistreated or handled improperly by the LC youth ministers or elders (or others). She gets so angry and can go on and on about how wrong it was - how it affected our family and her children. She is completely aware this is why many of her children would never set foot in another meeting and most won't even talk about it. In the next breath she will tell me how much she has received from WL. My parents are getting older and I don't see them ever changing their viewpoint on the LC so I just sit and listen.

I, like 9,145 other viewers/members to date, are seeking light in this area. Thanks to everyone for helping me find answers.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have never said that every LC member was an abuser, and ... I have addressed only that abuse which could be considered in the mind of the abused as "perfecting," or "being one with the ministry," or the like. I don't like sweeping generalizations, which like prejudices, are not fair.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Now ... when we jump from "instances of abuse" to "everyone is an idolator," I have a few reservations.

Dear Ohio,

In an earlier post, I defined three broad categories: abusers, abused, and assentors. I believe the assentors are the largest category. There are shades and degrees and overlaps of all these categories. I do, however, believe that there is one thing that every LC member had in common and that is that they participated to some degree in the authority based hierarchy that developed among us, from Lee down to that “littlest” sister he used to mention. Can you say you never participated in that? In that sense only, will I say that it is clear we all were involved in idolatry.

As for the teachings of Lee, the level of appreciation also varies, but I think it is safe to say all were on the Lee bandwagon to some degree. Was that idolatry? Only if his teachings replaced or changed the truth of the Word of God in our hearts.

It is easy to point to instances of abuse and say they were bad, however, I do not believe we can make proper assessments about the root causes by just looking at them as stand alone "instances." We have to ask, “Is there something that connects them?” What is the common factor in all the abuse cases? All the abuse wasn’t done directly by a few bad apples. It was carried out by men lined up under their “authority.”

All of us participated in that system to some degree. I did. I am downright ashamed to say it, but it is the truth. I supported it. I participated in it. I submitted to it. I promoted it. Didn’t you? I brought others to do the same and some are still there today. I thought I was following God in doing so. We all did. I didn’t wake up one day and say, “Hmmm, I think today I will start practicing idolatry.”

It took God close to 30 years to wake me up and show me that I couldn’t just walk away and forget about a place that contained an evil authoritarian system which is still at work which I supported and helped build. I had played a role in building that tower, so I had to do my part in righting things. I had to repent to God and to others for the part I played. I had to openly renounce that system of error. I had to expose evil deeds done in the name of the Lord. I finally saw that the Bible requires these things of me

Why do we need to repent? To show our sorrow and to change! Why do we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty? To break the shackles the devil put on us when we willing held our hands out to let him snap them on. Why do we expose evil deeds? To help those who committed them come to repentance. The Bible is clear about these requirements on us.

Do you think God said what He did in the Bible about idolatry so we could have intellectual discussions about it and scratch our tickling ears? Or, did he just need a topic to fill the pages of the Bible with? Just why did God have so many words to speak to us about idolatry? It’s not a hard answer: He was seeking to convince and convict us that we had left Him! Why don’t we just weep for that? Why are we so defensive? I just don’t get it. I want to be convicted of my sins now. Don’t you?

I think one of the most shocking things to me about what has gone on the last week on this thread is the response to the idea that we have committed idolatry. On one hand some say, “Everyone has, so don’t talk about it!” On the other hand they say, “We are not all idolaters, only some are!”

Why don’t we all just repent in sackcloth and ashes? Isn’t that the safest path? What might God do if we all did that? Instead, I see defensive postures and flying fig leaves. I see some who have resorted to picking up pebbles and popping up out of the bushes to throw them at those who are posting according to the burden the Lord gave them.

Honestly, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Lord woke me early one morning before all this began, with specific verses from Ezekiel (for the third time in 2 years and the other 2 bore out to be of Him) and told me to not be afraid in the face of what was coming and to speak the words He gave me to speak, I would have folded as soon as the demands to shut up on this thread began.

The information control mode that kicked in on this thread was nauseatingly similar to the past. Instead of being given the common courtesy of talking about the actual points being made, posters’ motives were called into question by some. Instead of being afforded the freedom to speak whatever God put on their heart to say, posters’ have been subjected to rebukes, accusations, twisting of their words, and straw-man arguments built by misshaping pieces of what had actually been said.

Is this how Christians communicate in good faith? Questions asked of the pebble throwers to clarify communication appear to be have been ignored and bad communication techniques have continued.

God is weeping for us, Ohio. I know it as sure as my name is Jane. He weeps in me when I see up close in the present the rubble and ruin of real people’s lives which are directly tied to their experiences under the authoritarian local church system. He is grieved in heart with what He sees.

We did contribute to this, Ohio. God is weeping for us.

TJ

[Hope]

Originally Posted by Nell

Don,

Benson also needed people around him who had the gift of speaking the truth in love. WL had that same desperate need, as do we all.

You were close to Benson. I know there were times you've told us about when you were in Dallas (at least I think I know this) that you were in the difficult position of telling Benson "no." Did you speak a word of truth to him along with that "no"? You don't have to answer that. I know there are plenty of opportunities I would like to have back when I could have spoken truth and didn't. I usually think of the best "stuff" after the opportunity is long gone.

I've also had the experience of "the truth in love" coming to me in the form of a "2 by 4". It was pretty bad. Ultimately I realized Lord's word to me was for my highest good.

Here's another sharp breaking curve on the outside corner knee high : have you spoken with Benson since you left Dallas? I think you said you spoke with him around the time of Don Looper's passing, but I mean conversations of substance regarding the past?

Nell

It was not easy to say no to Benson for several reasons. He was and as far as I know still is today not a bad scary person. 95% of the time he was pleasant. I admired how he stoically handled his debilitating disease. He was always kind to my sons.

He got things done. Look at the number of meeting halls built under his regime. He did not let things fall through the cracks. Part of his leadership gift was used to collect loyal followers. He did not need to invoke deputy authority to gain a following. By a following, I mean gaining a number of folks who were personally loyal and ready to carry out the latest directive. In addition, his following was jealous lest anyone be seen as a rival.

I heard many of the Texas brethren refer to Benson in reverent tones in much the same way they might refer to WL. If you said no to WL, whatever influence for good you may have had would be over. The same kind of atmosphere existed in Texas regarding Benson. A few times when Benson lived in Dallas, I exerted a little pressure and met with stern discipline. Nothing said officially but just frozen out of any meaningful contributions. During one of these periods, I asked if I could work on the verses for the morning watch sheets. At the time, I had been exiled from any function in the meetings or service groups. Benson told me no. Someone else can do that. I realized that my little counter fellowship in the past, had effectively eliminated my function in the eldership.

Once Samuel Chang was in Houston. Benson and the three other elders at the time planned to go to Houston to fellowship with him and the elders from Houston. He specifically said I was not to go. There was nothing going on in Dallas that needed my presence and I was not involved in any function anyway. Brother Chang had never come to Texas before and I desired to see him and learn about why he suddenly appeared. I made the decision to go anyway. I drove myself to Houston. During this time, I learned of the plans of Benson, Ray and Ben to have WL move his operations to Texas. This was news to me. And my knowledge of this was not good for my relationship with Benson.

I was very much before the Lord regarding what I should do. I realized how unhappy Benson was with me and how I was being isolated from the church at large. I was very concerned about the saints and was about two inches away from withdrawing from the eldership to be free to care for the brothers and sisters. Also I felt that the removal of my presence from any elder meetings would be a relief to Benson and eliminate tension that was there.

Suddenly WL and JI challenged Benson on why he was not utilizing my function. We almost never spoke to WL or JI as a group, but one Saturday we were on the phone to them when they challenged Benson directly. I have no idea where that came from. At any rate, we now had a number two and I was it.

Here are two other little glimpses into our coordination. Benson had become very close to Bob Bynum. WL gave some admonition at an elders meeting about not having an inner circle in the eldership. Lusby decided to confront Benson about the clique of he and Bob. All of us could easily see it. I was not aware of what Lusby planned but right afterwards he came to see me and let me know how it went. I was in the yard washing my car. He told me how he had gone to see Benson with the above mission. He told Benson he wanted to discuss a clique that had developed. Benson then agreed that we had a problem and that he too was concerned about George Whitington and Don Rutledge forming a special party. Lusby confessed he held his peace and let Benson tell him that he had been waiting for confirmation and now he would confront George and Don. Lusby apologized to me for not saying what he really wanted to talk about. Then we both broke out laughing and laughed and laughed. We realized there was nothing Lusby could have done and George and I needed to get ready for a dressing down. I warned George what was coming and he just shook his head. Next meeting Benson corrected George and I and complemented Lusby for bringing it up. We just all took it.

While Benson was in Anaheim building the hall, Mickey Buice moved to Denver. Mickey is now deceased. After Benson left Dallas, I discovered some bad deeds on Mickey's part. I did not expose him but he unfortunately took action to deal with me just in case. He contacted Benson in Anaheim and told him how badly I had treated the other elders in Benson's absence. His motive was clear to me. He desired to cloud any charges I may bring against him. Benson asked myself and the other two elders who were in Anaheim to meet him for dinner. There he read me the riot act for what I had done to the other brothers in his absence. No one spoke up. Lusby and Tim and I were all in the same hospitality and rode home together after the meal. I said nothing. Tim spoke first and said strongly that Benson's charges were false and Lusby joined in and agreed with Tim and sought to encourage and comfort me. Finally I asked them why they said nothing at the meal. They both shook their heads and said they "were too chicken." They apologized profusely to me. For my part, I just considered it par for the course and we needed to focus on the church in Dallas and the dear ones we were attempting to shepherd.

Nell, saying no to Benson was just not an option. It is hard to explain. You had to be there.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I have not spoken to Benson since 1988 except for his phone call regarding the death of Don Looper. Due to WL's urging, He wrote me a short letter in 1989 and announced he was coming for a visit.. I wrote back and told him it was not convenient for me and rebuked him for what he was doing toward other brothers. That was the last communication.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Hope

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.

Originally Posted by Hope

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. 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.

Hope, thanks much for introducing the complementary matter of mercy in Rom 12.8. This is a very helpful explanation for me and many others, I believe. As I read your description of BP in Texas, I could easily substitute the GLA region under TC, or Anaheim under WL. Diligent leadership must be balanced by gifts of mercy. The Apostle Paul was one such pattern to us all. He was "diligent" like a father, but "merciful" like a mother.

I have also witnessed some tender leaders, possessing gifts of mercy, get "beat up" by the "diligent" one, and today they are gone. Too many stories of this in Anaheim and the GLA. With each departure of a "mercy gift," the whole becomes more skewed. The environment becomes more oppressive, rigid, and legalistic. The "mercy gifts" who do remain, often are effectively silenced, knowing the results of "opening their mouth."

This pattern of "the diligent" beating up "the merciful" happened too often in church history; it didn't just happen to us. Perhaps I could substitute another couple phrases to explain this pattern of "the zealous" beating up "the spiritual." This "unbalance" in gifts was also the downfall of the Plymouth Brethren.

A.N.Groves, whom I believe was the original and most spiritual of the Plymouth Brethren, once wrote a long prophetic letter to J.N.Darby warning him of this. He addressed so many issues the LC's also face. On this matter he concluded, "the most narrow-minded and bigoted will rule, because his conscience and cannot and will not give way, and therefore the more enlarged heart must yield." Darby never took his fellowship. Less than a decade later, the Brethren were divided, the blessing was over.

One exception in history did take place in Bristol. Darby, "the Diligent," the hot-tempered Irishman, ran into a German, a man of God, with the resolve of steel, and child-like faith, who clung to the scriptures, who had the courage and the audacity to stand up to Darby, "the Bully." Darby came to town, pushing people around, and he said "No." His name was George Muller. He loved orphans more than programs.