To "The Precious Saints Who Are No Longer Meeting With Us"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

This was a sobering realization I had when I left. A sister openly challenged their "Overcomers" doctrines and one of the elders' wives said that she had to be removed from our group chat because several people had "nightmares" after listening to her. I was initially excited because someone finally wanted to have open and frank discussion about testing Lee's doctrines, but then I was disheartened to see that so many people were scared. Outright scared. I responded by sharing 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and talking about the importance of proper teaching, correction, rebuke, and instruction in righteousness, and then people started looking to me and crying "death." One college-ish aged sister in her paranoia said that she suspected that the woman who was kicked out had gotten a hold of my phone and that all my texts were just full of "death." I had not even met the woman by that point but rather only interacted with her in that group chat. It was so surreal.

When I saw how scared everyone was to talk about even the CONCEPT of teaching, correction, rebuke, and instruction in righteousness, I realized that what you say is exactly what is happening: Many in The Lord's Recovery have their spiritual growth stunted, so much so that they are scared, terrified even, of real discussion and discourse. They use the Lord's Name as a pacifier to avoid these things and would only ever want to sing and "Pray-Read" and chant his Name rather than truly wrestle with the Scriptures and grow as children of God. The Lord's Recovery, as far as I saw, was no different than going clubbing. People didn't meet to really mature and grow. They met to have a good time.

ACuriousFellow, I had to laugh and cry with your post. Lots of this is, I suppose, just human nature. Ironically I did not see this during my tenure in the Midwest region of the Recovery. Perhaps that's why we were expelled, I mean "quarantined," almost 20 years ago.

I did, however, just see this scenario play out recently in two other settings. First, in a Baptist church where several "teachers" basically freaked out when I questioned their dogmatic stance on "Pre-Trib Rapture For All." I was simply looking for Berean style Bible inquiry and discussion. Not on this topic! Was this then, as you say, just a feel-good early Sunday morning social "clubbing" with coffee and deserts?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ACuriousFellow, I had to laugh and cry with your post. Lots of this is, I suppose, just human nature. Ironically I did not see this during my tenure in the Midwest region of the Recovery. Perhaps that's why we were expelled, I mean "quarantined," almost 20 years ago.

I did, however, just see this scenario play out recently in two other settings. First, in a Baptist church where several "teachers" basically freaked out when I questioned their dogmatic stance on "Pre-Trib Rapture For All." I was simply looking for Berean style Bible inquiry and discussion. Not on this topic! Was this then, as you say, just a feel-good early Sunday morning social "clubbing" with coffee and deserts?

I have to say, Ohio, I recently got heated discussing the millennial age with an older man. What bothered me was not so much his stance against me, but because of how he made assumptions about the rest of my beliefs and countered what I presented based on those assumptions. It felt like I was speaking with the elders from The Lord's Recovery all over again. Still, I got quite emotional and backed out even though I began the discourse and debate. I was still too raw from what I had experienced during my departure to handle such things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

I have to say, Ohio, I recently got heated discussing the millennial age with an older man. What bothered me was not so much his stance against me, but because of how he made assumptions about the rest of my beliefs and countered what I presented based on those assumptions. It felt like I was speaking with the elders from The Lord's Recovery all over again. Still, I got quite emotional and backed out even though I began the discourse and debate. I was still too raw from what I had experienced during my departure to handle such things.

I guess I’ve been surrounded by “hot heads” all my life, but I must have inherited my own mother’s calm demeanor. In person, I usually back down from conflict, not wanting to say something I didn’t mean, especially in the LC setting. It’s always been a horrible dilemma for me when others blame me for their tantrums. What, it’s my fault you blew up? I pushed your button? Do I then also “have the right” to lose it all over you?

Here, dozens of stories come to mind. I remember this one time with elders. I grew some courage, and decided not to take the blame for something stupid he did. The more I calmly related the facts, he went ballistic. I was nearly hospitalized, but I felt the Lord was happy within. I stood up against the bully. Physically hurt, but I had my dignity! I had the truth! Worth suffering for, eh?

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I guess I’ve been surrounded by “hot heads” all my life, but I must have inherited my own mother’s calm demeanor. In person, I usually back down from conflict, not wanting to say something I didn’t mean, especially in the LC setting. It’s always been a horrible dilemma for me when others blame me for their tantrums. What, it’s my fault you blew up? I pushed your button? Do I then also “have the right” to lose it all over you?

Here, dozens of stories come to mind. I remember this one time with elders. I grew some courage, and decided not to take the blame for something stupid he did. The more I calmly related the facts, he went ballistic. I was nearly hospitalized, but I felt the Lord was happy within. I stood up against the bully. Physically hurt, but I had my dignity! I had the truth! Worth suffering for, eh?

Crafting our language to avoid “triggering” others is certainly beneficial in many instances. For example, a rape victim who was assaulted when she was walking home drunk at night need not hear “actions have consequences!” when opening up to someone about what happened. Could there potentially be a conversation at a later date on how to conduct oneself safely? Safety in numbers? Designated drivers? Learning one’s alcohol limits? Sure. But not now.

Still, there are instances where one may get “triggered” no matter how the other’s speech or text is crafted or whether it is in the moment or sometime in the future. Take Benson Phillips, for example. When John Ingalls fellowshipped with him about the Lees and the direction The Lord’s Recovery was headed in, he was quite calm and modest. Godfred Otuteye, on the other hand, was frank and earnest with what he felt was wrong. He wasted no time with the usual song and dance that Recovery leaders like to do when defending themselves. He did not desire multiple hours-long sessions of "fellowship" which consisted of talking in circles and getting virtually nothing done. John was like a flowing stream, while Godfred was like a bolt of lightning. Regardless, both of these brothers were seen as “contentious” and “divisive” and “rebellious” by Benson Phillips and Witness Lee. This was not because of their choice of words or their demeanor, but because they did not immediately and unquestionably submit to “the Ministry” and dared to even assume that something was wrong. To Benson, this was simply garbage, perhaps even “true trash,” that needed to be avoided. It was a cancer that needed to be removed. Lepers that needed to be put out.

This is why I understand the OP’s thoughts. Does Benson’s son Ben really want to know what happened? Do they really care about why these people left? Or do they just want them to come back and “take Christ.” Just “let go and let God” and ignore the “bones and feathers” of The Lord’s Recovery? Forget about all the bad stuff and don’t talk about it because it makes everyone feel uncomfortable?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

Crafting our language to avoid “triggering” others is certainly beneficial in many instances.

Still, there are instances where one may get “triggered” no matter how the other’s speech or text is crafted or whether it is in the moment or sometime in the future. Take Benson Phillips, for example. When John Ingalls fellowshipped with him about the Lees and the direction The Lord’s Recovery was headed in, he was quite calm and modest. Godfred Otuteye, on the other hand, was frank and earnest with what he felt was wrong.

This is why I understand the OP’s thoughts. Does Benson’s son Ben really want to know what happened? Do they really care about why these people left? Or do they just want them to come back and “take Christ.” Just “let go and let God” and ignore the “bones and feathers” of The Lord’s Recovery? Forget about all the bad stuff and don’t talk about it because it makes everyone feel uncomfortable?

ACuriousFellow, I definitely agree with you on all points. Eventually, however, some people use their temper to intimidate others or prevent them from even voicing their convictions. No matter how kind or gentle one frames the discussion, they will be triggered. Yes, there are real victims, and they need empathetic love and care, but some just prefer the perks of victim status.

I didn't know Godfred, but I can understand his impatience. (Did he ever write his account?) I did, however, read what John Ingalls wrote about TC. Firstly, he was totally understanding listening to JI talking about the chaos and damage to the saints in Anaheim. Then overnight he flip-flops, demanding JI to submit to WL. Obviously TC had talked to WL, and was forced to choose sides. I remember one regional meeting where TC was preparing a letter to JI and the elders. Silent was all the debauched actions of Philip Lee creating chaos in the first place. Rather the tone of the letter was demeaning, scolding the elders as in a vacuum. We were all made to believe that the Anaheim elders suddenly "rebelled" in some coup d'etat to overthrow God Himself.

Regarding the OP's thoughts about the saints' returning. I was reminded of one message by Ron Kangas (circa 2000) post-WL, where he basically prophesied that many saints would return to the Recovery. At that time I had no idea what underlying reasons sparked the departure of John Ingalls et. al. years prior. I was hopeful hearing that. Not long after, I'm hearing those same old whispers of animosity between Cleveland and Anaheim. Then I read the Phoenix Accord which was shockingly childish. "We agree to be fair and treat each other nice." Huh? Soon they started preparing for another division in the body.

LSM has never been honest about past "storms." They live in a total delusion about their own sordid history. Because they do not love the truth, God has given them over to an operation of error. (2 Thess 2.10-12)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember one regional meeting where TC was preparing a letter to JI and the elders. Silent was all the debauched actions of Philip Lee creating chaos in the first place. Rather the tone of the letter was demeaning, scolding the elders as in a vacuum. We were all made to believe that the Anaheim elders suddenly "rebelled" in some coup d'etat to overthrow God Himself.

Regarding the OP's thoughts about the saints' returning. I was reminded of one message by Ron Kangas (circa 2000) post-WL, where he basically prophesied that many saints would return to the Recovery. At that time I had no idea what underlying reasons sparked the departure of John Ingalls et. al. years prior. I was hopeful hearing that. Not long after, I'm hearing those same old whispers of animosity between Cleveland and Anaheim. Then I read the Phoenix Accord which was shockingly childish. "We agree to be fair and treat each other nice." Huh? Soon they started preparing for another division in the body.

LSM has never been honest about past "storms." They live in a total delusion about their own sordid history. Because they do not love the truth, God has given them over to an operation of error. (2 Thess 2.10-12)

When I think of life in the Local Churches, I remember:
"Growing up, it all seems so one-sided
Opinions all provided". Simply those in the lead do not want a transparent history. Thus opinions are provided.
Back to the letter TC was crafting, I seem to recall an old bereans.net post when Norm was active. Something to the effect it wasn't Titus crafting the letter, but Benson? I could be wrong should anyone know concretely.
Ohio, I remember the Phoenix Accord. It sure didn't last long. If memory serves Nigel ended up being blind-sided at one of the following winter trainings?

[Recovering]

Originally Posted by ACuriousFellow

This is why I understand the OP’s thoughts. Does Benson’s son Ben really want to know what happened? Do they really care about why these people left? Or do they just want them to come back and “take Christ.” Just “let go and let God” and ignore the “bones and feathers” of The Lord’s Recovery? Forget about all the bad stuff and don’t talk about it because it makes everyone feel uncomfortable?

Thanks Curious Fellow. I thought I'd share a short follow-up story — a couple of months ago, I met up with an old friend who still meets in the LC. We had formed a bond making music together and had even done some recordings back in the cassette-tape days. Anyway, we reconnected over lunch after several years out of touch (mostly because we had split into different districts years ago, and the in-person Table Meetings stopped during COVID), and he seemed a little surprised to hear I wasn't meeting with the LC any more. But rather than ask what happened or try to find any more, he strongly asserted "Brother, I still love you. I don't care that you left or why. It doesn't matter, and it doesn't change our relationship." And to be sure, that was nicer to hear than condemnation or disappointment. But at the same time, he showed no curiosity (and actually some active avoidance) about what had happened.

I had two thoughts. (1) If he (or anyone else there we'd been in relationship with) truly believed we'd lost the Lord's blessing by leaving, why not desperately engage with us to convince us to return? If leaving TLR would cause us to "lose the kingdom", shouldn't we be the top priority for their outreach? But their words and actions (Ben Philip's exhortation being a prime example) are a performance that seems primarily aimed at those inside. And I wonder how much the saints actually believe those things. (2) I think my friend was probably very worried about what he would find out if he asked my story, because then he would have to confront his own doubts and dissonances.

[ACuriousFellow]

Originally Posted by Recovering

I had two thoughts. (1) If he (or anyone else there we'd been in relationship with) truly believed we'd lost the Lord's blessing by leaving, why not desperately engage with us to convince us to return? If leaving TLR would cause us to "lose the kingdom", shouldn't we be the top priority for their outreach? But their words and actions (Ben Philip's exhortation being a prime example) are a performance that seems primarily aimed at those inside. And I wonder how much the saints actually believe those things. (2) I think my friend was probably very worried about what he would find out if he asked my story, because then he would have to confront his own doubts and dissonances.

The simplest possible answer is their "leper" ideology. Talking about why you left may "poison" him and bring him "death," so he would rather avoid it. I remember what they recommended to us when saints started to drift: don't try to convince them, just love on them. Chances are, he doesn't want to hear what you have to say and subsequently try to convince you that you are wrong. If anything, he just wants to "love on you" until his love makes you wanna come back. After all, it's not about "knowledge" or about "right vs. wrong," but about "life vs. death" and "taking Christ."

It's so much easier to do this than to actually hear someone out and go through the pain of figuring this stuff out together.