Signs of Spiritual Abuse by Steven Lambert

[Toledo]

I dunno, I guess there are many varieties of the church life experience. I have heard of some of the 33 points, but frankly have not experienced any of them.

#1 ) I listened to testimonies about WL that bordered on apotheosis, and was bothered each time. I wondered why someone didn't tell the testifier that we only exalt Christ. I recognized WL as a terrific bible teacher, but no more. Nor was I ever encouraged to exalt him.

I do recall a time when someone quoted from one of WL's books to settle a doctrinal question. I replied, "I do not consider Brother Lee to be an authority". That did not go over well...

#2) I read a lot here about hierarchy. I suppose that to mean "Multi-level authority". Yet we were always quite firm that there is no higher authority than that of the local church. The churches are local; there is no central governing authority. That is to say, the elders in any given church were not subject to review from Anaheim or Cleveland (the co-workers, on the other hand, were under authority to the leading co-worker in their region, but not to any "higher authority").

#3) There was no "absolute authority" for any local elder. Always we were checked by the other elders. Plus the strong limitation of the Holy Spirit continually restricted us. If I overstepped, time and again I was compelled by my conscience to apologize.

I don't recognize any of the other points, except perhaps #24:
"Requiring members to perform menial tasks, such as cleaning toilets, setting up chairs..."

But that was seen as a Levitical service, rendered to the Lord and not to men. It was absolutely voluntary.

I never saw anyone ever required to act as a "leader's personal valet or slave".

I am not going to deny that much of this has happened in other places. I have read the testimonies. I simply affirm that such was not the case in the churches where I lived.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Toledo

#2) I read a lot here about hierarchy. I suppose that to mean "Multi-level authority". Yet we were always quite firm that there is no higher authority than that of the local church. The churches are local; there is no central governing authority. That is to say, the elders in any given church were not subject to review from Anaheim or Cleveland (the co-workers, on the other hand, were under authority to the leading co-worker in their region, but not to any "higher authority").

#3) There was no "absolute authority" for any local elder. Always we were checked by the other elders. Plus the strong limitation of the Holy Spirit continually restricted us. If I overstepped, time and again I was compelled by my conscience to apologize.

Toledo, you make it all sound so good, but ... not all leaders could maintain your independence in the face of an overpowering "leading co-worker in their region." One example of this independence, was that Toledo was one of the few churches which neither supported nor rejected the quarantine by public letter. Many times these "leading co-workers" overstepped their place, yet all the while publicly challenging, "who did I control?" Patterns of open humiliation become extremely powerful tools indeed to ensure that none dare to even raise an objection.

What exactly does that mean to be "under the authority." Some have testified that they had to violate their conscience to carry out directives of that "authority," or face serious repercussions, akin to abuse. Others felt like they were treated "like a dog" or an "African American" before the civil rights movement. What are the boundaries of that authority? Are there any at all? Doesn't the word "under" have vastly different connotations in different cultures?

How convenient does it then become when elders in the church are also workers "under the authority." Whole churches along with their other elders could then be very effectively controlled from headquarters. Isn't that a conflict of interest when the elders are also workers "under the authority"? For example, worker activities nearly always take precedence over church activities. And most definitely, the schedule of a worker/elder is determined by "the authority" rather than the church he serves.

I have seen some whose conscience got "re-trained" during their time in the work. "The authority" defined what was "right," and what the conscience should be bothered by. To "overstep" the saints may not require an "apology," if the directive came from "the authority," now would it? This phenomenon, in effect, reproduced bullies on many levels.

I understand that some things have changed recently, since the quarantine fiasco, but that does not negate decades of abuse and misconduct. You know more than I all the many gifted, precious, and fruitful brothers who have passed thru the GLA, and are now gone, but for no other reason, than they supposedly "had a problem" with "the authority."

[Cal]

Toledo,

Benson Phillips said the Texas elders were vindicated in disciplining Jane Anderson thirty some-odd years ago because in 2006 thereabouts she publish a book in oppostion to his leadership. This is the spiritually abusive attitude we are talking about. Would you concede it exists at LSM, if not where you are?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Benson Phillips said the Texas elders were vindicated in disciplining Jane Anderson thirty some-odd years ago because in 2006 thereabouts she publish a book in oppostion to his leadership. This is the spiritually abusive attitude we are talking about.

As I understand the discipline took place in 1977/78 and as Igzy points out the book came out in 2006 where Benson aka Dan had a minor role. What's no brought out here are the number of occurrences John and Jane sought to have face to face fellowship with Benson whether in Texas or coming to Anaheim. Okay, it's one thing if you do not want to take care of a relationship, but claiming vindication? What I sense is a spirit that does not know humility.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Toledo,

Benson Phillips said the Texas elders were vindicated in disciplining Jane Anderson thirty some-odd years ago because in 2006 thereabouts she publish a book in oppostion to his leadership. This is the spiritually abusive attitude we are talking about. Would you concede it exists at LSM, if not where you are?

This reasoning reminds me of the old test for witchcraft. Throw the woman into the water, if she sinks she was innocent, if she floats she is guilty.

Proverbs 29:27b "he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This reasoning reminds me of the old test for witchcraft. Throw the woman into the water, if she sinks she was innocent, if she floats she is guilty.

I think it was the other way around, but I get your point.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it was the other way around, but I get your point.

No, that is correct, I double checked. However, they usually had a rope attached so if she sunk it didn't necessarily mean she died.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This reasoning reminds me of the old test for witchcraft. Throw the woman into the water, if she sinks she was innocent, if she floats she is guilty.

Is that where they got the expression, "damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is that where they got the expression, "damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

When I was a kid, we had a saying just as applicable. "Heads I win, tails you lose."

This is the outcome in the Recovery when it pertains to disciplines. The brothers are never wrong or hastily with their decisions. As they as the brothers in leadership are considered the Deputy Authority. Say for example a sister in Texas, a couple in California, and a brother in Washington, an accepted LC phrase "just get right with the brothers" is the protocol that you bear the responsibility. Never is it as I have told Indiana on many an occasion, "the brothers need to get right with you".

Where the expression "heads I win, tails you lose" becomes relevant for this forum's discussion is these saints through their silence qualifies the brothers decision as just. When saints speak to defend themselves, it is regarded as vindicating the brothers decision as Igzy brought out in post #6 of this thread.

When it pertains to former elders being described as ambitious, I have asked "where is the ambition? They have no ministry per se; in an organized way" The response is usually "You will know them by their fruits. " Whether a former elder has ambition for an organized ministry or just to minister Christ, that portion from the Gospel of Matthew is used to somehow justify a brother's quarantine. What it all amounts to if you're a former elder or just a general brother or sister who has been disciplined, don't expect fairness and don't expect impartiality. Accept when one door for fellowship has closed, another door for fellowship is opening.