The LCS Factor

Matt Anderson · 09-02-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Matt, do we know the nature of this contact? Are there letters or other some such indication of what kind of contact took place? Who were the players?

Nell

Nell,

See this post: http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showpost.php?p=228048

It shows the nature of the contact and the players at the "witnessed" discussion between T. Austin Sparks and Witness Lee.

Matt

Shawn · 09-02-2008, 06:52 AM

Hi Matt,

Thanks for bringing to the forum this historical document that gives full exposure to both sides of this discussion.

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

I did look at T. Austin Sparks message that I found on ”the other forum,” where again, the doctrine was not assailed, only that if the doctrine were carried out with an impure heart, the results would be damaging.

I do acknowledge the damage that has been done to the churches by the carrying out of this doctrine in the way of exclusivity, but cannot declare this teaching to be heretical, as surely there can be an expression of one church in each city; all you need to do is read the New Testament.

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

finallyprettyokay · 09-02-2008, 07:52 AM

So, am I getting this right? From almost the very beginning, there were questions concerning money, morality, Lee, and his son? And Deputy Authority. It was all there from the beginning.

We were really duped.

fpo

Oh, by the way --- a few posts back, blessD mentioned a sister from Taiwan who did not understand the way American sisters were so austere, and questioned our lack of wedding festivities. BlessD -- did you know that WL's daughter, married just a few years after my husband and I, had a wedding that cost a princely sum? Always two standards ---- no wonder WL didn't like the book of James. He perfected being a respector of persons. Heck, he made doctrines about it. Go for the good material, all that bunk.

Duped No More.

blessD · 09-02-2008, 08:08 AM

No, I did not know about WL's daughter's wedding. Yes, the problems were clear in the history. I read Matt's post of history, then I read a past post with John Ingall's experience - wow, hind sight, aye? If I only knew then, what I know now it sure would have saved a lot of grief.

Matt Anderson · 09-02-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt,

Thanks for bringing to the forum this historical document that gives full exposure to both sides of this discussion.

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

I did look at T. Austin Sparks message that I found on ”the other forum,” where again, the doctrine was not assailed, only that if the doctrine were carried out with an impure heart, the results would be damaging.

I do acknowledge the damage that has been done to the churches by the carrying out of this doctrine in the way of exclusivity, but cannot declare this teaching to be heretical, as surely there can be an expression of one church in each city; all you need to do is read the New Testament.

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

Shawn,

I hear your point and I understand that many feel we can draw a distinction on the issues related the "ground of locality". If you have some time to listen to T. Austin Sparks message I think it would be valuable to consider. He makes a particularly strong point on this fact. It goes something like this (i'm paraphrasing):

"It is a very great peril when we try to resolve a spiritual reality into a technical system". ... "It has been my (TAS) struggle to avoid this problem".

He's saying that when we try to put our hands on this spiritual reality of our oneness with all believers we mess it up and it is very dangerous when you try it.

My main point is that the "ground of locality" is heretical as a doctrine. When men try to implement it as a "practical" reality there are always problems. I believe that this happens because trying to implement it "practically" goes against the reality of what God is doing. Our oneness with all believers is something we acknowledge in our hearts but we cannot implement in practical reality. Here is why I say this...

If we try to bring everyone into the same "practical expression" it requires us to use the "tools of men" (incorporation, buildings, scheduled meetings, etc.) None of these things do anything to promote or take away from the fact that we are one. This is a reality. It just is. Nothing men can do can advance it. The only thing we can do by trying to implement it among ourselves is to deny the reality of our oneness by trying to make some "practical expression" of it. We implicitly "divide" and "section" off the Body of Christ from itself in the very attempt.

It's one of those oxymoronic items. If you try to do it, you fail. If you don't try to do it, then you may still fail if your heart isn't right. The only way it can be done, is to not do it but acknowledge the reality of it. It's unsound doctrine to teach others that they should try to implement it. What is sound is helping each person learn how to be one with every other member of the Body of Christ. This isn't a group thing. This is a one at a time issue.

What I am talking about here is faith. We believe we are one because we are one. To attempt to make a "practical expression" of it like Lee did is actually an act of unbelief. It's basically saying, "we are only one if we can see it with our eyes." I don't believe that is faith. I believe it is unbelief.

Matt

P.S. I realize there are other views on this and I've got no corner on the market on what I am saying here. However, I do think that the "ground of locality" issue has been tested, reviewed and it will fail again and again. God will not fail in this, but men always will. In order to succeed you have to have control over the whole Body of Christ. Only Jesus Christ has that! He is the Head!!!

Shawn · 09-02-2008, 11:12 AM

Thanks Matt,

Your words do show the way to oneness is not to try to practically implement it and hope the Spirit will justify the actions, but to seek to be one with all our brothers and sisters, where ever the Lord has placed us, and the oneness will appear; not of our efforts, but through the manifestation of the Spirit of God ruling in each heart.

The missing ingredient was love from a pure heart for all of God's children; without this essential virtue, pride and prejudice usher in yet another denomination.

Grace to you,

Shawn

SpeakersCorner · 09-02-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

My main point is that the "ground of locality" is heretical as a doctrine.

Matt,

Well, the story about Sparks and Lee is interesting but certainly far from proving some kind of heresy concerning the ground of locality. Hate to say it, but if your idolatry proclamation is based on this ... whew! Ever hear the story about the foolish man building his house upon the sand?

SC

Matt Anderson · 09-02-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Matt,

Well, the story about Sparks and Lee is interesting but certainly far from proving some kind of heresy concerning the ground of locality. Hate to say it, but if your idolatry proclamation is based on this ... whew! Ever hear the story about the foolish man building his house upon the sand?

SC

It does not have to be proven that the "ground of locality" is heretical in order to demonstrate that this "concept" (i.e. ground of locality) was lifted too high and that many, many people began to bow down to this conception even when it brought them into conflict in their consciences with the Lord.

SC, let me ask you a question. Is the LC type congregation in your locality unique in anyway from other gatherings of believers in your locality? If so, what is it's uniqueness?

Yes, I did hear about that story about the foolish man building upon sand. I think I've thought about it in regards to Lee and his desire to build God's House on the "ground of locality"!

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

The "Rock" is Jesus the Messiah. This is the only firm foundation. All else is shifting sand...

Matt

SpeakersCorner · 09-02-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

SC, let me ask you a question. Is the LC type congregation in your locality unique in anyway from other gatherings of believers in your locality? If so, what is it's uniqueness?

Matt,

You're tossing me softballs here. Is our group unique? What makes it so? Yeah, it's unique. It's unique because we don't have a name. Do you have any idea how much grief that has caused us over the years? That one fact is a huge separator from everyone else, trust me. Every single time I'm forced to identify "my church," I have to decide whether to go into paragraph mode or simply tell them, "The church in __" and hope it ends there.

All the churches who truly take no name have this "problem." So they're all unique, LSM churches, non-LSM, whatever.

My beef with the LSM on this point is that they in fact have made the "Church in __" their names. Case in point: Raleigh, NC where they became "The Local Church in Raleigh" or some such thing.

Anyway, I assure you that if your congregation would drop its name, you would instantly find out how much this makes you unique.

SC

Nell · 09-03-2008, 06:06 AM

There's another phenom in this "ground of locality" thing that has always puzzled me. There was a time when The Church in Minneapolis, for example, actually met in Hopkins, MN. I'm sure most of you can come up with examples of this. I've heard the explanation for it, but it never made sense to me. Why not "The Church in Hopkins"?

This is Gerrymandering--Local Church style. It's also a de facto admission that the "ground of locality", as a doctrine, is flawed. Doctrinally speaking, you meet with the church in your city. Either the city limits signs mean something or they don't. The doctrine says the signs mean something. The practice says they don't. The practice says you meet where it's convenient, or you meet in the city where you found the best real estate deal.

The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter.

Nell

Matt Anderson · 09-03-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Anyway, I assure you that if your congregation would drop its name, you would instantly find out how much this makes you unique.

SC

You don't have to prove this to me. On a personal level I can relate to it and I understand exactly what you are talking about. I won't go into the details here, but I do understand. I've been queried in a parallel sense for many years.

But, my question isn't about whether it is difficult for you to answer the question about the name of your gathering. My question was about the uniqueness of your group? What is it's uniqueness relative to other groups in your locality?

Is your uniqueness in the fact that you don't take a name? Or is it something else? Is it because, in your mind, you "stand" on the "proper" ground?

Matt

TLFisher · 09-02-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn

Hi Shawn. Only by the Lord can it be realized and not by our natural concepts or preferences towards a particular ministry. There are many differences to bridge, but only if we take Christ as our common ground is there a way. It is ideal, but not practical to seek one testimony of the Lord and in the Holy Spirit. It's what we see in I Corinthians that is the obstacle; I of Cephas, I of Apollos, etc.

Terry

Matt Anderson · 09-02-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

Hi Matt,

I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical.

Shawn

I had one further thought regarding your concern about the use of the word "heresy". Paul & Titus mention something called "sound doctrine".

Even if we are unwilling to say that the "ground of locality" is not heresy in it's doctrinal form I believe we can say that it is not completely sound doctrine because it implicitly divides the Body of Christ. You cannot take a stand on the "ground of locality/ground of oneness" like they do in a Local Church without implicitly dividing the Body of Christ inside any recognizable geographic region.

To me, this makes the concept of "ground of locality" unsound. Setting aside Lee's narrower conception of the "ground of locality" does nothing to disturb the oneness of the Body of Christ.

Details on "Sound Doctrine":

G5198 hugiainō
From G5199; to have sound health, that is, be well (in body); figuratively to be uncorrupt (true in doctrine): - be in health, (be safe and) sound, (be) whole (-some).

G1319 - didaskalia
From G1320; instruction (the function or the information): - doctrine, learning, teaching.

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

2Ti 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Tit 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

Matt

bookworm · 09-02-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt

Nell,

See this post: http://www.thebereans.net/forum2/showpost.php?p=228048

It shows the nature of the contact and the players at the "witnessed" discussion between T. Austin Sparks and Witness Lee.

Matt

It is amazing to read this about what occurred in Taiwan in 1957:

Then Witness Lee argued with TAS saying, "We say that the Church Ground is one locality one church, which means Unity in one city." TAS said: "If you mean that the Church Ground means Unity in one city, it means that you agree with my opinion, and disagree with yourselves! One locality or one church teaching or other teachings cannot bring Unity among Christians. Only Christ Himself can bring Christians true Unity, not only in one place, but also in other places! The truth is: Things divide; Christ unites!" When I heard this, it was a second shock to me; in fact, the Church Ground teaching collapsed within me and I totally abandoned that teaching from that moment.

Witness Lee argued again, but TAS said, “If you follow the Holy Spirit's leading and do something according to the examples in the New Testament, that is good, but don’t say 'this is the only way'! The Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend.” (As I understand it he meant: Don’t say that other Christian bodies are all concubines and are not the Church.) Then TAS said: "There is no need to continue this kind of meeting!" And immediately the meeting ended!

We see from this posting that Witness Lee apparently had an agenda. He always preached and taught for us to come back to the pure Christ. But apparently he only wanted us to come back on his (WL’s) terms. It would have been better for us all to realize that “the Holy Spirit is too big to comprehend” and in turn to have questioned Witness Lee’s insistence on his teaching of “one locality one church.” However, as young, idealistic people—many newly saved—we jumped on the bandwagon as Witness Lee “rode” the tide of the Jesus Movement in the United States and we evidently became his “franchises.”

I agree with finallyprettyokay that we were really duped.

Hope · 09-02-2008, 09:53 AM

TJ,
Here are a few quotes from a previous post. Any bold phrases are from me.

Please quote my bitter accusations against you so I can see what you are talking about. No I don’t see how what I have done is the same. You’ll need to explain how.

I do not find a bitter tone or resentment. These are comments made about the actual event that actually happened.

Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.

but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.

In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.

I can see how this offended you, however, I wasn’t talking to you directly and it was not meant to be hateful to you. It was meant to be kind to BlessD. I made a choice between taking care of how you might feel and how she might feel. I chose to take care of her. I would do it again. I do not hate you at all. I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread.
There is no question that you have never harmed me in any way. I also have no intention to harm you.

I am now aware you are offended and I am sorry that I offended you. I am willing to go the distance with you to clear up the offense. If you need me to be more specific, then I will need more specific explanation of what you want me to apologize for.

Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity.

I knew you as a very intense person and have assumed that many of your posts and choice of language were only a reflection of your personality and that I was sometimes caught in the crossfire due to my alleged position in the Texas churches. I have always kept in my mind an image of you as I knew you and John when we were in Houston together. You both were first and foremost dedicated lovers of Christ with a heart for people in the Kingdom of God and a desire for those who were not that they could be saved. Because of your statement, “I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread” I now realize that the sharpness and put down of recent language had nothing to do with Benson, Ray etc but reflected how you desired to treat me in the current context. I will let that go and accept whatever you choose to do. You have enough on your plate without needing to take on an old man.

I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s.

I prefer to drop my request rather than get into a “prove it” exchange.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Hope, Don Rutledge

Thankful Jane · 09-03-2008, 12:31 PM

Dear Hope,

Before I could respond to your post #704 (http://www.localchurchdiscussions.co...&postcount=704), I had to re-write it so I could understand who was saying what and to whom. To do this, I had to go back to the original posts. I have reconstructed your post to clarify it using names. I didn’t want to misunderstand you. If what I represent here isn’t a correct understanding of your post, please let me know.

Here it is:

Don to Jane:
TJ, Your post is so full of bitter accusation against me. I have to ask myself why. Can you see that you are doing the very thing you accuse the LCS of doing?

Jane to Don:
Please quote my bitter accusations against you so I can see what you are talking about. No I don’t see how what I have done is the same. You’ll need to explain how.

I do not find a bitter tone or resentment. These are comments made about the actual event that actually happened.

Don answered Jane by quoting parts of a post by Jane written to BlessD:

To BlessD from Jane (bolding added by Don):
...Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me.

but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal.

In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it....

Don also quoted the following from Jane which was part of her earlier response to Don about the post to BlessD:

Jane to Don:
I can see how this offended you, however, I wasn’t talking to you directly and it was not meant to be hateful to you. It was meant to be kind to BlessD. I made a choice between taking care of how you might feel and how she might feel. I chose to take care of her. I would do it again. I do not hate you at all. I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread. There is no question that you have never harmed me in any way. I also have no intention to harm you.

I am now aware you are offended and I am sorry that I offended you. I am willing to go the distance with you to clear up the offense. If you need me to be more specific, then I will need more specific explanation of what you want me to apologize for.

Don then commented on all the above:

Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity.

I knew you as a very intense person and have assumed that many of your posts and choice of language were only a reflection of your personality and that I was sometimes caught in the crossfire due to my alleged position in the Texas churches. I have always kept in my mind an image of you as I knew you and John when we were in Houston together. You both were first and foremost dedicated lovers of Christ with a heart for people in the Kingdom of God and a desire for those who were not that they could be saved. Because of your statement, “I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread” I now realize that the sharpness and put down of recent language had nothing to do with Benson, Ray etc but reflected how you desired to treat me in the current context. I will let that go and accept whatever you choose to do. You have enough on your plate without needing to take on an old man.

I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s.

I prefer to drop my request rather than get into a “prove it” exchange.

---------end of clarified post

Again, please let me know if my clarified presentation of your post is not accurate. My response will be in another post.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 09-03-2008, 01:05 PM

Dear Hope:

This is my response to your post #704. I rewrote your post to clarify it in the previous post. Now to my response:

(Your writing in blue; mine in black):

Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity.

My Bad

I re-read the posts around the time of the event with BlessD and the back and forth between you and me. As I did this, and in particular when I re-read your post #704, I realized some obvious things that were clearly my bad.

Although, I didn’t name you in my post to BlessD, it was evident to anyone reading it that you were the one I was referring to about questioning her. I later told you that I had to make a choice between BlessD’s feelings and yours. I realized as I re-read this that my excuse wasn’t true. I didn’t have to make a choice. I could have sent BlessD a message in private and accomplished taking care of her feelings. I had to ask myself why I didn’t do this. With God’s help, it became clear to me that I was acting out of being offended with you. Instead of addressing the real problem, I just complained at you indirectly in another post. Doing so was wrong. So, will you please forgive me for my public response to her in which I indirectly complained against you?

My Problem

So what was my real problem with you? Be assured that it was not about you being an elder in the past. Rather, it was about what you had just done in the present to djohnson in an earlier post that was like elder behavior from the past. It was also about how you had failed to respond properly to two of us who had pointed out that what you did wasn’t right. I have a further repentance about this, but first I need to give a review of what happened with djohnson:

In post #56, you went after djohnson as someone who was here to “curse us all.” In that post, you came down with a heavy hand on him accusing him repeatedly of bad motives. Here’s the link to the post I am referring to:

http://www.localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2189&postcount=56

Another poster responded to you and kindly indicated that it wasn’t good to go after djohnson like that (post #58). You answered him that we needed to act with discernment and that you “saw something” about djohnson. I then wrote to you about what you had done, with specifics:

http://www.localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2220&postcount=74

Your response to me was, ““What I said may sound strange but just file what I said for later reference. I always hope that my warnings will not come to pass.” (post #83)

The appropriate response would have been to acknowledge that what you did was wrong and apologize. Your failure to do this left me with a bad feeling towards you and a judgment about your behavior. It sent the message to me that you did not see what you were doing was wrong, and furthermore, you didn’t care to see. I now can see that I remained offended with you, and as a result ended up doing something wrong towards you in my post to BlessD. I have now repented for that.

My Further Bad

Now, to the further repentance on my part. In reviewing all of this and asking God to show me His view of it, I got caught once again as I have many times before. I was not wrong to react to what you did because it was sinful, but the way I addressed you about it was wrong. I should have sent you a PM. Why didn’t I do this? I have to confess that I actually did think about communicating with you privately, but I rather quickly dismissed this idea because of other thoughts I held--such as you wouldn’t respond with more of the same, or might you might just ignore me and dismiss me because you “knew better” or some such. I have witnessed what happens when someone tries to address behavior in the present which is classic LC elder behavior learned in the past. I didn’t want to go through that. I considered that if this happened, then I would end up in a unwanted complicated communication process. So, I quickly made the decision that the best way was just to respond publicly and have others weigh in on the matter. So, in essence I decided to disobey the Word and did.

Will you please forgive me for not addressing you privately about what you did to djohnson and giving you opportunity to respond? I'm also asking forgiveness of others who saw me do this.

I can’t tell you how many times I have failed to obey the Lord like this because I have preconceived thoughts about the person I need to talk to and about how they will respond or whether it would work out well. I don’t know if I will ever learn that this is not an excuse for disobedience. The other person’s response is theirs to have. My part is to communicate honestly in love without considering whether or not it will be effective. That is God’s problem. My problem is obedience, or it will become the need for repentance if I disobey. L

A Few More Things That I Need to Say

Please be assured that I am not on the “alert to put down Don because he was an elder.” Whenever I have questioned you about things in the past in posts it has been because the things in question were important. My questioning was not because of past offense. As I said, you have never done one thing to me to hurt me and I am not carrying any kind of past offense. I do not blame you for what Benson or Ray or others have done. They are accountable for their behavior. I have no desire to put you down because you were an elder. I will, however, speak up if I see behavior in the present that is the same as unbiblical leadership behavior in the past. Please know that I care about you very much and want the best for you. I pray for you often when I think of you.

In another post, you said that you thought my feelings about you might be moving towards a handshake instead of a shin kick, but that you didn’t think they had yet reached the level that you would get a hug if we met in person. I should have responded to that, but let it pass. Don, there was never a time you would have received a shin kick from me. You would have certainly received a handshake, and if you wanted a hug, you would have gotten one. I think I have complimented you a number of times in posts and I have said that I admired you for standing up as you did in the LC.

I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s.

(That would be the early 90s.) I also desire the very best for you. I also am the better for having known you and Cheryl. I can cry thinking about how much I loved everyone and still do. Don, do you remember being in our home somewhere in the 90s? You came there with Doug Hendricks (or Hendrickson (?) ) and we all sat and fellowshipped a long time. Mostly Doug talked. I have also seen you at the T. Masseys in Dallas a few times. (Remember ... there were no shin kicks. J) There was no problem then, and I didn't have one in the present until the current situation.

We are all talking about really hard things on this forum. I love Jesus and I love the truth. I know that you do as well. I want to walk in the light with all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t leave anyone out of that. I would even hug Benson if he would allow it. I do love him still and pray for him. I do not like what he has done, but that is as it should be. God’s family is God’s family. We are all His children.

It was because of this fact, that he is Our Father, that I sent you a PM two days ago. All of us in the LC fell in love with the idea of the “oneness” of all believers. We were tricked into believing that was definable in terms of church doctrine. I think the practical horizontal oneness God has in mind is much bigger and much more real than one which can be defined by a common church definition or practice. It’s one that comes from maintaining our relationship with God and one another in holiness. It’s one that always seeks to communicate unto reconciliation. When there is no problem between each of us and God and between us as brethren in the whole Body of Christ, that could be considered "practical" oneness. That is what shames and defeats the devil. That is what restores God’s presence among His children. I believe this happens at the grass-roots heart level, brother by brother. No one but God can orchestrate such oneness.

I sent you a PM two days ago because I do not want there to be a problem between us. I think that may be why you posted what you did.

I read one time that real reconciliation between parties means that they grapple with the root causes of the problem between them until it is removed and harmony is restored to its former state. It’s clear that Jesus grappled with the every problem between God and us on the cross and He removed them. Now we have His blood to cleanse us from every sin. We have the basis to communicate in the light (I Jn. 1:7) and get right with one another when there are problems. If we don't, we lose our fellowship not only with each other but with Him, and we lose His presence. We can’t stand before Him without having gone the distance he asks of us to keep oneness with one another.

So, in line with what I have written here, I plan to write you offline and dialogue further as soon as I can.

Your exposed and sorrowful, but repentant sister in Christ,
Jane

Hope · 09-03-2008, 03:28 PM

Hello Thankful Jane,

All is clear from my side. Let us go on together. By the way, the little remarks about shin kicking, shaking hands and hugs was my attempt at being cute in describing how we are being reconciled and nothing more. There is a measure of oneness among all believers but we must be deligent to preserve the oneness of the Spirit while we are arriving at the oneness of the faith. Since the old LSM/LC days, I have realized that I should not just assume I have an all clear with any from the past since I do not know the journey a particular brother or sister has been through.

You post was a wonderful supply of life to my inner man. Thank you for your faithfulness to go to our Lord and seek for our reconciliation.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

blessD · 09-03-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

Hello Thankful Jane,

All is clear from my side. Let us go on together. By the way, the little remarks about shin kicking, shaking hands and hugs was my attempt at being cute in describing how we are being reconciled and nothing more. There is a measure of oneness among all believers but we must be deligent to preserve the oneness of the Spirit while we are arriving at the oneness of the faith. Since the old LSM/LC days, I have realized that I should not just assume I have an all clear with any from the past since I do not know the journey a particular brother or sister has been through.

You post was a wonderful supply of life to my inner man. Thank you for your faithfulness to go to our Lord and seek for our reconciliation.

In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all,

Hope, Don Rutledge

OK, since it got brought up again. I was bothered by how you, Hope, addressed me. It felt like this...

I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF WHAT YOU SAID AND I WILL PROCEED TO FIND HOLES IN YOUR SUPPOSED STORY, but if it really did happen, I'm sorry.

Thankful Jane and/or anyone else need not defend me. Unlike my youth in the LC, where I was a respector of persons, I am now very confident in who I am in Chirst. God was there in that room of many judgemental men, so I am not worried about your theories or doubt or speculation of numbers (or, the impression you may have given to others by your response).

I know the big bold text is a little dramatic and gets more attention than perhaps I am looking for here. I even thought of changing it. However, it perfectly represents how your words really made me feel.

09-02-2008, 06:52 AM	#2
Shawn Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 54	Doctrine Vs. Practice Hi Matt, Thanks for bringing to the forum this historical document that gives full exposure to both sides of this discussion. I would say that the full picture shows the degree of problems that resulted from the exclusive position that the ministry took concerning the ground of oneness, but does not prove the teaching itself is heretical. I did look at T. Austin Sparks message that I found on ”the other forum,” where again, the doctrine was not assailed, only that if the doctrine were carried out with an impure heart, the results would be damaging. I do acknowledge the damage that has been done to the churches by the carrying out of this doctrine in the way of exclusivity, but cannot declare this teaching to be heretical, as surely there can be an expression of one church in each city; all you need to do is read the New Testament. Can this be realized today? I’m not sure, as the differences that make each group unique may be near impossible to bridge, but this does not take away from the fact that the ground of oneness can be realized today if sought after by those whose hearts burn for the establishing of one testimony as led and established in the Holy Spirit. Yours in Christ, Shawn

09-03-2008, 06:06 AM	#10
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,121	There's another phenom in this "ground of locality" thing that has always puzzled me. There was a time when The Church in Minneapolis, for example, actually met in Hopkins, MN. I'm sure most of you can come up with examples of this. I've heard the explanation for it, but it never made sense to me. Why not "The Church in Hopkins"? This is Gerrymandering--Local Church style. It's also a de facto admission that the "ground of locality", as a doctrine, is flawed. Doctrinally speaking, you meet with the church in your city. Either the city limits signs mean something or they don't. The doctrine says the signs mean something. The practice says they don't. The practice says you meet where it's convenient, or you meet in the city where you found the best real estate deal. The "ground of locality" and "practical expression" are just words. Not even the Local Churches can or are willing to practice the doctrine to the letter. Nell Last edited by Nell; 09-03-2008 at 06:16 AM.

09-02-2008, 09:53 AM	#15
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	TJ, Here are a few quotes from a previous post. Any bold phrases are from me. Please quote my bitter accusations against you so I can see what you are talking about. No I don’t see how what I have done is the same. You’ll need to explain how. I do not find a bitter tone or resentment. These are comments made about the actual event that actually happened. Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me. but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal. In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it. I can see how this offended you, however, I wasn’t talking to you directly and it was not meant to be hateful to you. It was meant to be kind to BlessD. I made a choice between taking care of how you might feel and how she might feel. I chose to take care of her. I would do it again. I do not hate you at all. I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread. There is no question that you have never harmed me in any way. I also have no intention to harm you. I am now aware you are offended and I am sorry that I offended you. I am willing to go the distance with you to clear up the offense. If you need me to be more specific, then I will need more specific explanation of what you want me to apologize for. Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity. I knew you as a very intense person and have assumed that many of your posts and choice of language were only a reflection of your personality and that I was sometimes caught in the crossfire due to my alleged position in the Texas churches. I have always kept in my mind an image of you as I knew you and John when we were in Houston together. You both were first and foremost dedicated lovers of Christ with a heart for people in the Kingdom of God and a desire for those who were not that they could be saved. Because of your statement, “I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread” I now realize that the sharpness and put down of recent language had nothing to do with Benson, Ray etc but reflected how you desired to treat me in the current context. I will let that go and accept whatever you choose to do. You have enough on your plate without needing to take on an old man. I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s. I prefer to drop my request rather than get into a “prove it” exchange. Yours in Christ Jesus, Hope, Don Rutledge Last edited by Hope; 09-02-2008 at 10:01 AM. Reason: clearer language and spelling

09-03-2008, 01:05 PM	#17
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	Dear Hope: This is my response to your post #704. I rewrote your post to clarify it in the previous post. Now to my response: (Your writing in blue; mine in black): Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity. My Bad I re-read the posts around the time of the event with BlessD and the back and forth between you and me. As I did this, and in particular when I re-read your post #704, I realized some obvious things that were clearly my bad. Although, I didn’t name you in my post to BlessD, it was evident to anyone reading it that you were the one I was referring to about questioning her. I later told you that I had to make a choice between BlessD’s feelings and yours. I realized as I re-read this that my excuse wasn’t true. I didn’t have to make a choice. I could have sent BlessD a message in private and accomplished taking care of her feelings. I had to ask myself why I didn’t do this. With God’s help, it became clear to me that I was acting out of being offended with you. Instead of addressing the real problem, I just complained at you indirectly in another post. Doing so was wrong. So, will you please forgive me for my public response to her in which I indirectly complained against you? My Problem So what was my real problem with you? Be assured that it was not about you being an elder in the past. Rather, it was about what you had just done in the present to djohnson in an earlier post that was like elder behavior from the past. It was also about how you had failed to respond properly to two of us who had pointed out that what you did wasn’t right. I have a further repentance about this, but first I need to give a review of what happened with djohnson: In post #56, you went after djohnson as someone who was here to “curse us all.” In that post, you came down with a heavy hand on him accusing him repeatedly of bad motives. Here’s the link to the post I am referring to: http://www.localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2189&postcount=56 Another poster responded to you and kindly indicated that it wasn’t good to go after djohnson like that (post #58). You answered him that we needed to act with discernment and that you “saw something” about djohnson. I then wrote to you about what you had done, with specifics: http://www.localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showpost.php?p=2220&postcount=74 Your response to me was, ““What I said may sound strange but just file what I said for later reference. I always hope that my warnings will not come to pass.” (post #83) The appropriate response would have been to acknowledge that what you did was wrong and apologize. Your failure to do this left me with a bad feeling towards you and a judgment about your behavior. It sent the message to me that you did not see what you were doing was wrong, and furthermore, you didn’t care to see. I now can see that I remained offended with you, and as a result ended up doing something wrong towards you in my post to BlessD. I have now repented for that. My Further Bad Now, to the further repentance on my part. In reviewing all of this and asking God to show me His view of it, I got caught once again as I have many times before. I was not wrong to react to what you did because it was sinful, but the way I addressed you about it was wrong. I should have sent you a PM. Why didn’t I do this? I have to confess that I actually did think about communicating with you privately, but I rather quickly dismissed this idea because of other thoughts I held--such as you wouldn’t respond with more of the same, or might you might just ignore me and dismiss me because you “knew better” or some such. I have witnessed what happens when someone tries to address behavior in the present which is classic LC elder behavior learned in the past. I didn’t want to go through that. I considered that if this happened, then I would end up in a unwanted complicated communication process. So, I quickly made the decision that the best way was just to respond publicly and have others weigh in on the matter. So, in essence I decided to disobey the Word and did. Will you please forgive me for not addressing you privately about what you did to djohnson and giving you opportunity to respond? I'm also asking forgiveness of others who saw me do this. I can’t tell you how many times I have failed to obey the Lord like this because I have preconceived thoughts about the person I need to talk to and about how they will respond or whether it would work out well. I don’t know if I will ever learn that this is not an excuse for disobedience. The other person’s response is theirs to have. My part is to communicate honestly in love without considering whether or not it will be effective. That is God’s problem. My problem is obedience, or it will become the need for repentance if I disobey. L A Few More Things That I Need to Say Please be assured that I am not on the “alert to put down Don because he was an elder.” Whenever I have questioned you about things in the past in posts it has been because the things in question were important. My questioning was not because of past offense. As I said, you have never done one thing to me to hurt me and I am not carrying any kind of past offense. I do not blame you for what Benson or Ray or others have done. They are accountable for their behavior. I have no desire to put you down because you were an elder. I will, however, speak up if I see behavior in the present that is the same as unbiblical leadership behavior in the past. Please know that I care about you very much and want the best for you. I pray for you often when I think of you. In another post, you said that you thought my feelings about you might be moving towards a handshake instead of a shin kick, but that you didn’t think they had yet reached the level that you would get a hug if we met in person. I should have responded to that, but let it pass. Don, there was never a time you would have received a shin kick from me. You would have certainly received a handshake, and if you wanted a hug, you would have gotten one. I think I have complimented you a number of times in posts and I have said that I admired you for standing up as you did in the LC. I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s. (That would be the early 90s.) I also desire the very best for you. I also am the better for having known you and Cheryl. I can cry thinking about how much I loved everyone and still do. Don, do you remember being in our home somewhere in the 90s? You came there with Doug Hendricks (or Hendrickson (?) ) and we all sat and fellowshipped a long time. Mostly Doug talked. I have also seen you at the T. Masseys in Dallas a few times. (Remember ... there were no shin kicks. J) There was no problem then, and I didn't have one in the present until the current situation. We are all talking about really hard things on this forum. I love Jesus and I love the truth. I know that you do as well. I want to walk in the light with all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t leave anyone out of that. I would even hug Benson if he would allow it. I do love him still and pray for him. I do not like what he has done, but that is as it should be. God’s family is God’s family. We are all His children. It was because of this fact, that he is Our Father, that I sent you a PM two days ago. All of us in the LC fell in love with the idea of the “oneness” of all believers. We were tricked into believing that was definable in terms of church doctrine. I think the practical horizontal oneness God has in mind is much bigger and much more real than one which can be defined by a common church definition or practice. It’s one that comes from maintaining our relationship with God and one another in holiness. It’s one that always seeks to communicate unto reconciliation. When there is no problem between each of us and God and between us as brethren in the whole Body of Christ, that could be considered "practical" oneness. That is what shames and defeats the devil. That is what restores God’s presence among His children. I believe this happens at the grass-roots heart level, brother by brother. No one but God can orchestrate such oneness. I sent you a PM two days ago because I do not want there to be a problem between us. I think that may be why you posted what you did. I read one time that real reconciliation between parties means that they grapple with the root causes of the problem between them until it is removed and harmony is restored to its former state. It’s clear that Jesus grappled with the every problem between God and us on the cross and He removed them. Now we have His blood to cleanse us from every sin. We have the basis to communicate in the light (I Jn. 1:7) and get right with one another when there are problems. If we don't, we lose our fellowship not only with each other but with Him, and we lose His presence. We can’t stand before Him without having gone the distance he asks of us to keep oneness with one another. So, in line with what I have written here, I plan to write you offline and dialogue further as soon as I can. Your exposed and sorrowful, but repentant sister in Christ, Jane Last edited by Thankful Jane; 09-03-2008 at 02:43 PM.

09-03-2008, 03:28 PM	#18
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Praise The Lord, He Is So Real Hello Thankful Jane, All is clear from my side. Let us go on together. By the way, the little remarks about shin kicking, shaking hands and hugs was my attempt at being cute in describing how we are being reconciled and nothing more. There is a measure of oneness among all believers but we must be deligent to preserve the oneness of the Spirit while we are arriving at the oneness of the faith. Since the old LSM/LC days, I have realized that I should not just assume I have an all clear with any from the past since I do not know the journey a particular brother or sister has been through. You post was a wonderful supply of life to my inner man. Thank you for your faithfulness to go to our Lord and seek for our reconciliation. In Christ Jesus there is hope for us all, Hope, Don Rutledge

09-02-2008, 07:52 AM	#3
finallyprettyokay Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 129	So, am I getting this right? From almost the very beginning, there were questions concerning money, morality, Lee, and his son? And Deputy Authority. It was all there from the beginning. We were really duped. fpo Oh, by the way --- a few posts back, blessD mentioned a sister from Taiwan who did not understand the way American sisters were so austere, and questioned our lack of wedding festivities. BlessD -- did you know that WL's daughter, married just a few years after my husband and I, had a wedding that cost a princely sum? Always two standards ---- no wonder WL didn't like the book of James. He perfected being a respector of persons. Heck, he made doctrines about it. Go for the good material, all that bunk. Duped No More.

09-02-2008, 08:08 AM	#4
blessD Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 73	No, I did not know about WL's daughter's wedding. Yes, the problems were clear in the history. I read Matt's post of history, then I read a past post with John Ingall's experience - wow, hind sight, aye? If I only knew then, what I know now it sure would have saved a lot of grief.

09-02-2008, 11:12 AM	#6
Shawn Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 54	Thanks Matt, Your words do show the way to oneness is not to try to practically implement it and hope the Spirit will justify the actions, but to seek to be one with all our brothers and sisters, where ever the Lord has placed us, and the oneness will appear; not of our efforts, but through the manifestation of the Spirit of God ruling in each heart. The missing ingredient was love from a pure heart for all of God's children; without this essential virtue, pride and prejudice usher in yet another denomination. Grace to you, Shawn

09-03-2008, 12:31 PM	#16
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	Dear Hope, Before I could respond to your post #704 (http://www.localchurchdiscussions.co...&postcount=704), I had to re-write it so I could understand who was saying what and to whom. To do this, I had to go back to the original posts. I have reconstructed your post to clarify it using names. I didn’t want to misunderstand you. If what I represent here isn’t a correct understanding of your post, please let me know. Here it is: Don to Jane: TJ, Your post is so full of bitter accusation against me. I have to ask myself why. Can you see that you are doing the very thing you accuse the LCS of doing? Jane to Don: Please quote my bitter accusations against you so I can see what you are talking about. No I don’t see how what I have done is the same. You’ll need to explain how. I do not find a bitter tone or resentment. These are comments made about the actual event that actually happened. Don answered Jane by quoting parts of a post by Jane written to BlessD: To BlessD from Jane (bolding added by Don): ...Obviously the most glaring thing of importance was the very abuse that you went through--abuse which was nothing less than a psychological and spiritual gang rape, and this was done in front of your parent's who sat there silently watching. Words fail me. but the fact is that any other response to your story is not normal. I am sorry you had to have insult added to injury by having your story questioned. It made me think of someone who finally is able to come forward and report a shameful crime who finds themselves being questioned like they were the criminal. In this case it seems that the prime directive quickly became minimizing your story or finding a way to make it go away. BlessD, I am sorry for this treatment. You didn’t deserve it.... Don also quoted the following from Jane which was part of her earlier response to Don about the post to BlessD: Jane to Don: I can see how this offended you, however, I wasn’t talking to you directly and it was not meant to be hateful to you. It was meant to be kind to BlessD. I made a choice between taking care of how you might feel and how she might feel. I chose to take care of her. I would do it again. I do not hate you at all. I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread. There is no question that you have never harmed me in any way. I also have no intention to harm you. I am now aware you are offended and I am sorry that I offended you. I am willing to go the distance with you to clear up the offense. If you need me to be more specific, then I will need more specific explanation of what you want me to apologize for. Don then commented on all the above: Above are a few quotes from your post. I have no desire to get into a “prove it debate.” Over the past months, you have basically taken a mode of “be on the alert to put down whatever Don says since he was once an elder.” But I was never an elder related to you nor did I ever have any interaction with you in that capacity. I knew you as a very intense person and have assumed that many of your posts and choice of language were only a reflection of your personality and that I was sometimes caught in the crossfire due to my alleged position in the Texas churches. I have always kept in my mind an image of you as I knew you and John when we were in Houston together. You both were first and foremost dedicated lovers of Christ with a heart for people in the Kingdom of God and a desire for those who were not that they could be saved. Because of your statement, “I just don’t like how you have been behaving on this thread” I now realize that the sharpness and put down of recent language had nothing to do with Benson, Ray etc but reflected how you desired to treat me in the current context. I will let that go and accept whatever you choose to do. You have enough on your plate without needing to take on an old man. I desire only the best for you and John. I am certainly the better off for knowing you when we were in the church in Houston together. I am sorry that our fellowship was interupted due to past events, events that I was 98% in the dark about until you sent out a blanket letter sometime in the 1980s. I prefer to drop my request rather than get into a “prove it” exchange. ---------end of clarified post Again, please let me know if my clarified presentation of your post is not accurate. My response will be in another post. Thankful Jane