| Author | Message | ||
     philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
The Paul Daniel adulterous affair cover-up - Why was it wrong and how wrong was it? I think the debate over the cover-up of Paul Daniels first adulterous affair has reached a stage where everyone agrees that this was at least a mistake. I am not sure, however that everyone agrees what exactly the mistake was and how serious was that mistake. I think this is important to discuss, firstly because it determines what lessons (if any) are learned from this mistake. It would not be good for us to suffer all this pain and those responsible and the organisation learn nothing useful from it. Secondly because if there is to be true real repentance, people must understand what the organisation is repenting for. For those unfamiliar with the debate, please read these other threads first: http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1156407556 http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/23745.html?1176101352 http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/27112.html?1169501383 People may pretend to agree about what the mistake was and how serious it was, but actually don't agree, so then the issue may not really be resolved. To help the debate I will outline some of the different views below: | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
A) PRAGMATIC VIEW Covering up Paul Daniel's first affair after the 1996 disciplinary process, was a mistake because the consequences: i. Paul did it again (not true repentance). The secret counseling he got did not reform him as it was hoped to do; ii. Paul afterward abused lots of people including those who helped him cover it up so everyone suffered lots of pain as a result. iii. The cover-up failed to achieve any good that may have been intended (it did not save Paul's marriage or protect the ministry from harm). Comment: As far as I know, almost everyone involved in the debate agrees at least on the above point A. However if this is all that is believed was done wrong, then the whole issue is not very serious. It was then essentially just an error of judgment about the pragmatic consequences that may result from a chosen course of action. It was not sin. B) DISOBEDIENCE TO CHURCH AUTHORITY This view is based on the issue that the group of leaders responsible for the discipline agreed in 1996 that Paul Daniel had to post letters to about 30 of the main church leaders in South Africa apologizing for what he had done. He never did this and nobody forced him to do it. Therefore he disobeyed church authority. The sin was therefore disobedience to church authority. Comment: The problem with this view is that that the relevant church authority (the IFCC and His People) did not actually have any authority to modify scripture to impose a different penalty from what scripture demands of an adulterous leader (i.e. public rebuke and removal from office). Therefore by proposing the compromise of posting 30 letters to top church leaders, the church authority itself was already becoming complicit in the sin. Effectively, the church authority was setting itself above the scriptures and imposing a new rule not found in scripture - to replace the scripture. Essentially, this view perpetuates exactly the elitist view of church governance which cause the cover-up in the first place. This decision excluded the masses of His People members from participating in the decision of whether the discipline was fair by simply not informing them. Further, it elevates church authority above biblical authority. Unfortunately, I have heard some in His People defend this view and since have heard no retraction of this view. The problem is that the error is much more fundamental than simple non-compliance with church authority. The issue is that the church authority itself did wrong. There is the risk that with this view, no good lesson is learned - but that those who did wrong are seen as wrong simply because they failed to implement a half-baked sham disciplinary action. Now some have argued that the church authority was not aware of the extent of Paul's physical relationship with the girl. To answer this I argue that it was there duty to investigate and find out and verify - which they could easily have done had they listened to all parties not been trying to defend Paul. Surely being aware of some sin should have thrown doubt on Paul Daniel's moral credibility which would necessitated investigating allegations in more detail instead of just believing him. Furthermore, even if they were not aware of the extent of the physical relationship, I argue that even a non-physical adulterous affair by a church leader warrants removal from office at least for a period of time. | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 10 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
The reason why this view must be corrected is that those who hold this view have an idea that whatever the church authority decides is always right - unless some other more senior church authority says it is wrong. Thus such people stop thinking for themselves in terms of the scriptures and just rely on other people to make decisions for them. Thus they are always open to manipulation to participate in compromised and unethical behaviour - as long as someone tells them it is authorised by church authority. It negates the 'priesthood of all believers' who judge everything in terms of the scriptures and replaces it with a set of military like obedient soldiers who just do what they are told. One His People leader in arguing with me said that he thought his fundamental difference with me on the issue was my understanding of authority. Yes, I think this is fair comment. Actually, when I confronted the His People leadership on this issue in a Matthew 18 process, with a group of other leaders, they spent most of the meeting arguing about the issue of church authority - attacking my view and trying to manipulate me into agreeing to participate in the cover-up based on the issue of church authority. Now I argue that some senior people in His People have got an idea of church authority which is extreme to the point of being cultic - and that this view is dangerous. It can cause all sorts of other problems in the church. Rather I argue the duty of every Christian to read the Bible for themselves and to intelligently discuss and hold church authority accountable on the basis of that scripture. Church authority must have a high degree of transparency to enable that accountability. This is not currently part of the culture of His People/EveryNation. | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 11 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
The first problem with the above interpretation of what went wrong is that it is likely just to lead to more serious blind obedience to church authority - not to intelligent thinking for ones self in terms of the scripture. The second problem is that such people can participate in an organisational repentance process, but actually they are not repenting for sin against God - they are only repenting for sin against Ray McCauley (the IFCC leader who chaired Paul's disciplinary meeting). Thus they can appear to be repenting but actually no spiritual or practical change will result. C) DISOBEDIENCE TO SCRIPTURE The last view as to why His People sinned in failing to publicly rebuke and remove Paul Daniel from office was disobedience to God (in his word expressed in the Bible). This is explained at length on the linked threads: Why we must remove an adulterous elder from office http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1144675734 Why we must not cover up scandal http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1146820045 I argue that this is the real reason why His People needs to do organisational repentance: Sin against God - not sin against compromised church authority or just pragmatic error. Disobeying God's word which specifically requires high character standards for leaders 1 Timothy 3 and public rebuke of those who sin (1 Timothy 5:20) is much much much more serious than pragmatic error or disobedience to church authority. I think when His People eventually does do organisational repentance for this sin, they need to be clear about why they are repenting and what they are repenting for - otherwise it will be ineffective (as in Isaiah 58). | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 12 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
D) HIS WIFE WANTED/DIDN'T WANT PUBLIC DISCIPLINE Now another reason I have heard given for either going public or not going public is that Paul Daniel's did or didn't want it dealt with publicly. Now this is an ironic and confusing one, because I have heard contradictory reports on what Paul Daniel's wife actually wanted. Some say she wanted public discipline, others say she strongly opposed public exposure. Perhaps she changed her mind during the course of events (maybe with pressure/persuasion from Paul). Some have told me that His People did wrong in not dealing with it public because Paul Daniels wife wanted it so - while others use her apparent wishes as an excuse for the cover-up. I actually don't know exactly what her thinking was. Comment: Either way, what Paul Daniel's wife wanted in this instance is irrelevant. What matters is what scripture says must happen. If he was not a church leader, then what his wife wanted may have influenced the disciplinary process, but since he is a church leader it is irrelevant. | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 13 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
E) FOLLOWERS WERE DECEIVED AND MISLED Another reason probably worth adding is that the members of the approximately His People churches (probably about 40 churches and about 20 000 people) were deceived and misled by a leader who should never have been in office for about 10 years (1993-2003). He could have been thrown out in 1996, thus avoiding the consequent backsliding of the movement. Paul's sermons deteriorated in spiritual quality; he lacked moral courage or interest to deal with spiritual problems in the church and he set a bad example to those he led. The formerly militantly pro-life organisation completely lost its strength of support for the cause. Massive amounts of members donated tithe money were wasted during this time as a result of his lavish lifestyle and authoritarian financial decision-making. The movement developing problems of dysfunctionality has harmed thousands of people, many of whom no longer attend church at all. Comment: While this issue is true, valid and important, it is nothing like as serious as the offence against God, which needs to be very seriously repented of. Nevertheless, those who covered this up, owe an apology to the masses of His People members from whom they withheld this information - as well as to God. | ||
| ulyankee New member Username: ulyankee Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 130.70.157.190 |
Philip, I believe that this is relevant not just for His People, but also Every Nation as a whole in light of other situations where leaders have either been found to be in sin or where there is legitimate evidence that sin may have occurred. Even though several years have passed since Paul Daniel was (finally) removed from office, I agree with you that several lessons still need to be learned from this. People like Phil Bonasso, Greg Ball and Greg Feste come to mind. Even though Ball was removed, was there a public rebuke, and was he truly removed due to sin or to reduce exposure to CFC and Every Nation? Feste is quietly gone... or is he gone? Bonasso is no longer CFO but was removed to Jacksonville, continued to receive a salary, began ministering in the Jax church earlier this year, and now is reportedly starting a new EN church in Orange County, California, so IMHO he wasn't really removed but just placed elsewhere to allow the furore revolving around his handling of EN's finances to pass. While the communiques did report that there were some financial issues, it didn't say that Bonasso or anyone else except maybe Tony Fetchel was in sin, and there was no real public rebuke of sin. Also, the communiques weren't really "public" since they were meant to be seen by pastors, not rank and file. Public includes ALL believers in the church, not just pastors (so if a rebuke took place at a pastoral or leadership conference, that is still not public unless it is truly disseminated throughout the network in a way to ensure that everyone knows and/or has an opportunity to know). Several of us who post here, including me, have done so as a last resort because there was no other recourse inside the organization. Speaking for myself, I don't seek the destruction of Every Nation or its leaders but just the truth and for Jesus Christ to be recognized as the sole Head of the church... not just in name but praxis. Part of that would involve the PERMANENT removal of leaders known to be in sin, whether it's financial or personal... including those who propogate false if not outright heretical teachings, etc. I have said before that I don't believe Every Nation to be a cult per se, but I do believe it to be run by a cult who use the network either for their own personal benefit or to further their own agendae. One of the ways that Every Nation could reform if it is possible and if it is in God's will for the organization to reform is to PERMANENTLY remove those who are in this cult. As you stated, leaders are not an authority unto themselves. They derive whatever authority that they have from Scripture and from Jesus Christ, the ONLY Head of the Body of Christ. Once a leader comes out from under that authority and instead follows or enforces another set of rules, they are no longer a legitimate spiritual authority, despite what title or position one may have. | ||
| dust New member Username: dust Post Number: 25 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 68.52.214.120 |
I have said before that I don't believe Every Nation to be a cult per se, but I do believe it to be run by a cult who use the network either for their own personal benefit or to further their own agendae. One of the ways that Every Nation could reform if it is possible and if it is in God's will for the organization to reform is to PERMANENTLY remove those who are in this cult. Ulyankee, that is saying a lot. Two years ago, I would have thought without question, this would be the case. Too many times the leadership promised us the members stability within the scriptures. They endeared us to TRUST them. I think that this trust was betrayed regarding Paul Daniel, and others mentioned, because each of these men, including Greg Feste, were KEYNOTE speakers at the World Conference sometime between 2001 and 2003 and I was a personal witness. This is quite big deal....for this GLOBAL, CORPORATE IMPARTATION said: *Trust these men, as God has trusted them to lead you, *You are in THEIR hands. *They represent our world-wide vision. *This is WHO we are, WHAT we are about. But, then afterwards as each man has fallen, we were NOT notified that: ***They have rebelled against God and God is not sanctioning thier leadership. ***They have been removed and there has been a GODLY response to thier sin. ***They have repented. *** A ministry in place for forgiveness and prayer for their reconciliation to God and to their restoration (not necessarily to ministry though.) Had this happened, the attitude toward reform would be different. Morning Star International, Every Nation Ministries had an awesome opportunity to teach and demonstrate a global/corporate godly lesson of the very issues they use to platform their ministry: Repentance - Getting right with God Responsible, godly trustworthy leadership Reconciliation to God Spiritual Authority entrusted to leaders over the flock Fear of the Lord Obedience to biblical mandates Thus far, there has been no obedience, or ministry of reconciliation. THEY MUST RECONCILE with their Body. And, ul, your continuous point that CHRIST is the HEAD of the church is probably the key. So then, can EVERY NATION leadership agree and bow down to JESUS CHRIST and everything He says and commands and truly recognize HIS RIGHTFUL PLACE? | ||
| ulyankee New member Username: ulyankee Post Number: 7 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 130.70.157.190 |
This can be done by recognizing that THEY TOO ARE the Body, just as much a part of it as rank and file believers in local churches. They do not rank any lower or higher as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. THEY ARE NOT THE HEAD. JESUS DID NOT DELEGATE HIS HEADSHIP TO THEM, NOR TO ANY MAN. I will not bow down and pay tribute to these "Levites" as Greg Feste taught wealthy members to do in his Wealth by the Book training. My allegiance is to Christ and Christ alone. And I do believe that there are many pastors in Every Nation who believe the same... who want to serve Him and Him alone. I hope this is not hijacking this thread. But as Philip said, it all comes down to one's view of authority. Who is the true authority here? Do you say its Jesus, but then demonstrate your fear of God by fear of EN leaders? I know it's hard, as many people's livelihoods are on the line here, but you can't have it both ways IMHO. | ||
| robert_unknown New member Username: robert_unknown Post Number: 6 Registered: 6-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
Thank you Dust for this well written statement. And thank you Phil also, for summarizing the things concerning Paul Daniel, whom I still hold dear in my heart until today (but not what he did, off course). Dust, a friend of mine, a pastor who was able to draw his church out of EN (his was not so stupid as i was 5 years ago, and he listened to his churchmembers and to the Holy Spirit) said one intersting thing one day (i am quoting out of my memory, so dont nail me if its not word by word): "Even without knowing everything that went wrong in EN and about the roots of EN, I know and met some of their representatives. After seeing what happened to the people (leaders) who represent EveryNation, I can draw my conclusions about the organisation". And then he drew the church out of EN. Thats a good point (actually the same what you said, Dust). The EN leaders REPRESENT the movement. They proofed to us, that one cannot follow them (at least the way, they liked us to follow them!). matt also brought some interesting thoughts one day. He said that the guys who found EN where discipled by Bob Weiner AFTER he burned the bridtges to the historical church. So in fact they found a new church without any connections to the historical church/ bidy of Christ, which go back to the reformers and back to the churchfathers and apostels and Jesus Christ. Just like the Mormons or Jehovas Wittnesses... Its an interesting thought, and i share this opinion. I do NOT believe that EN can reform into a real christian church (thats actually whats all about), and i dont want to say that the people in EN are not christians, but the question is, is the organisation a church (biblicaly seen) or not. At least EN is a so called "new paradigm church" which has a new set of values about leadership, submission, discipleship, obedience, apostolic authority, christian mandate. similar terminology, but "new (paradigm) meaning". With "new" i mean a "new meaning" of words, generated by the false doctrines/ teachings of NOLR teachers and movement past 1950 until today. Many, many values, ideas "theologies" in EN are NOT reformed or orthotox (ie "to reach and to rule", the millenium, the role of the sheperd and the apostle, discipleship...etcetc...) Reform would mean: - understanding what the BIBLE means with certain things (like the ones i mentioned and others) - understanding of what we (EN) understands with it, what is wrong and what is right (biblicaly) - correction of wrong ideas through ENLI, teaching, preaching... - repentance from sin, unmoral/ unethical behaviour (be it with money, people,...) - transparency (beeing part of real repentance) -... i see, until today, no steps into this directions. Yes - there are individuals in EN who see the errors, and the problems, and there are people who at least say, that they will play their part in changing these things. | ||
| robert_unknown New member Username: robert_unknown Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
But there are many shadows cast over this: - questionable people getting back into ministry with EN - no opening of books/ audits,... - no transparency towards the churches and churchmembers concerning decision/ problems... - important leaders involved with P:Wagner or his subministries (like 2 ENLI leaders...) - no honesty/ transparency about scandals (ie Paul Daniels adultorous affair) - saying this and doing that (ie website: "no connection with NAR", "no believe in dominiosnism" - but in fact there are connections of key-leaders, in fact there are dominionistic views about mission/ discipleship [reach and rule])... ... I think a restructure of EN would perhaps bring some solutions, but in my personal opinion a reform is NOT possible. Too deep are the false roots. Too less understanding about this is present within EN. All off this is, like all i have written, of course my personal opinion! | ||
| robert_unknown New member Username: robert_unknown Post Number: 8 Registered: 6-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
But as Philip said, it all comes down to one's view of authority. Who is the true authority here? i like this one. and its about accountability... no... not the one towards some chosen ones IN the organisation, but also to people outside the organisation. MCM failed the accountability test by rejecting the opinion of the ad-hoc commitee and the results of their audit... Paul Daniel failed to accept beeing held accountable for his deeds in 1996 by the IFCC and by his own pastors. EN as organisation and some of the core leaders seem to fail to accept accountability to both, the church members AND people from outside the church (ex-members, ex-pastors,...) ... its always nice to talk about "accountability", when one means others shall be accountable to oneselve while one selve doesnt accept it from outside. dangerous stuff! | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.102 |
Rosenthal, I'm finally seeing the light in your argument. And, yes, on this issue, taken in consideration the facts,(which I trust to be correct) Philip has a point: Church authority as an entity was placed above Scripture in this sorry case. And this would be a very grave failure of any ministry. This is the watershead argument why HP/EN is a sociological cult, aven though Bible based. The authority is no longer Christ (though publicly claimed), but a clique of men who have many things to hide. Maybe this is a clue to the dilemma: I recently talked to an ex-HP member that has returned to Cape Town's Gay scene: There are some prominent EN/HP members, who are regular patrons of Cape Town's premier male escort venue (brothel).Some gay people I've spoken to are prepared to affirm this publicly, especially after the hate speech effort His People set up,through their Pastor Naidoo during the debate on gay marriage in South Africa.(basically, Cape Town gays are tired of reading press articles relating the anti-gay rants by people they regularly see in gay venues) Now, if I'm a leader, and I've got something to hide, ie being a practising homosexual, what better chance to hope for, than catching the Church's Apostle in an adulterous affair. Afterall, I'll look the other way, and the Apostle will pretend to think I'm straight. As long as the Tithe comes in. As this is our mutual business interest. For the record: A-F is 100% gay affirmative, but not within the framework of a fundamentalist church. We are talking about hypocrisy. On the one hand HP/EN denounces the South African equality, and yet have openly practising homosexuals in their leadership.(albeit not exposed to the congregation.) So, my affirmation, and the terrain on which I'm prepared to support Rosenthal unconditionally, is that HP/EN is tolerating above all, the sin of religious hypocrisy. For those not familiar with South Africa: Cape Town is the Uber San Francisco of Africa. And MANY HP members and recrutes on UCT campus got involved with this cult because of the issue of homosexual denial.(or hoping that Jesus cures gays, which is a pipe dream. Jesus affirms gays,here Now,many of these members are married. Why aren't their wives making a scandal? Well, this brings us to the crux of Dominion Theology: Once a woman has lost her means to sustain herself, and depends on her husband financially to maintain her offspring, what can she do?? IMHO, look the other way. This is exactly what Jenny Daniel did, and my heart bleeds for her, because NOT ONCE was she offered the option of divorce from a hopelessly adulterous husband. She had to go to Nashville with him and then pretend that their marriage was 'healed'. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, etc. (I'm running for the bucket!) | ||
| 40days40years Junior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 26 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 65.54.155.52 |
Yeah but PD has been dealt with but it took awhile after he messed up again. I find what Dust wrote above from the conference kind of interesting. *Trust these men, as God has trusted them to lead you, *You are in THEIR hands. *They represent our world-wide vision. *This is WHO we are, WHAT we are about. So me being in the leaders hands is the plan of God, and them ruling over the sheep is their world-wide vision and this is WHO they are and what their ABOUT ? Who said that? Laffoon? I don't know I'm asking. Sounds like a plan, it only took me 20 years to figure this out. Get Your hands off Meeee! Leave those sheep alone! | ||
| coppertree New member Username: coppertree Post Number: 6 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 172.165.248.21 |
Hi All, Catching up some... Robert thank you for your post #6 of today. Those things you said about En, were said a good day ago In Maranatha....very interesting!} | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 14 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
Anti-fascist You make some a serious allegation above that a His People leader is frequenting a homosexual brothel. My question is whether this is hearsay or whether you have evidence. Evidence would mean for example the testimony of two or three witnesses who all willing to testify they saw the person there (or a photograph or written documentation). And if true you would also need similar evidence that the person in question is a His People leader (not just a member who happened to write a letter to the newspaper). Either way I suggest you don't name anyone on FactNet unless you have first been through due procedure (Matthew 18) as I did. Otherwise you could easily end up accidently slandering an innocent person and perhaps get yourself sued for libel. I don't get any enjoyment out of exposing scandal. It hurts me just as much as those leading the ministry involved. But if it is serious and the facts are true then it must be done - but at the same time one must be careful not to report hearsay as if it was truth. You don't always know the facts till you investigate them. A person can be mistaken for someone else. A person can be part of an evangelistic team doing an outreach at some seedy venue etc. Maybe cause to ask questions and start an investigation, but not necessary cause for public allegations. | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.102 |
Quite right,PR. I don't believe in outing people who are in the closet, as they too have family, who will suffer, and they probably have their reasons for being in denial. But I feel that this situation is probably contributing to the general spirit of covering up things in the CT church. | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 15 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
Anti-fascist We are not necessarily in agreement. We agree maybe that it is not a good idea to post such allegations on the internet without due investigation, but if there is any truth in such allegations I do argue the need for it to be investigated and dealt with. If any Christian leader is engaging in homosexual practice he must be kicked out publicly - regardless of the consequences for his family. Until then, I argue innocent until proven guilty. Elements of the homosexual community would have good motivation to try to discredit His People - and it would be easy for a story to get invented or embellished in order to do that. The serious allegations I have posted on this board have been carefully researched, investigated, cross checked between different parties and been through a thorough Matthew 18 process. I don't want my proven allegations to give credibility to hearsay speculative allegations. | ||
| anti_fascist New member Username: anti_fascist Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2006 Posted From: 80.119.65.102 |
MR Rosenthal, I have sensitivity for your point here, but hope that what I've said will enable you to see the cracks in the HP wall of hypocrisy. This thread is of prime importance, as you've managed to formulate your argument with great clarity, as to why the PD scandal is central to all the problems in this ministry. I think it is important also, because some members of HP have tried to discredit you by insinuating that this affair was water under the bridge,and had been dealt with adequately. This ideally should be the thread on which present members of HP/EN should post their views. A-F will try to abstain henceforth.  | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 16 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
anti-fascist I think one must distinguish between individual hypocrisy (which one will find scattered around every movement) and systematic organisational hypocrisy. Only once an issue is brought to the attention of the leadership does it become an organisational issue. If your allegations above have not been brought to the attention of the leadership in a Matthew 18 process, they have no responsibility for it. | ||
| youngnmighty New member Username: youngnmighty Post Number: 1 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 155.232.128.10 |
many wonderful queers at HP... many hypocritical ones too... met a wonderful queer who went to the HP in Cape Town... he told me that he was not exceptional... im not surprised by what A-F is saying about leaders. quite frankly i'd love for a big PINK outing to happen to one of the leaders coz so many gay people have been hurt in this church. and this is not one of those things PR and I will see eye to eye on. | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 18 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
Youngnmighty Your attitude is not in the fear of God. If you want to stand all alone against His People, without being in submission to God or get his help - I think you are being very foolish. I encourage you rather to base your life on the scriptures and make any challenge in terms of the scriptures. Those who reject God's plan for sexuality hurt themselves whether in or outside His People. Thanks to all in His People who have taken a tough moral stand against homosexual sin. This should not be discouraged. | ||
| youngnmighty New member Username: youngnmighty Post Number: 2 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 155.232.128.10 |
PR...i appreciate your hard work on this forum but please don't preach to me again. I've been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, wasted my tithe, wept silly tears, wasted my time and talents on the church you helped to found. I don't believe in God like you anymore thanks to my experiences in that Church and not because of influences outside of it. I am not interested in fearing any God, or telling any HP queers to either. But you have every right to do so as protected by your right to religious freedom, just not to me i beg you.... it won't help anyway... just so you know its futile... | ||
| philiprosenthal New member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 19 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
YongnMighty. You have been burned, but please don't give up on Jesus. You will need him one day. I just remembered another argument that is being used as to why the cover-up was wrong: F) WRONG BECAUSE IT HURT THE MISTRESS The argument is that the cover-up was wrong because Paul Daniel during the course of his 1996 trial hurled abuse at his former mistress and accused her of seducing him. With her being just out of school, and him being an authority figure in his 30's at the time it was much more likely that he seduced her. When she had first tried to blow the whistle on the affair she had been forced to leave His People (at the time the leaders apparently believed Paul's story that she was lying). Thus it is argued that her dignity was impaired by this abusive treatment. With this line of reasoning it was argued that the matter was dealt with once His People had dealt with the issue to the satisfaction of Paul's former mistress. (I don't know what this involved. Maybe an apology from the ministry.) COMMENT: I really empathise with the pain of Paul's former mistress in multiple mistreatments she suffered in this process - particularly since she was a friend of mine. Nevertheless, dealing with the issue to the satisfaction of the former mistress is a completely inadequate response to an international scale scandal and sin against God and tens of thousands of church members. In any event, the mistress also sinned in the process and thus is not in a position to judge the issue except with reference to sin against herself. (One of the big sadnesses here is that the mistress was a friend of mine and never told me about all this. If she had, the history of His People would have been different. She told me she had been asked to leave, but not why. After much prayer and seeking God, I phoned Paul Daniel in December 2002 to ask him about her - without realising the reason why - he replied 'Maybe we know something about her that you don't'. But sadly we can't roll back the clock.) | ||
| ulyankee New member Username: ulyankee Post Number: 8 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 130.70.157.190 |
I believe another overarching question is... does EN and/or HP leadership take a hypocritical, compromising stand on sin, not to mention its very own publicly stated values, in order to protect its financial base and/or public relations (which are intertwined)? OR the power structure in Every Nation? Was PD removed WHEN HE WAS because he was in sin, or because he threatened the EN/HP status quo, power structure, PR image, or financial base in some way? Same with Bonasso? Ball? Feste? Fetchel? Lawson? Would they have been removed and/or put into less public positions if their activities had remained hidden? Especially since they were all so key to EN's vision, agendae and/or financial base? I have just gotten even more information for example that shows how key the relationship between Greg Ball and Greg Feste was for helping to finance EN's operations through pro athletes and other wealthy members. The fact that they are not merely gone but QUIETLY gone speaks volumes, especially since many (but not all) of the people they led into CFC and EN are still around and I'm assuming still contributing financially to the operation... Greg Feste taught them well to "find their Levite" and not just tithe but pay the Lord's tithe, temple taxes, festival tithes, etc. on gross income (since he also taught that government tithes--taxes--are not calculated in the tithe) to their "pastors, who function as many of today's Levites." Feste's Malachi Foundation was where Feste paid his tithe, both personally and professionally through FesteCapital--this is DOCUMENTED in the prospectus Feste gave to prospective investors. Those tithes/donations then went to top EN leaders--this is DOCUMENTED in Malachi Foundation's Forms 990 filed with the IRS. So people who invested with Feste essentially tithed TWICE... directly, through following a version of Mosaic Law as taught them by Feste, AND indirectly through Feste's Malachi Foundation. All well and good except that Feste additionally claimed to the IRS, and both he and Ball claimed to the press, that Feste, his business enterprises, and his foundation had no relationship with Ball, CFC, MSI/EN or any of its leaders, which is a lie and there is ample documented proof that it is a lie. So the law revolving around donations to "disqualified persons" was likely broken... was this ever exposed publicly or otherwise? NO. Wow, this in itself is so hypocritical since on the one hand contributors were taught that the government tithe (taxes) are not counted in the tithe, and here we have these guys potentially breaking US tax code. This troika might have continued indefinitely IMHO if not for their desire to have a pro football team and maybe even a stadium named after MSI/EN (see 2002 North American Conference)... as Leghorn posted here some time back, it all fell apart, Feste sold his interest in the Wranglers to a former Dell exec, much of the money Feste invested for MSI/EN (Morning Star Club) and CFC (see form 990s) is gone, and EN is now even more reliant on a shrinking financial base than ever while it attempts to rebuild CFC... a base that very much includes HP, especially since several fiscally important US churches have either left or shrunk significantly in size (and giving) in the last couple years. Jesus's teaching to cut off the part of the body that causes one to sin has been twisted in EN and I would assume HP, which is not much more than an EN franchise since what was initially thought to be a symbiotic relationship between the two has proven parasitic. Applying this twisted version of Jesus' parable/analogy to EN's leadership, EN cuts off those parts of the body only when their sin and hypocricy threatens the holy image of EN, which unfortunately is an IMAGE. | ||
| 40days40years Junior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 36 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.190.210.52 |
A few comments. I don't believe HP would tolerate a leader going to a homosexual brothel, he would be gone for sure but the Matthew 18 thing? Let us say your the only one to see the dirty deed? I do not see why you should be silent about it but Philip seems to think you need 2 or 3 witnesses, confused on that one. Philip says he knows the mistress. With Paul Daniels it was plural, mistressses. Let us say Paul Daniel had never fallen into sex sins and he still had joined His People to EN would that have been OK then Philip? This whole thing is about lust and coveting. Paul Daniels lusted and coveted other women, EN and Rice lusted and coveted other churches and money. EN used the lust and covetness of Paul Daniel. They knew he would fall into sin and they would be there to pick up the HP pieces $$ in the future. Another question Philip? When EN was proposing to Paul Daniel to join the EN denomination and lets say they knew about Paul Daniel sex sins? Let us say Rice and company were proposing a merger of HP to EN? It is not realistic for EN leaders to stand up and tell the HP congregation about merging with EN and by the way your pastor has be diddling other women? Let us be realistic Philip. Quite frankly as an American I am kind of proud of EN. Paul Daniel and the South Africans thought they would eat the American EN/Maranatha machine. No chance, American Marantatha boys rule  and take dominion. How dare the South Africans under estimate us.  | ||
| 40days40years Junior Member Username: 40days40years Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 172.190.210.52 |
A few comments. I don't believe HP would tolerate a leader going to a homosexual brothel, he would be gone for sure but the Matthew 18 thing? Let us say your the only one to see the dirty deed? I do not see why you should be silent about it but Philip seems to think you need 2 or 3 witnesses, confused on that one. Philip says he knows the mistress. With Paul Daniels it was plural, mistressses. Let us say Paul Daniel had never fallen into sex sins and he still had joined His People to EN would that have been OK then Philip? This whole thing is about lust and coveting. Paul Daniels lusted and coveted other women, EN and Rice lusted and coveted other churches and money. EN used the lust and covetness of Paul Daniel. They knew he would fall into sin and they would be there to pick up the HP pieces $$ in the future. Another question Philip? When EN was proposing to Paul Daniel to join the EN denomination and lets say they knew about Paul Daniel sex sins? Let us say Rice and company were proposing a merger of HP to EN? It is not realistic for EN leaders to stand up and tell the HP congregation about merging with EN and by the way your pastor has been diddling other women? Let us be realistic Philip. Quite frankly as an American I am kind of proud of EN. Paul Daniel and the South Africans thought they would eat the American EN/Maranatha machine. No chance, American Marantatha boys rule and take dominion. How dare the South Africans under estimate us. | ||
| fussychristianone New member Username: fussychristianone Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
Excuse me for my ignorance, but can someone please tell me more about the adultery of Paul Daniel in 1996? The cover up and all it's details. I was a member there from 1990 up to 2003 and knew nothing about it till I read the mention about it in here. I also just heard Paul Daniel may be back in Ministry but not sure where? My heart goes out to his ex-wife and 4 children. I have not been able to join another church since the shame and fall of the scandal in our church when it came to light. I serve the Lord in my own way and do not trust ANY organized religion anymore. Jeus is my Rock and my salvation, NOT MAN! | ||
| fussychristianone New member Username: fussychristianone Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 196.25.255.250 |
Excuse me for my ignorance, but can someone please tell me more about the adultery of Paul Daniel in 1996? The cover up and all it's details. I was a member there from 1990 up to 2003 and knew nothing about it till I read the mention of it in here. I also just heard Paul Daniel may be back in Ministry but not sure where? My heart goes out to his ex-wife and 4 children. I have not been able to join another church since the shame and fall of the scandal in our church when it came to light. I serve the Lord in my own way and do not trust ANY organized religion anymore. JESUS is my Rock and my salvation, NOT MAN! | ||
| robert_unknown Intermediate Member Username: robert_unknown Post Number: 257 Registered: 6-2006 Posted From: 80.109.163.152 |
hi fussy, i was a pastor in HP until 2003. and a member since 1993/4... but in Europe. just follow the links Phil Rosenthal has posted in the first posting of this topic (at the very top). he has all the details in his own forum... regards R. | ||
| dust Intermediate Member Username: dust Post Number: 193 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 68.52.214.120 |
Welcome fussy, It must have been very difficult for you, as PD was a very gifted preacher. It is so sad that you spent 13 years of your life there, and had to suffer betrayal. People in position and power get so wrapped up their own personal "career" in ministry and do not stop to think how their actions affect the flock. The CHECKS and BALANCES for this OUGHT to be in place with other Christian leaders (elders, etc.) who will hold their feet to the fire and make sure that PROPER church government is in place and adhered to. But, that doesn't seem to happen and certainly did not in this case. They are more excited by the magnetic personality that will draw the people and they protect the "gift" while the fruit is rotten. I see this all over charismatic churches. Gifts over fruit. Back in ministry? I'm not surprised! And, the people seeking that magetic, intellectual charm will FLOCK. Shame shame shame. A Christian leader who HURTS the sheep with adultery, should be just happy to serve people, filing, scrubbing floors, changing light bulbs, and reconciing his soul back to God. But, never back in the limelight. This kind of humility would be an example and a demonstration of true leadership, and true love, and would lead people to forgiveness and true kingdom principles. | ||
| coppertree Member Username: coppertree Post Number: 82 Registered: 2-2005 Posted From: 172.135.71.233 |
Welcome Fussy, I am glad that you found your way here. I was involved with Maranatha/MSI which was the begining of Every Nation that joined with Hp. A lot of people like you were hurt and disillusioned by this movement. I hope that you find healing here , I have.} (Message edited by coppertree on August 11, 2007) | ||
| philiprosenthal Junior Member Username: philiprosenthal Post Number: 41 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 198.54.202.250 |
FussyChristianOne I am sure we must know eachother - read the sad story at this link and contact me at philip@rosenthal.net if you like. http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1156407556 I believe that Paul Daniel should never be allowed back in Christian ministry leadership and that any sheep who decide to follow him are being very very foolish. |
