StandfortheTestimony.Org

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

A big error with Canfield's thinking is that he believes that the churches in the Recovery movement "came together simply as Christians, in the oneness of the Body of Christ, rather than on the basis of some teaching, practice, or person."

The fact is, this is false. The churches in the Recovery movement never, ever stood simply as Christians nor simply in the oneness of the Body of Christ. Ever. They were always about being a special, elite movement apart from the rest of the Body. Always.

Why? Because from the beginning they also "stood apart from Christianity." This was nothing less that exclusivism.

Since I was a part of the Recovery for many years, I understand that it is hard for brother Canfield to come to grips with these truths. I have concluded that nearly all of us young believers truly "came together simply as Christians, in the oneness of the Body of Christ, rather than on the basis of some teaching, practice, or person." We wanted Christ, only Christ, and most of us paid a huge price in that endeavor. For the most part, we had many "seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord" during those early years.

The leaders, however, were different. They built walls around us via the ministry of condemnation upon all outsiders. They barricaded the entrances by various teachings which held us captive to only one ministry. They removed all safety devices in our "little town" by eliminating the possibility of the Lord speaking to us thru other internal ministries, by branding them as rebellious lepers. They preyed upon our own pride by exalting our group's status, and in the end simply succeeded in replicating Laodicea.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since I was a part of the Recovery for many years, I understand that it is hard for brother Canfield to come to grips with these truths. I have concluded that nearly all of us young believers truly "came together simply as Christians, in the oneness of the Body of Christ, rather than on the basis of some teaching, practice, or person." We wanted Christ, only Christ, and most of us paid a huge price in that endeavor. For the most part, we had many "seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord" during those early years.

We were brainwashed early on that being "only for Christ" meant being "separate from Christianity." This made sense to us. But the fact is, it was false. In fact, the opposite is true. Being only for Christ means you don't focus on the shortcomings of Christianity, you focus on the people there.

We liked to say that we weren't separating from the people, but from the system. This was a rationalization, because the net effect was that we separated from the people in a major way.

I believe the Lord honored our sincerity early on, even though he knew we were on a path to exclusivism. But as time went on the consequences of our errant attitude could no longer be put off, and the Lord allowed them to catch up with the movement, and it dried up.

Canfield trying to go back to the old formula of raising up uber-churches with the local ground as the excuse for separation is like Thomas Edison going back to a failed formula for the light bulb. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Best learn the lesson why it didn't work and move on, instead of leaning the wrong lesson--like for example it just didn't have the right people implementing it. Communist sympathizers used that excuse for decades. Look where it got them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We were brainwashed early on that being "only for Christ" meant being "separate from Christianity." This made sense to us. But the fact is, it was false. In fact, the opposite is true. Being only for Christ means you don't focus on the shortcomings of Christianity, you focus on the people there.

We liked to say that we weren't separating from the people, but from the system. This was a rationalization, because the net effect was that we separated from the people in a major way.

Now this I can go along with.

Of course, "recovery" and "remnant" theologies almost always create exactly this kind of situation. Special people who essentially go off to private compounds and abandon all other Christians. It is only by the fact that the membership is not quite as controlled as the leadership would like to think that some of them actually get along with other Christians fairly well.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We liked to say that we weren't separating from the people, but from the system. This was a rationalization, because the net effect was that we separated from the people in a major way.

As WL would say, "hate the system, but love the people." Talk about an impossibility!

Eventually, after I left the program, I understood what this saying was actually instructing us to do. It's just like saying to your wife, "I love you dear, but I hate the way you talk, the way you keep house, the way you cook, the books you read, the way you raise the kids, and the clothes you wear ... but I still love you!

Isn't that ridiculous? But isn't that what we were instructed to do? How do you separate a Christian brother from "the system?" And what if he doesn't like our "system?" We were taught to hate everything about our fellow Christians, and then told to "love" them. Talk about neurotic.

[TLFisher]

One subject that has been discussed on thus forum is also found in letter #3 of the Great Lakes Brothers to the Blended Brothers:

"You elucidate in great detail the occasions of “much and thorough fellowship beginning in 1997” and conclude that, “we had a total of over eighty times to fellowship and pray together.” Brothers, you put great emphasis on the “quantity” of fellowship sessions, however, we are greatly concerned about the “quality” of the fellowship on those occasions. Whether genuine fellowship occurred is not determined by the hours brothers log in the same room. Some Great Lakes brothers who attended testified their distinct impression that what you term “fellowship” was not an exercise in mutuality, but a “one-way street.” It seemed to them that important items had already been decided by an “inner circle” during pre-fellowship. When these items were presented to the whole group, it seemed members of the “outer circle” were expected to endorse, “rubber stamp,” and implement them. When important matters have been pre-determined by an “inner circle,” how can there be serious fellowship in mutuality?"

Later on in the letter another matter on coworkers.net that ties to this emphasis on the subject of fellowship:

"Are you brothers willing to accept fellowship in mutuality? Or, are you only willing to have “fellowship” on terms dictated by you and when the agenda and channels of fellowship are controlled by you?"

Which is why forum's such as this came into existence. There was no liberty to fellowship in mutuality. As a result a forum such as this provided means to discuss matters, issues, etc without persecution.

[TLFisher]

Another article in Dave Canfield's website is Don Rutledge Letter to the Concerned Brothers.

Brother Don or Hope as he's known on this forum wrote,

I am now reading David Canfield’s article on “Concerning the Present Turmoil.” On page 8 there is a footnote: 3 “One of the key differences between the turmoil among the churches in the late 1980s and today’s turmoil is that at that time a number of leading brothers, to the author’s understanding, disavowed brother Lee as a servant of the Lord. In contrast, many of those who are resisting the negative trend among the churches today feel that they are fighting to preserve and protect our brother’s ministry from some who, whether they mean to or not, are usurping it for their own ends.”

What a terrible repeating of slander. The very ones, whom he is writing about, those who have attempted to discredit and slander you brothers, are the ones who slandered brothers who attempted to express concerns in the late 80s. I never heard a responsible brother say Brother Lee was no longer a servant of the Lord. They, as I, were very concerned for the saints, the churches and the ministry of life and truth that had been among us. Compared to you brothers, our protest was a barely audible whisper. I would encourage Brother Canfield to read Brother John Ingalls’ book, “Speaking the Truth in Love.”

I fully agree with Don's word. That has been my experience as well. That is regarding brothers bearing responsibility who left the local churches. Though Don's word was directed at David Canfield, my hope is other Concerned Brothers were in fact encouraged to read Speaking the Truth in Love.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

I fully agree with Don's word. That has been my experience as well. That is regarding brothers bearing responsibility who left the local churches. Though Don's word was directed at David Canfield, my hope is other Concerned Brothers were in fact encouraged to read Speaking the Truth in Love.

I do appreciate that some, besides of course the spin-meisters at LSM and their DCP affiliate, have attempted to document the recent history in the Recovery. It's hard for me believe, however, that some one like Canfield could invest so much time in his writings on his website, yet be so basically flawed in his understanding of the events which occurred in the Recovery prior to the 21st century. It seems that his only sources for information are those favorable to LSM.

Like the poster Terry has recommended above, brother Canfield must go back and do a thorough examination of the writings presented by those who left the Recovery in the late 80's, starting with John Ingalls. Nearly everything I have read by Canfield to date indicates that he never did this.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Like the poster Terry has recommended above, brother Canfield must go back and do a thorough examination of the writings presented by those who left the Recovery in the late 80's, starting with John Ingalls. Nearly everything I have read by Canfield to date indicates that he never did this.

As we can read in Speaking the Truth in Love, brother Titus knew about some of the issues. What about brothers who labored with Titus?

VISITS FROM TITUS CHU
September 29, 30, 1988

"In December 1987, before we went to see Brother Lee on December 12th, Titus Chu was in Anaheim, and we had lunch together. At that time since I respected Titus as a senior co-worker and had considerable fellowship with him in the past, I opened to him in a general way my heavy concern for the work and the churches. He agreed with my realizations and convictions and indicated that he had the same concerns.

On Monday, September 26, 1988, Titus came to Anaheim to see Brother Lee and also wanted to see me. I did not get back to Anaheim from a few days rest until Wednesday, September 28th. He came to the Anaheim prayer meeting on Tuesday evening and spoke with Godfred afterwards, complaining about the mailing of the transcripts of the sixteen points to Ohio and seeking information concerning a certain problem of misconduct. On Thursday morning, September 29th, the day after we had our final fellowship with Brother Lee, he came to see me and fellowship for over two hours. He was quite tender and soft and said that he fully understood what I was passing through; he had passed through a similar experience himself. He wanted to assure me that he was standing with me, and he emphasized this point. He was concerned, he said, for the going on of the churches should Brother Lee pass away. He also said that he felt that Brother Lee still had some ministry for the churches, and we must find a way to receive whatever he has. He left, asking if he could return to have further fellowship the following morning. I agreed.

The next morning Titus came with a totally different attitude and demeanor. It seemed that he took an adversarial position, and said rather decisively that now we have to cover some practical matters. He was very strong, telling me that I had damaged the Lord’s recovery by the conferences I had, and that I must not speak anything contrary to Brother Lee. He is the one carrying out the work, he said; we are his co-workers with him, and we should submit to him. He warned me that if I continued to speak as I did I would damage myself most of all, and he would have to take some action concerning me among the churches in the Midwest. Moreover, I would lose my field for ministry because the churches would not invite me. I was surprised to hear this, for that was of no concern to me and did not influence me at all. I feel that no faithful servant of the Lord should have such a consideration, but seek to simply and faithfully follow the Lord in all things, come what may. I was not ambitious to be welcomed everywhere, and was prepared to be rejected.

Before Titus left he urged me with much feeling to go to Brother Lee, to open myself to him, and to ask how he feels about me. I had no response at all to this, since I already had many sessions with Brother Lee, and I believed I knew what he felt about me. But because he kept repeating it, I said I would consider it. Titus returned to Cleveland and a couple of weeks later called me on the phone. I told him that I felt not to see Brother Lee as he had proposed, and he replied that that was all right and made no further mention of it. I was surprised at this, expecting that he would again urge me to see him. He wanted to assure me once more that he was standing with me – that seemed to be the main point of his call. It was a very brief conversation, lasting not more than two or three minutes.

I was surprised when nearly four months later I had received a letter from Titus, co-authored by James Reetzke (an elder in Chicago long known to me), dated February 12, 1989, in which Titus reproved me among other things for not taking his fellowship to see Brother Lee. The letter was full of rebuking and censuring concerning the conduct of the elders in Anaheim and contained this statement: "Is it not a fact that you brothers and the church in Anaheim owe him {Brother Lee} your existence?" I am grateful to Brother Lee for his love and service to the saints (including myself) in past years, and I thank the Lord for what we have received through his ministry, but we surely do not owe our existence to him – that is absurd. The source of whatever we are and have, physically or spiritually, is God and no one else."

The part in bold ties into post #25.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Like the poster Terry has recommended above, brother Canfield must go back and do a thorough examination of the writings presented by those who left the Recovery in the late 80's, starting with John Ingalls. Nearly everything I have read by Canfield to date indicates that he never did this.

Ohio, not sure if this indicates what David has or has not read. This portion is from:
WRITINGS ON THE TURMOIL AMONG THE CHURCHES
Page 22
"In 1989 a number of senior co-workers who could not go along with the new emphasis on the ministry, and who also felt there were some very serious problems internally at the Living Stream Ministry itself, rose up in an attempt to warn Brother Lee concerning these matters, but he would not accept their admonition. Instead, he and those around him eventually labeled these co-workers as “divisive” and “rebellious,” and then put them out of the fellowship.
In the U.S., this turmoil mainly affected the churches in California. Those of us who were outside of that area, and not so directly involved, simply assumed that Brother Lee and those with him must have been right to take such action. Today, however, we may say that while there are different views as to what exactly happened in this turmoil, and whether or not the brothers who were put out conducted themselves in a proper manner, it now seems clear that the case was not nearly so one-sided as we in the churches outside of California had assumed."