|
In Reply to: Re: Interesting Website re: Jesus Freaks posted by CB on December 22, 2009 at 11:39:21:
Hi, CB!
Yeah, it was Lonnie Frisbee, and John Higgins was the other. Higgins began with a group of "Houses" around the country, and insisted on a "one purse" doctrine for income, with a small oligarchy ruling top-down, and the "lambs" slaving away in exchange for basic Bible teaching, which mimicked all of the other "forsake all" Jesus groups (JPUSA, German Jesus People, Servant and Rez Bands (see current state of their "exers" at Very interesting. Higgins wants a purely Christian town, now, with him owning Main Street, or some such thing).
Frisbee was always repentant of his past homosexual sins, as well as fornication with women, etc. He was very serious on repentance. He went to Europe and South Africa and preached it there, as part of the full Gospel. There were huge mass meetings, like those of Reinhardt Bonke, with huge numbers of salvations, REAL healings, and so on.
Unfortunately, Lonnie came back to Florida, where the leaders of the Shepherding Movement ("Ft. Lauderdale Five", the main leaders besides Mumford and Baxter, were Derek Prince (Assemblies of God), Don Basham (Disciples of Christ), and Charles Simpson (Southern Baptist--see from Googling "Lonnie Frisbee and Shepherding Movement").
In California, the scuttlebutt is that the Southern Claifornian churches didn't want Frisbee's gay past mentioned, but not as a politically correct thing (too early historically for that).
The big problem was that the Shepherding Movement was extremely controlling and abusive, and was instrumental in messing Lonnie's life up so bad that he internalized a wounding, and fell away from the Lord, reverting to some past sin, which happened to be having sex with some men.
There is no record of his sanctioning gay sex on his deathbed while dying of AIDS, however; or at any other time--he just saw his "lapses" as sin; pure and simple.
Disagreements with that are surely false allegations by people with their own agenda. Frisbee's views on sexuality were standard historical Christian ones; that's what he preached, apparently to the end.
See for the following quote:
"Q: There are people who disagree that Lonnie was written out of either Calvary Chapel or Vineyard history. What is your response to that?
Well, there are four gospel accounts for a reason. Not everyone's perspective jives with everyone else's. We see through a glass darkly, and even then there are lots of things that will hinder us. So, I can live with varying perspectives. I am sure that if someone wrote a book or did a documentary from an institutional perspective, Lonnie would come out completely different. And I would read or watch those projects with great relish.
But there are indeed reasons as to why I believe what I do. First of all, and most importantly, Lonnie believed that he was being written out of the histories of these two movements. There was a tremendous sense of bitterness that he exhibited because he felt his contribution had been largely neglected. That in itself is enough for me to include it in a documentary about Lonnie’s life.
Second, I think there is good evidence to back up Lonnie’s contention. I make it clear in the documentary that Lonnie is not properly contextualized in these two denominations’ histories, not that they can’t point to some line where his name is mentioned or someone preached about what Lonnie did once. Giving someone their rightful place in the denomination’s history is much more than this.
Finally, some have pointed to the essay included in Bill Jackson’s book The Quest for the Radical Middle as evidence that the Vineyard has not neglected Lonnie. That book was born out of Bill’s desire to recount history more than anything else. I remember when he published it, and the Vineyard church in the US would not officially endorse it.
Too, I was the one who wrote the appendix in that book on Lonnie, so, that isn’t what I am speaking toward. Nowhere in the four major publications that John Wimber wrote (with Kevin Springer) is Lonnie mentioned. Nowhere in the book When the Spirit Comes with Power is Lonnie mentioned. There is good evidence that while John was alive there was a concerted effort to distance himself from Lonnie. That is more what the movie is getting at. Lonnie was tremendously hurt by this, and that is why I deal with it in the documentary.
Q: What do you say to those who think you are claiming too much ground for Lonnie, that perhaps to say that he started these movements is exaggerating?
When you start to follow Lonnie's movements around like I have you begin to see the same sort of pattern. He enters the scene and this flurry of activity happens. So, had this simply been one or even two situations where he was involved and something of a spiritual center of influence was born, I could see that argument. One could then argue that it was coincidence.
But there are many centers of influence over which his influence is obvious, and not just at Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard. To give you just two other examples, when Lonnie took a team over to Sweden and Denmark in the early 1970s, those nations had tremendous spiritual revivals. When he went to South Africa later in that decade, his influence over the churches there was profound.
Those that might have been involved at Calvary Chapel or the Vineyard or some other place where someone gives Lonnie credit will inevitably think that it is exaggeration. And that is understandable, because it isn't discernible until you pull back and take a wider-angled view. You begin to realize that Lonnie's gift was being something of a charismatic sparkplug.
Q: So, then you see Lonnie coming along as the pivotal moment in Calvary Chapel's history? That all of that happened because he just showed up.
On one hand, any sort of discussion of origin of a movement will breed this sort of "who is the real mover and shaker that got things going" conversation. If you mine the discussion about the origins of rock 'n' roll music, some will identify the prime personality as Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis or the black R&B artists. And if you talk with Little Richard, he will tell you it was all him.
When one discusses the origins of Calvary Chapel, most will argue that Chuck Smith was the prime mover while others will argue that the music (especially Love Song) was of utmost importance. Still others will point to Kay Smith's desire to reach the hippies as the motivation to get this thing rolling. And I would agree that all of those things are important to the story.
But Lonnie was the sparkplug that started that whole thing. He was the prima causa, if you will, that started it all rolling, that brought a lot of that momentum to fruition. And thus, when you take him out of that equation, like I believe they have, then you are not telling the story correctly. I am not trying to take credit away from anyone. All of those people played a role and have their place. I am simply stating that had Lonnie not walked into that church it never would have happened on the scale it did.
Q: Your movie includes things that take umbrage against Lonnie's mentors. Do you have a bone to pick with those denominations?
I really hope not to the point where it clouds my point of view. It is a difficult thing to listen to Lonnie's friends pour out their grief and heartache with regard to how they felt he got treated by his mentors and these movements and not have that take some affect. My point of view is Lonnie's, and to be truthful to him, that is how he felt. So, if there is heat toward his mentors and Calvary Chapel or Vineyard, that is because it is honest heat that stemmed from how Lonnie viewed things.
I have run it by a lot of people on both sides of the coin and they have said they feel uncomfortable with some things, but that I took great care in not making this a hatchet job on anyone. I really hope that is true, because I know what my intent was. The truth isn't always pretty, and rarely is it tied up in a bow like a Sunday school story or Hollywood movie.
Q: In the movie you take issue with the way that conservative evangelicals deal with those who fall short of the standards set by the church.
I understand that wherever people are gathered together, there will always be standards and there will always be people who fall short of those standards. That is a given. I wish to point to the problem of fallible people holding other fallible people accountable.
I always find it alarming when church leaders point to a specific sin as being horrific when their own lives are so fraught with dysfunction. It sets up a problem in the mind and heart of the person who is being held accountable, especially if that person senses more judgment than mercy. Ask people who don’t go to church what they think of the place. See if the hypocrisy they have witnessed isn’t one of the major reasons that people are turned off toward organized religion. This emphasis on "holiness" was never meant to be a vehicle by which you could look down your nose on someone else.
Q: Do you think Lonnie Frisbee was a homosexual?
The only one that knows that is Lonnie Frisbee. I can only tell you what I know. It is imperative to understand that after his conversion at no time did Lonnie ever justify homosexuality. He always maintained it was a sin. And I have many tapes of him talking about this.
The problem being, that his actions suggested that this was an area where he continued to involve himself. What most of his friends believe is that if this kind of thing occurred (and in their mind there is still a definite question as to whether the allegations are true or they are from people intent on slurring Lonnie’s memory), it was the occasional lapse. There are those, of course, that argue that his continuing in this behavior suggests something innate.
I would hope that people would listen to his own testimony and not read in to his life without giving great weight to Lonnie's own beliefs. He never believed homosexuality was anything other than a sin in the eyes of God. He is not the poster child for "gay Christianity." That being said, neither is he so easily placed in a Christian framework that tends to view conversion as the moment where these sorts of things are forever renounced. I'm comfortable with this being unanswered territory.
Q: What would you say to people that say it would be better to not talk about these things at all?
One of the things that I think resonates with people who watch this movie is its honesty. I find the Bible much more honest than most people who claim they live their lives by its precepts. There is an authenticity to people who live their lives with a ragged honesty, and I think that one of the great legacies of Lonnie’s life was this characteristic. My hope is that authenticity comes through in the documentary."
