The Alan Lang Story

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Originally posted on 6/14/04 at 10:39 am by Louise Connolly on thread The Full Alan Lang Story -

My name is Alan Lang. This is my account of the destructive abuse my family encountered with an organization we trusted. The "Bible Speaks" church and ministry was founded in the early 1970's by Pastor Carl H. Stevens along with "Stevens School of the Bible". The bible school was a non-credited college, which later moved and became Maryland Bible College and seminary after a 1987 bankruptcy, court-case and scandal. "The Bible Speaks" was also renamed "Greater Grace World Outreach" or sometimes referred to as GGWO. I began attending the Bible Speaks branch church in Pittsburgh, Pa in 1983. I attended its headquarters bible school in Lenox, Massachusetts, named "Stevens School of the Bible" from 1984 to 1987, when I graduated, then married my wife, Margaret, who was also a student at the time. From the time I came to this church, I was an active participant in many of its functions, such as bible studies, evangelistic outreaches, bus ministry, voluntarily working as ministry security on occasion, plus volunteering to assist working in the ministry school bookstore and snack-bar, in addition to attending church services three times a week. My participation took place in addition to holding down a full-time job and attending the bible school classes. During the church's scandal in 1987, we moved with the church and its bible school to Baltimore MD. We lived there and continued participating in the church life while attending church services three times a week till 1992. Things didn't really change too much after I moved with my wife & daughter to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We attended a Greater Grace branch ministry church in Pittsburgh for about ten months until a split took place among the local membership. We eventually left its branch church as the fallout of personality clashes, side-taking and accusations of certain members and pastors not being loyal to Pastor Stevens became a distraction from our intention to worship, serve God in winning the lost to Christ, hear His word expressed from the pulpit, and to maintain and make friends within the local church.

As in other Greater Grace World Outreach splits among some of its branch affiliates, the issue often become one of who is most loyal to Pastor Stevens and his teaching or in the coded language of the church: "who was really one with Baltimore".

While we began attending another church that was not affiliated with GGWO we still considered ourselves a part of Greater Grace ("GGWO") since we had a few close friends within "the ministry" as it's often referred to. We also had the connection of my wife's three brothers serving in some capacity within GGWO, plus my wife's sister Catherine who was also an active member. In addition we had many friendly acquaintances whom we cultivated as I often assisted my wife in her part-time position of managing the bible school snack-bar, under Paul Stevens as her boss. We left quietly, since it was not our intention to bum bridges. It had been often strongly implied by Pastor Stevens that anyone who removed themselves from connection with GGWO were losing fulfillment of Gods greater plan for their lives. My wife in particular stayed in closer touch by phone with occasional visits to Baltimore headquarters during the next six years, accompanied by myself on two occasions. Paul Stevens also had GGWO cassette taped messages of the three weekly services sent to my wife, beginning in 1994, though she never displayed any interest in listening to them. On infrequent occasion I would listen to one of these tapes, hoping to gain spiritual edification.

One of her brothers (John Hadley) is Dean of Students of the bible school, now known as Maryland Bible College & Seminary (or MBC&S in short). On the surface, things there have always appeared just right, from the doctrinal tatement on the weekly church bulletin, to the buzz of activity taking place. Behind the scenes things were different. Pastor Steven's son -Paul maintained contact with my wife by phone, a few times during the year, and in between my wife's visits to GGWO headquarters in Baltimore, in addition to sending her birthday cards. In 1998 we went online. Paul continued contacting my wife now by e-mail. My wife and I were friendly with Paul. He was more so friendlier with her. I made the mistake of overlooking this, since he was a pastor and Pastor Steven's son. Also, Paul and my wife had known each other previous to our marriage, and Paul was already married to a quiet, attractive Christian woman named Barbara.

Years before, Margaret and I engaged in many casual conversations with Paul during our work at the school snack bar. Back then I began to observe his unsolicited mention of behind the scenes church gossip in detail. Included were items such as who was getting married, splitting up and why, plus who had an affair and also who was an "enemy of the ministry". Paul tended to portray former members as fornicators, Alcoholics, gay, or "just arrogant to walk away from the geographical call (meaning GGWO in Baltimore) of God on their lives."

He was privy to all this since his Dad appointed him as church marriage counselor. On occasion I questioned his matter of fact style of preaching the personal confidence of several church members, former members, and even more personal gossip about his sister in law Marcy, his brothers Steve, Bruce, and his Brother in law Shawn Redgate. Paul seemed to find amusement in letting the personal details of others slip from his tongue. I told Paul that I'm not sure my wife and I need to know others personal business and marital problems. He became defensive replying "Pastors are human too and need someone to vent with" as if that explained his smugness, while pondering out loud what other people would say if they knew what he knew about several ministry members. He appeared to take pride in this small measure of power to influence the lives of church members.

On occasion my wife relayed to me careless remarks and observations that Paul made about me. She did not readily challenge these occasional comments since he was her boss, but she felt obligated to mention them to me. I ignored these comments as insignificant, and since I did not want to confront our pastor's son, and my wife's boss and friend.

After we moved to Pennsylvania and when I was aware of Paul's communication with my wife I would casually ask her what he had to say. Occasionally my wife would mention the suggestion by Paul that we belonged back in Baltimore at "home base" as it was sometimes referred to. Margaret diplomatically indicated to him that where we live was where God called us to for this time.

After such phone calls, Margaret would often say how glad she was to live where we lived. She indicated that the thought of going back there made her sick, and that she was certain that we were where God had led us as a married couple. Paul's reply often contained a carefully worded suggestion "as a Pastor I never tell anyone what to do" but would add in an undertone "but I know what I would do if it were me".

In my later review of Paul's e-mail communications to Margaret I noticed he began to question my loyalty to" the ministry".

As a marriage counselor and pastor, Paul took advantage of at least 5 factors; (1) Margaret's emotional vulnerability and unresolved guilt for a separate incident with her martial art's instructor, (2) their past friendship, (3) my questioning of Pastor Steven's twisting of the scripture's, (4) Paul's own mid-life crisis along with his stated his need for a "true friend", and (5) his bizarre anticipation of his own wife's demise as she struggled with radiation treatments.

In September '98 Paul told my wife that she belonged back in Baltimore and invited her to come for a few days by herself just before her thirty-second birthday. Birthdays were always difficult for Margaret emotionally. Paul told Margaret that she "needed to get to Baltimore" referring to the church there and that he "wanted to help you get your life back". In this context, Paul's counsel was in direct conflict with what Jesus told his disciples that "whoever attempts to save their life in such a manner shall lose it... " Luke 17:33 Paul told her of an upcoming Woman's Seminar within a few weeks at GGWO. Paul mentioned that he would be speaking at the seminar. Paul also mentioned he could arrange a free motel room for her four-day stay at the Suisse Chalet off the Baltimore Beltway at exit 34. This motel arrangement proved later to be an occasion for sin among many which I discovered later. He also posed the question to my wife as to whether I as her husband really loved and cared for her spiritual welfare. Margaret sounded out his question to me at this time. In frustration, I responded that I considered his questions strange, unfounded and of insincere motive. She suggested that we seek marriage counseling from him.

I suggested looking elsewhere more locally for counseling and expressed my doubts of Paul's ability to remain objective and hold anything we said in confidence. She thought this to be crazy, since he was Pastor Steven's son. I told her that while I respected Pastor Stevens, I did not consider "every word" he preached as infallible since he occasionally interjected his ppersonal opinion as God's word, along with his veiled attacks on anyone who left GGWO during the messages he preached. I also objected because of his questionable use of the biblical text of Hebrews 13:17 in which he used this verse to uphold his teaching that we as "believers are given from God one pastor/teacher for life" on earth directly implying himself in our case. I objected to his teachings which heavily implied that the Pastor/Teacher has absolute authority in a Christians life.

My belief was that while we as Christians are given pastors and teachers for our perfecting and edification (Ephesians 4:11) It may not always be the same Pastor/Teacher as God brings us as Christians and Pastors into new seasons and phases in life. I believe this to be a matter of personal discernment and prayer between a Christian and God.

As my further study of the scriptures did not support his particular teaching, I thought out loud that Pastor Stevens was taking personal license with the text. Not only this but much less did I consider Paul's opinion credible when it came to our marriage, since he had no professional counseling certifications or credentials, but was placed in that position by his dad when the position was vacated years before by someone who parted with the church. It wasn't until months later when I discovered copies of about 100 plus e- mail letters between Paul and my wife, that I saw how Paul took this as a personal "attack against the ministry". Being considered now as an "enemy of the ministry" whenever I would later visit my wife and kids at Greater Grace World Outreach, I was to be viewed as a "spy in the camp" according to Paul's twist of a biblical term.

On Monday morning November 2" d, 1998, I experienced this treatment as I arrived at GGWO headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland.

As I will explain briefly later, my wife left our house with Paul Stevens shortly after midnight on Halloween, Oct. 31, 1998. I was not aware that he had come for her. My two daughters explained to me what they saw happen. They both describe being awakened that night to find Paul Stevens helping their mother load her car. One daughter also described the "laughing and joking" between Paul & my wife during the ride to Baltimore as they thought she was sleeping. I stopped by our house that morning Sunday Nov. 1st to find a brief goodbye note from her saying she was moving to Baltimore. I was shocked, but had to maintain composure in order to return to work for the next two shifts. I left for Baltimore at 2:30 am immediately after getting home from work Nov. 2nd. I arrived at GGWO at 10:00 am after driving through the night stopping to rest when I could no longer hold my eyes open after twenty-five hours without sleep the previous day. As I drove onto the GGWO property I looked to see if my wife's car was in view. It was parked near Paul Steven's car at the rear of the building. My wife later admitted to me at this point that I was being observed on the security camera which scanned the rear of property where I parked. I then noticed some children playing on a small bare asphalt patch of property, enclosed by a ten-foot high chain-link fence which gave it a distinct compound look of the Waco, Texas, David Koresh type. My youngest daughter, Alex, yelled "Hi Dad!" and waved at me, as she pressed up against the fence from the other side. As I approached the fence to meet her a woman worker saw me and immediately took her by the hand inside the building closing the door as I stood speechless. I rang the buzzer at the rear entrance of the former shopping plaza type building which now housed GGWO. In a plain looking hallway I was greeted by Paul Stevens. He was smiling appearing to act friendly and concerned. He said my wife "was around somewhere" and excused himself to "try to find her". The moment he left, my oldest daughter Rachel told me "Mom's in Pastor Paul's office" as she came to greet me from another direction.

Paul returned in ten minutes saying "she's a little upset right now, I'll see if she will come out to talk with you." Fifteen more minutes elapsed before Paul re-appeared saying we could meet in his office. I followed him to a door around the corner about fifteen feet away. There she was seated in a chair across from Paul's desk where he sat, with reddened eyes as if she had been crying a lot. I said nothing. I walked up to her and kissed her on the forehead as she didn't move or look at me.

She then glared at me and said defiantly "Al, I am never moving back to Pittsburgh with you, I'm living here and have never been happier in my life!" I sat down silent for a few seconds taking it all in. She maintained a stiff posture of arms folded and legs crossed in her chair. I started to weep. I said "I tried to be a good husband, a good dad, a good provider and worker but don't understand what you want" "I'm sorry your hurt but this is where I belong and I am never moving back!" she replied in an angry tone.

Ten days previous to this Paul called me in late October and offered to drive the five hours to Pittsburgh to take us to lunch and offer his counseling for our marriage. I considered it a strange offer but not wanting to offend my wife, I went along in order to make her happy and since I wasn't aware of their blossoming affair. Paul Stevens came to Pittsburgh on Thursday Oct. 29th, 1998, and brought two pastors with him (Scott Robinson & David Duff). Paul acted warm, friendly, and concerned to help us. Months later as I read an e-mail letter dated Oct. 23rd, I read that he came with the intention to question me about my differences with the ministry and to attempt to get me to react for his own amusement in front of my wife, and to "plant a kiss on your lips in front of Al" as he wrote teasingly to Margaret much different from what he so nicely told me by phone previous to his visit when he sounded as just an old friend who had been asked to help us work things out. While the two pastors Scott, Dave and I chatted in my home, my wife offered to show Paul around. While in another room, Paul initiated an intimate kiss on the lips, including embrace of my wife to which she submitted. This was later bragged about on one of the e-mail letters dated Oct.30, 1998, by Paul.

The e-mails exchanged between my wife and Paul revealed an ongoing questioning of my wife's purpose in Gods plan for her life. Among those things questioned by Paul was whether or not I as her husband was "fully one with the ministry". He told her I was "off' which according to the coded language of Greater Grace World Outreach implied I was deceived by differing with some of Pastor Stevens teachings. The previous 6 years I was working as a manager for 3-group homes for mentally retarded adults and the staff who supported them. It was not his concern of whether I was an involved Father to our two young daughters (ages 10 & 6) though we both home schooled them in addition to my jobs as Group-homes manager. As Paul offered his opinion, it was never mentioned whether I valued her as my wife except in the negative. More than once Paul questioned Margaret as to whether I as her husband really loved her. I treasured her and sought to express this by fording time to spend with her daily amidst our busy lives, to tell her I loved her daily, to ask how she was doing, to inchange kisses and intimacy, to surprise her with flowers, to cook her a meal two and three times a week to give her a break, to support her by changing my work schedule so she could go to school to become a court-reporter, to baby-sit our youngest while she practiced for her profession, and to challenge her when she seemed to be hiding what she wanted to say at times when we could amicably disagree. On the contrary Paul implied to my wife of 11 years that she had good cause to leave me. While I always knew I was far from perfect, and that marriage itself is a full time occupation I felt ambushed. Because I may have been "a great father, and a great provider", I was considered to be "a poor husband" she told me Halloween Day before I left for work. Margaret told me this in a very cold distant tone with glazed eyes. Her personality was completely different from the one I had known for the past 12 years. I wept while saying "I'm so sorry". That was the last time we ever sat together in that house as husband and wife. In past years, I frequently attempted to persuade my wife to open up with me if she appeared to keep things in and to herself. This sudden Definition of me as a poor husband was then and only then defined to me in terms that I discovered Paul Stevens coaching my wife in her vulnerability to articulate in their e-mail communications. At the time, not aware of the Deception taking place I assumed ownership for what happened.

Just after midnight on Halloween, Oct 31, 1998, Paul Stevens had Driven five hours from Baltimore MD., with her sister Catherine, & her husband (Pastor) Ed Morneault to our home in Pittsburgh, Pa, to "rescue" my wife because she "threatened to kill herself' if they did not come. I was at work this night, and not home. There had never been physical, mental or verbal abuse exchanged between Margaret and I, but as she was caught in the emotional mindset of this burgeoning affair all they both needed was a reason to steal away. They had two reasons; she was "suicidal" according to their agreed plan and I was "a poor husband" with no chance to openly Deal with or challenge this unless of course Paul Stevens himself could act as our marriage counselor. She and Paul had known each other prior to our marriage and often acted chummy in the past reducing any objectivity he might have. Secondly but not least, Paul had no formal training or professional certification as a counselor of any type. He was put in position by his dad who founded and directed the church they represented. But then I had expressed these reservations to Margaret previously. We discussed seeking marriage counseling that summer. She wanted Paul to counsel us. I suggested seeking someone who knew neither of us as friends, who may offer some objectivity. I was told take it or leave it. So, not yet knowing about the already ongoing affair between them, I began to take all the blame for our sudden failed marriage, not knowing I was being set-up. I began to visit my wife and two children in Baltimore once a week. With the intention of moving to Baltimore, I gave immediate notice to my employers that I was quitting my job within two weeks. I put our house up for sale, and my brother bought it two months later.

At the end of November 1998 I was visiting my wife and daughters for 3 & 4 days at a time, still unaware of the affair between Paul and Margaret. At first I had no permanent place to stay until I temporarily moved in with my wife and her brother Jim & his family. Others appeared to think we were working through a separation in our marriage and treated us kindly. She let me know that Paul Stevens was covering the tuition of our kids at the Greater Grace Academy elementary school. My wife Margaret had become uncharacteristically hostile in her language & manner toward me. In my 12 years of knowing her, I had never seen a hint of this distinct personality change. She displayed a major personality overhaul towards me, saying things she appeared scripted to say such as " this is the Church God has called me to & if you don't like it you can f--- off' and "take our two girls and leave, this is where God has called me". Saddened by it all, I refused to split up our family and leave, I continued to go to church services with her and even accept "counsel" from Paul Stevens and his Dad -Pastor Stevens. I found out later, when I discovered the e-mail copies that Paul Stevens would tell my wife everything I said though he assured me it was confidential between He & I as counselor & counselee.

Late at night on Jan 90' 1999 I finally asked Margaret if she was having an affair or had one. She was waiting for me to ask she said, & confessed to having a one-time fling with her former martial arts instructor back in Pittsburgh, on July 10th, 1998. I thought back to what may have led up to that time. 1997 was full of life's changing events. Margaret had marked her 30th birthday months before and found it difficult emotionally. We were about to celebrate 10 years of seemingly happy marriage. My Dad passed away in July 1997 after Margaret and I became closer to him attending to his personal care on a daily basis his last 6 months. In August 1997 Margaret suddenly announced she was quitting her job as a court reporter after 4 years of training and 6 months of internship. Margaret joined my daughter who was already taking Tae Kwon Do lessons and threw herself into learning all she could. I learned later that the instructor had a habit of "hitting on" women and it took him 10 solid months to continuously work on Margaret. During that time she attempted to see what my reaction would be if I found out. She asked me in a subtle manner one day in July 1998; "What would you do if he ever tried to hit on me?" I told her that I would confront him in a not too friendly manner. I probed her as to whether I needed to be check this matter out.

"No" she insisted and "if it did happen I could handle him." "Are you sure?" I probed further. "Yes" she insisted in an annoyed manner. As I asked her if she wanted to take lessons elsewhere she insisted no it was more convenient where she was. I also was working a lot during this time, as our lives ran non-stop.

She also said she told Pastor Stevens and Paul about this one day affair with her instructor 2 months later in September 1998. She said they both suggested not telling me. I wept as she spoke. A burden seemed lifted from her shoulders having confessed. She assured me this was the one & only time. I told her I wanted to be her husband as if this never happened. I also told her that I realized I could have been more attentive and generous to her by noticing the warning signs as our lives became busier during that time. We both wept. She appeared very relieved. We talked late into the night before falling asleep. Everything seemed much better between us the next day - a Sunday as we went to the regular morning service at Greater Grace World Outreach. I noticed Paul Stevens seemed anxious to speak with her privately after service & they did for 20 minutes, concluding with a long embrace as I watched them from a short distance. That day & next Margaret's disposition changed back to a very quiet & despondent manner, weeping a lot but refusing to say much as to what was truly bothering her. The next day my curiosity got the better of me as never before, as I opened up her e-mail past and present. There it was in over 120 e-mail letters between her & Paul Stevens between August 1998 and Jan 1999, including dates, motels, and an illicit encounter in Paul's motel room on Nov.7th,' 98 during a fundraising trip to Dover Plains, New York, where Paul preached and she volunteered as secretary for the group of church singers they brought along. I learned that in May of 1998 Paul invited Margaret to a fundraising banquet in Baltimore for the church radio broadcast. When she accepted that's when he told her he loved her and needed her back in his life as he just had marked his 41St birthday and wasn't handling it too well.

During summer 1998 they went on-line together exchanging phone calls late on Friday nights, and engaged in flirtatious banter and teasing while critiquing their spouses. At the time Paul's wife Barbara was undergoing a series of radiation treatments for a thyroid problem which left her feeling sick, and Paul suggested that she (his wife) may not live anyway, and that "God has a way of bringing people together" alluding to he and Margaret. Of course Paul's wife and I remained as an obstacle to their perceived fulfillment of "Gods plan". Paul also suggested that after his 40th birthday the year before, he began to realize how difficult it was to stay married to the same person for 20 years as he had. Months later it was revealed that they discussed the strategy of having a Protection From Abuse order (PFA) filed against me if they could bait me into hitting my wife or threatening her in some manner. They tried hard, Margaret reverted back to her uncharacteristic cursing at me and attempting to berate me. Much of what she said did not sound like the person I had known for 12 years. Instead it was coming from the premise that she had to "resist Satan even when he is influencing your husband" as she would later rebuke me. I kept this information to myself as I felt deeply betrayed and hurt by the person I love the most and by two people who stood in a place of spiritual authority and seemed willing accomplices in separating Margaret and I further apart. Pastor Stevens even looked at me and said a week before that "every marriage which God hasn't' planted will be plucked up", paraphrasing but misusing a well- known scripture verse but ignoring the biblical injunction: " What God has joined together let no on tear apart" Mark 10:9. When Pastor Stevens and his son Paul would offer me counsel separately they seemed to say the same thing as if they quietly conferred with each other between sessions. Never once did either of them inquire how my two small daughters were doing, though I brought this to their attention as one of my concerns. My six-year old daughter Alexandra developed the nervous habit of pulling on her hair gradually opening up a balding spot on top of her head of three inches. She was quiet and clinging towards me a lot during this time, climbing in bed beside me at night since my wife slept alone during these months. My wife refused sexual intimacy with me for the most part during this time and ignored our children for most of the time we spent as a family. My oldest, our 10 year old daughter, and firstborn- Rachel was torn in her emotional response towards both Margaret and I as parents since in some way she seemed to feel responsible for our arguments, but desperately wanted to keep us together as a family. A friend of mine who had seen his parent's split up when he was a child told me this was a typical response especially for a first-born child as Rachel. Rachel was emotionally bottled up, on occasion in private moments sobbing to herself uncontrollably but not wanting me see her or make this an issue which would embarrass her. At times I could only hold her, as she sobbed not wanting anyone to know. I watched the woman I love change from an emotionally stable, loving, caring, nurturing person, who treasured her family and loved God by every expression to someone who was caustic, angry, short tempered and depressed most of her day. She could put on a cool pleasant face in front of others but not the children and I.

My prayers became more specific as I became more desperate. I prayed that God would show me someone whom I could trust to talk to within the church about this mess we were in. That day (Jan.20th, 1999), while picking my kids up at school, I saw a long time friend of Margaret and I, named Barbara Evans. Barbara and her husband Dave were also friends and financial supporter of Pastor Stevens. Barbara employed Margaret parttime in her Court Reporting firm. Sensing that we were having problems she mentioned that if Margaret & I ever needed to have someone to talk with she and her husband Dave were available.

I hesitated at first but then took her up on the offer only if they could meet with me alone that evening as I told her what I wanted to discuss was rather serious. They invited me to dinner at their home that night a Wednesday before church service.

I left sensing our meeting was more than chance, but an answer to my prayer. I found hope in recalling the scriptural text of Matthew 18:16,17 about church members who constantly commit the same offense: " if he will not listen to you, take one or two witnesses along. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would an unbeliever". As I had found Paul to be this untruthful, I knew it was time to find the I or 2 witnesses that Jesus suggested.

I stopped at our apartment briefly, saw Margaret, who by this time was sensing I knew something, was very defensive, threatened to leave me and the kids and kill herself if I didn't tell her what I was up to. Not trusting her at this point,
and without telling her after arguing back & forth on this for about 45 minutes, I attempted to talk her out of her suicidal intentions, but she left in her car. I dropped the kids off with my sister-in law at church and told her Margaret left in a very upset state of mind. I went to the Evan's home. They knew what I wanted to tell them was of a serious nature but were shocked as I told them everything I could remember. I then produced copies of the 100 plus e-mail letters between Paul & Margaret. They sat quietly for then another 45 minutes reading each letter, shaking their heads in disbelief at times. The letters mentioned dates, motels, his car or office for "coffee". The letters also contained descriptive reminiscing of the previous nights affair, in addition to a critique of both their spouses, among other banter. As Barbara and Dave finished reading they both said that something must be done. Barbara sped down to the church were service was already going on and approached Pastor Stevens as soon as he finished preaching, told him their was a serious problem he had to deal with about Alan & Margaret Lang at her house, & that he should bring his son -Paul. They showed up about 9:30 PM, about a half-hour after service ended and about as long as the drive from the church.

Pastor Stevens appeared nervous when I told him briefly what I knew and pointed to the copies of the e-mail letters on the table. Paul broke down weeping, falling to his knees before us while admitting to his dad this was true, saying he was "so sorry" to me, & then to his dad. Pastor Stevens asked me if I wanted his son Paul to step down as a Pastor. Sidestepping the question I said all I wanted was my wife back, and for Paul to cooperate by honoring our marriage, and staying away from my wife completely. As much as I wanted to trust Pastor Steven's apparent good will, I quietly doubted that he had the fortitude to have his son step down as a pastor and marriage counselor. Though he insisted he wanted to advise me "as your pastor", my instincts suggested that he was Paul's dad first. He asked me if we could keep this from being known, from Paul's wife, and causing scandal in his church. I restated that Paul & Margaret should cease all contact with each other for the sake of my marriage and family. Pastor Stevens agreed, while complementing me profusely for what he considered the biblical and private manner in which I handled this. Pastor Stevens suggested that we would make a covenant before God for this to be. David & Barbara, Pastor Stevens, Paul and I Stood together and briefly prayed such before leaving. I took Paul with me to help find my wife, we made phone calls, drove around familiar places, then received a call from Paul's wife on his cell phone, saying that Margaret had called for him. We found her at a gas station near Paul's house in Bel Air, MD. about a half hour away. She refused to see me, and would only talk to Paul. They talked for about 10 minutes before she would come over & to my car. She refused to look at me. The three of us sat in his car as Paul talked. Paul admitted to Margaret in my presence that he was wrong, but was now glad that his dad knew so that he could get on with his life. Paul also expressed that he often wondered if the message he heard from the church pulpit was real and now he believed it was. I had read in two previous e-mails of Paul voicing the same question about the validity of what he heard from the pulpit at times. This admission surprised me that he could occasionally say things from the pulpit that he didn't truly believe but act as if he did when given the chance to preach by his dad. My wife refused to come home with me as she was silent but sullen. Paul left to go home. She left, I later learned to a motel room at the Ramada Inn in Towson, MD., a half- hour away. The next morning, Jan 21St, Pastor Stevens & Paul left for a three-Day church conference in Las Vegas, where they both preached.

Margaret came back to our apartment at 5:00 pm the next Day. When I didn't hear from her earlier, I called her parents in Florida. Her dad said Margaret had just called him. He was unaware of what was going on except that his Daughter was upset.

That being a fathers concern for his child's immediate safety he didn't ask questions and I didn't explain. He said he was paying to have her fly & visit them in Florida for three weeks. I was relieved that she was safe and left it between them as a father-Daughter matter if they chose to Discuss it. Margaret left for Florida after three Days of barely talking to me.

On Sunday morning January 24',1999 at 1:00 am, I was awakened by a phone call from Pastor Stevens in Las Vegas. He apologized for calling late, explaining that he just finished preaching and wanted to see how I was. I briefly replied that I now had more hope for my wife and family after our meeting at the Evan's home a few nights before. He interrupted to tell me "God does speak to you", and " you handled this matter as a gentleman and so biblically" and "I want you to consider being a pastor", and "your like a son to me", and "you can trust me as your pastor, because I refuse to be sentimental with him (Paul). I'll pull his ordination papers in a second if I ever hear he's done this again." finally "let's both agree to quietly keep an eye out for how they (his son & my wife) conduct themselves and let each other know so you have the peace to know this is over". I agreed, thanked him for the call, checked my notes as I had written down his verbatim comments in my notebook next to the phone, during our conversation.

Much later that same Sunday, after evening church service at 9:30 pm, Pastor Stevens called from Las Vegas to speak with Margaret. Margaret answered and spoke with him. She said to me after hanging up "Pastor said that since this (the affair) is over, in God's eyes it's as if it never happened. Your husband should have never involved the Evans in this. Your husband violated bible doctrine by uncovering you and Paul, like Ham uncovered Noah after the flood. We both know that Barbara Evans is a talker. If she (Barbara) ever tells anyone about this, we can agree before God, by telling others that she's a liar!

Because in Gods eyes this never happened, since God doesn't even see our sins once he's forgiven us." Margaret repeated this to me immediately after hanging up with Pastor Stevens. This appeared to me to be Pastor Stevens taking license with the scriptures to say what he wanted them to mean. I hid my disappointment with what appeared to be a questionable approach to my wife on the matter by Pastor Stevens. At 6:00 am the next morning, I drove my wife to the airport to catch her plane.

I wondered why Pastor Stevens would give such instructions to my wife but say nothing like that to me. Strangely though, it was not the last time he gave us each conflicting advice, as I'll illustrate in a moment. It did appear after a few more incidents of giving conflicting advice that Pastor Stevens was attempting to keep us both second guessing and doubting each other, while pretending and insisting "I'm your pastor, you can trust me, I refuse to be sentimental with my son". Clearly his mode of operating was to confuse by dividing a married couple's already wounded affections for each other.

There was a phone conversation of Monday February 15th. Pastor Stevens called me after Margaret went to work as he arranged. After the usual "hi how are you?" he said "I want to ask you a question. Don't be mad!" "OK go ahead" I told him. He said "Didn't you think that the gown your wife wore to the banquet the other night was rather revealing with that slit up the side?" I said "No Pastor, I didn't even think of that". He went on to imply that she was asking for trouble by wearing a black nylon gown that came down to her ankles yet had a slit on one side that came up just past her knee. He also said it looked "too Hollywood". I replied, that since he is our pastor, that she would consider this pastoral observation more readily coming from him, due to our strained relations, and that he should feel free to suggest this to her attention when he calls her in the next day. He appeared not to hear this and changed the subject. Days later, I asked Margaret if Pastor Stevens said anything to her about this, she said "No not at all" offended by his failing to mention this to her personally, but more so because she considered her style of dress modest and formal for a church Valentines night banquet. On at least two occasions, when I suggested to Pastor Stevens that "blood is thicker than water" and that even with his years of experience it may be difficult for him to remain objective as a counselor involving the issues of adultery between his son and my wife, he dismissed this thought as being "from Satan" and that "I'll be the intermediary in your marriage". As the weeks went on it became apparent that the more frequently I gave him power to act as liaison between my wife and I, the more frequently I sensed we were being manipulated and betrayed.

Also during many of our private conversations Pastor Stevens said he was aware that Margaret had been molested as a young teenager during a baby-sitting job. He said to me that "her problems began way before she moved away to Pittsburgh, or even Bible School. Her habit is a result of operating with damaged goods in her emotions, that's what I think" Pastor Stevens often used the term "damaged goods" to refer to confused and sick emotions. His veiled attempt to place the blame primarily on Margaret led me to realize he was willing to discredit her to protect Paul's reputation within the church.

There was a face to face conversation I had with Pastor Stevens on Tuesday March 9,1999 before his lunch time address to church members at the ministry dining area known as "The lunch rap". I remember this date also as I recorded it on my calendar after returning from a job interview. I approached Pastor Stevens with my concerns about catching Paul with my wife behind the school the previous week while he was away. Pastor Stevens turned the subject immediately to my wife's responsibility for this. I told him as our pastor he should talk to both Paul and Margaret. I related that when I attempted to discuss this with her she became sullen, threatening to kill herself storming off refusing to heed any thing concerning this. He reacted "Let her kill herself! She's a great manipulator. I doubt she's even saved. I'm going to ask her if she's ever been saved? She won't give me any of her mouth!" He told me again that he would take care of the matter and talk to her.

He also insisted as far as he knew his son was no longer meeting with her and believed Paul when he insisted his "heart is pure on the matter". He ignored the subject of their being caught a few days before by me behind the school. According to a later conversation with my wife, he never brought this up, again she was offended and upset at him for this but hesitated to confront him for fear of offending Paul, by questioning his dad. During that three weeks Margaret was in Florida, from Jan 26th to Feb 13th 1999, I worked part time so to care for our daughters as I had been accustomed to while we lived in Baltimore the last few months. Our children Rachel & Alex seemed quiet. They were very concerned about why their mom left us, but accepted my assurances that we would all be back together in three weeks.

One morning in the second week of February I received a phone call from Pastor Stevens. After the usual reassurance that he is my pastor calling to see how I was he asked the question. "You haven't told anyone else about things now have you?" After I assured him that I didn't. I told him I was still grieving over the matter. He attempted to solicit a heroic response from me by suggesting that "if others find out, thousands of lives associated with this ministry will be affected, souls that could be saved will go to hell. It's vital that you tell no-one, not a soul! " I didn't say much except that "I understand".

During this time I was keeping a journal of thoughts, feelings, names and dates of the events surrounding my life. I wrote down our conversation soon after we hung up.

Margaret returned from Florida on Feb.13h. During that time I later discovered that she and Paul began to communicate on e-mail once again. Trusting Paul at his word once again I believed him to be ceasing all communication with Margaret. That was not the case as they talked daily, often for an hour at a time, while she was on her parent's computer in Florida. I learned that she had signed on-line by another name on her dad's AOL membership, which she much later confessed and showed me when I proved to her I knew. When I suspected this may be going on I asked Paul openly three times if he was still communicating, he looked me in the eye and denied it, reassuring me that its natural for me to suspect him after all he admitted to doing, but it just wasn't the case. I brought my suspicions to his dad Pastor Stevens who asked me if I had proof & wanted to know why I had such suspicions anymore. I did not feel safe revealing to him what I knew as I felt Paul and my wife were both becoming only sneakier, and Pastor Stevens was covering for them with or without knowing of which I wasn't sure.

I approached Pastor Stevens with my suspicions at least 10 times in the next month. He assured me he would check into it. On 4 occasions he even said he would insist that Paul step down as a pastor if he found out any of this was true. Often he would just hear me out then say "I'll take care of it" as if to humor me in a fatherly manner. He insisted that he is my pastor and would act objectively on my behalf, but also interrupting our conversations each time to ask if I had spoken to anyone of this matter, stressing that we had a covenant before God to not let this be known. He would neglect to mention each time his own son's part in the covenant of agreeing cut of his relationship with my wife -Margaret. Yes, she was a consenting adult but within the boundaries of their persuasion and influence. It was obvious they were coaching her with some scripted but twisted bible verses that she, Pastor Stevens, and Paul Stevens used on a number of occasions in our conversations as follows; "Jesus never followed the woman caught in adultery around to check on her" forgetting to mention that Jesus told her to go and sin no more, but even more so neither was Jesus a party to her further temptation as the gospel story shows. Or a favorite response: " David fell into adultery in the Bible, but he was Gods man" failing to mention the process of repentance and accountability David owned up to in the same passage of scripture. For someone who was comparing himself to David, Paul ran to his dad often for intervention, unlike the character of King David.

Or from Genesis: "Ham uncovered Noah in the Bible & was cursed, so be careful that you don't uncover anyone" failing to mention the context in which Ham did this in order to mock Noah, while Pastor Stevens and Paul continued to avoid using any concrete process of accountability letting the affair continue in a more deceptive manner.

In late February 1999 Pastor Stevens called me and chewed me out for not forgiving and forgetting, being much more concerned about my inability to process the hurt & betrayal immediately and "forget it ever happened", as a mature believer apparently would according to his reasoning. Pastor Stevens would dismiss my concerns with something like "God forgets what we did and doesn't even look at our sins once we repent" failing to see that his son Paul may have apologized but he did not yet repent.

Paul did not repent to the extent that he forsook any involvement with my wife as agreed but became more adept at undermining our marriage. Jesus stated in such matters "If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you... " Matthew 5:30. Christ gave no room for error saying such things. It can be clearly understood that for the sake of the sacred covenant of marriage such a "friendly" relationship has no place and should be cut off. Whenever I reminded them of these obvious commands from the scriptures they represented Paul would rationalize them away citing the strong bonds of "friendship", while Pastor Steven's would appear a little slighted that I was quoting the bible to him in his position as pastor. Earlier in the sequence of events I empathized with Pastor Stevens. I reminded him that even though he insists that he wants to work through this with me, that I know that blood is thicker than water. I suggested that for me to ask of him to advocate on my behalf as a church member in regards to his son was not something I was totally comfortable with. He dismissed this saying "that's from Satan!" assuring me that I could trust him on this whole matter and tell him anything, all the while reminding me " you haven't discussed this with anyone have you?" During this time I had an ambivalent sense of my relation to Pastor Stevens. I was torn emotionally by my love for Margaret, and valued his attentiveness and concern as a pastor but wrestled with denied the possibility that his primary motive was to protect his own interests and Paul's since he himself denied this suggesting such thinking was "from Satan".

By March 1999 I was feeling manipulated, managed and avoided by Pastor Stevens on this whole matter. A friend of Margaret and I, by the name of Tony Selph who is also head of the Greater Grace Ministry Security, approached me and confided that he knew what was going on. We sounded each other out for what the other knew, and was willing to tell. Tony stated some observations he made as head of GGWO security, and by the instincts he developed after 25 years in security work. Tony felt betrayed himself by Paul Stevens for the manner in which Paul had sabotaged Tony's position as head of Security on a particular occasion in the past, when former V.P. Dan Quayle came to speak at the church. Paul apparently attempted to steal the spotlight as head of security escorting Mr. Quayle around during his visit while dismissing Tony to a lesser position. Tony felt slighted. During our conversations in November and December 1998, Paul frequently attempted to portray Tony in an unfavorable light, referring to him as " that bastard who keeps hitting on your wife when your not around" After Paul sanctimoniously asked me on one occasion if I wanted him to "fire him (Tony)" or "at least tell his wife" I reminded Paul that I already confronted Tony privately on Nov. 8th. I also reminded Paul that I felt Tony was now acting honorably towards my wife as she confirmed this. Paul insisted that he had enough he could say to Tony's wife about Tony's past indiscretions "to bring him down". In short, Paul was using Tony as a decoy to cover his own actions.

The day after Tony & I talked, Tony told, me he approached Paul with some of his long held in concerns. Paul must have called his dad to say we were talking about him, since Pastor Stevens called me that afternoon to chew me out, telling me I was "violating several biblical doctrines" by talking with Tony and instructing me to call Tony and "say everything I said was a lie, I was just not thinking right, forget everything I said". Before hanging up, Pastor Stevens said "I have 5 pages of notes in my file on that guy (Tony) and can bring him down in a second if he ever spreads any of this" Pastor Stevens called me back the next morning to make sure I called and said this to Tony. I did, though Tony saw right through it.

Also on or about Thursday March 4th, 1999 Pastor Stevens went on vacation for a few days. My wife offered to take the kids to school indicating she would be back to say by to me before leaving for work. When she didn't come back within the usual time frame, I decided to look for her and came upon Paul and her talking alone behind the Greater Grace Academy school as if they did not want an audience. As soon as they both saw my car, they stopped talking immediately, as if caught. Margaret began to ask me what I doing following her. She said she felt as if I had hired a detective to monitor her every move. I did not respond to that. Instead I asked Paul, who was looking rather sheepish, if his wife had any male friends whom she confided with regularly, and if he minded. Paul mumbled "no" but his wife " had women friends that she talks to". Paul started to claim " my hearts pure - we're just talking - we're just friends". I told him that his own Bible tells him to " abstain from all appearance of evil" quoting first Thessalonians 5:22. Then I asked " if this is not wrong why are you hiding behind the school?" Also," didn't we have some kind of "Covenant" we both agreed to?" He said nothing and left. My wife began to curse at me for embarrassing them and for not trusting her. I left shaking my head in disbelief. I waited till Pastor Stevens came back from his weekend to tell him about this incident, He assured me he would "take care it".

At some point around this time, Paul must have complained to his Dad that he felt as if I was picking on him. He felt as if he was still on trial, and that his heart was pure, and that he would leave the ministry (which was a veiled threat to his Dad) if this didn't stop. This began to spill out in an emotional conversation Pastor Stevens had with me in his car on or about Tuesday March 9t' after lunch. The next month contained four other such incidents. Paul was directly observed by me initiating conversation with my wife when we weren't together in the crowded church gatherings, before and after service, and among the crowd of parents picking up their kids after school.

During church services, which were held three times a week, Margaret insisted that we sit in the front row of seats directly in front of the platform where several of the pastors, including Paul Stevens sat while Pastor Stevens preached. As I sat beside my wife I often noticed Paul Stevens making direct eye contact with her often grinning. When I brought this to his and her attention, I was met with responses such s "your paranoid, we're just friends, our hearts are pure before God". When I brought this up to Pastor Stevens on those each of those occasions, he would humor me again with "I'll handle it". I told my wife we need to sit somewhere other than in direct contact with Paul Stevens on the preaching platform if our true intention was to hear God's word preached in an undistracted fashion. She vehemently opposed this insisting I was paranoid repeating the same script of their "hearts are pure and that we are just friends". She began to add to her scripted replies that as a husband I was just "insecure".

As we frequently argued about such things, I would notice the same line of reasoning in her arguments as voiced by Paul Stevens. Paul would state similar types of examples of "insecure spouses" in his teaching when I would sit in on some of his Monday evening marriage classes. Pastor Stevens also found opportunity to call me and ask me what I thought of the previous days sermon/message. He did this in a very deliberate manner after speaking on such topics like `leaving skeletons locked in the closet and throwing away the key' during a Wednesday night service in early February 1999 and " true forgiveness is forgetting and never bringing it up again".

The first two weeks in April 1999 were stormier than before between my wife and I. My futile attempts to persuade her to let go of this relationship, its unhealthy attachment from her end, and consider moving back to Pittsburgh with me were met with angry and hostile comments along with her very cold disposition. While claiming all along that this was Gods will for her life, she told me she felt she was "brainwashed" by me, and that if she could do it over "I wouldn't have married or had kids until I was 28". She also accused me saying "you tricked me into leaving the ministry by moving to Pittsburgh" On at least five occasions during this time she told me " take the girls if you want, and go back to Pittsburgh, this is where Gods called me, I could use the time alone". While the sexual part of the affair continued in a much sneakier and careful manner since first confronted on Jan. 20h,1999 what pushed me to give up my desire to keep us together as a family was my discovery by a friend of Margaret's that Paul and Margaret had one last sexual fling of many since our so caed "Covenant" in January.

This last known fling took place in Oregon State Park north of Baltimore on the Thursday aternoon April 8th, 1999. Whether any occurred after I'm not sure.

I stopped my personal surveillance that I employed and began to ponder with deep sorrow what I would tell my kids. How could they make sense of all they heard and learned the past few months I attempted to downplay it and explain it in palatable terms that children could handle though they indicated that they knew more and were very confused. I was angry that two innocent children of mine were tormented with their own questions to me, that I attempted to answer about the conduct of a pastor and their mom. Both children told me they observed Paul Stevens and my wife speaking together quietly on those days in which my wife would pick them up after school. They didn't understand why they were so friendly with each other while my wife and I often argued about him. My wife confessed to me later about something called a "P.F.A.". Adding insult to injury, on April 13th, before his final scheme to arrange a PFA (Protection From Abuse) order against me, Paul Stevens told me he didn't like feeling guilty every time he saw me and that his `heart was pure" and that "souls are being saved in this church" and that he didn't feel right encouraging my wife to leave his church and "her calling". I nterrupted what came across as a defensive tirade from him, reminding him that marriage is considered a high & sacred calling, and not second to membership in his particular church. I then reminded him that my two small daughters also have a "calling of God" on their lives which was no less important than the all the members of his church, citing the passage from Luke 15 in which the shepherd considered one lost sheep as valuable as the other ninety-nine. He went to his car mumbling "I don't know what you want me to do".

When I awoke the next morning on Wednesday April 14th, my wife said in a very cold tone that she needed time by herself She said she wanted a separation. She told me to "take our two daughters and go back to Pittsburgh" if I wanted, and that she was staying with Greater Grace Church "because this is where God wanted her". She then left for work about 7:30 A.M., saying "I'll see you guys off when I get home from work". I lost no time in packing my car, awoke my children, made phone calls to two of her brothers associated with the church, and her sister Patricia in New Hampshire, to tell them what has been going on the last five months. I had called her mom in Florida the day before as I anticipated what may happen. Her mother is a devout Catholic Christian who raised 11 children and was always charitable in her manner towards me. I told her mother what was really going on named names. Margaret's mother was grieved, and stated that "they"(Pastor Stevens and Paul) "are wolves in sheep's clothing". Margaret's family appeared stunned in their own way. Patricia is not affiliated with GGWO but previously knew some of the details of our marital problems to now understand the whole account. She was incensed with Pastor Stevens and Paul for using her sister. She let this be known by calling another sister within the ministry, Catherine in Baltimore, and telling her so. Because of her commitment to Pastor Stevens, Catherine refused to listen at first until Patricia made it clear that she knew what happened and would not cover it up. Patricia on one hand could be a very gracious person. On the other hand she was not swayed by blind loyalty to Pastor Stevens and would not keep quiet if they continued to use her little sister. One brother suggested I was paranoid and had "a root of bitterness" which was unfounded by saying such things. His defensiveness toned down a notch when he began to come to terms with what I could prove to him. The two brothers suggested we meet with Paul that night at church to see if what I claimed was true.

That night, April 14th, the two brothers and Paul were waiting for me as we met at 8:15 pm in Pastor Steven’s office. What they discussed previous to my arrival I don't know. Pastor Stevens was in the chapel preaching. Paul appeared scared and nervous beneath a cool facade he was attempting to wear with the two brothers who are also pastors of some degree within GGWO, and myself. At first, Paul admitted to the two brothers in front of me of his involvement with Margaret. He appeared very meek as he apologized to me. I told Paul that his attempt to portray our moving to Pittsburgh as being from Satan was wrong. With the two brothers though, Paul attempted to back-peddle and downplay his real intentions for the whole affair.

Paul suggested that he became involved in helping Margaret while she was threatening to kill herself on Halloween night 1998 failing to mention his previous pattern of solicitation with e-mail correspondence & phone calls. He attempted to portray himself to her brothers as a fallen friend who was just trying to help another friend who was suicidal and then fell into sin twice, instead admitting his previous contacts with phone calls and e-mails which began months before, plus the forty plus times I discovered during my investigation. I stood momentarily speechless, as Paul apologized again to me and then quickly dismissed himself to join the church service already in progress. I again sensed there was a difference here between a dramatic apology and true biblical repentance.

I told Margaret's Brother John Hadley, that this was another attempt to deny responsibility on Paul's Part as he changed his story from his original confession back in January. The two brothers, John and Jim, appeared embarrassed by the whole matter, since they were friends of Paul for seventeen plus years. The oldest brother John acting as liaison between Paul and I, seemed reluctant to push the matter much with Paul, since Paul in effect had authority to fire John. John assured me that Paul promised he would stop any attempts whether secret or open, in communicating with Margaret. This appeared to be believable enough for John but not for me as I told John. John suggested that I may be just paranoid at this point but assured me he would keep an eye on Paul. I asked John how he would know if Paul attempted to call Margaret or e-mail her.

John dismissed my reservations as being "from Satan". I witnessed this as a blatant attempt by Paul to use his Dad' complicity in hiding the matter from any further form of accountability. Paul displayed a habit of lying by downplaying his actions if he could not effectively deny them outright. This was obvious in one particular e-mail communication dated November 1998 to Margaret in which he joked about losing his qualifications to marriage-counsel "if' they kept up their affair. It wasn't clear to him that he had disqualified himself when first initiating the affair months earlier.

Another instance of his ongoing deception was plain to see through during January 1999, when I discovered the e-mail evidence, but had yet not told anyone due to my shock and disbelief. I knew that he was having an affair with my wife, but had not yet decided on a way to confront the matter, as I witnessed the following:
At 10:30 each morning, Paul would join his dad, Pastor Stevens on the church's radio broadcast. When the subject of President Clinton's impeachment came up, Paul spoke up emphatically that "Clinton should resign, he's a hypocrite". I sat in disbelief as I watched & listened from the small audience of people who viewed the live broadcast how easy for both Pastor Stevens and Paul to sit in judgement of the obvious ways of the President but fail to examine their own ministry. Paul's duplicity was obvious once again a few days later still not knowing that I had found out. Paul approached me in a rather chummy manner saying he had a plan to help me expose the Martial Arts instructor who "misused his authority and crossed the line with your wife". Paul suggested calling the mans wife and "tell her everything and watch their marriage fall apart"

Among my many personal self-examinations, feelings and questions during this time, I asked Almighty God for strength I did not possess. During one such moment the face of my late father, bless his memory, flashed into my mind. He loved my mother for fifty-two years before his death in 1997. My mother a devout Catholic Christian will be the first to say he never abused her in any manner though men got away with it a lot easier years ago. He was an imperfect man who along with my mother raised thirteen children. He mirrored for me Solomon's proverb: "One who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, one who controls his own spirit than one who controls a city." Proverbs 16:32

My daughters and I stopped to say a prayer on the porch of our apartment before we left. They sobbed out loud for several minutes as we huddled each other. Along the way my daughters speculated out loud how to keep Pastor Stevens or Paul from contacting us again. They said things such as make sure and tell everyone to not let them know where we live or our phone number, they also speculated as to how we could persuade their mom to come home. Into my thoughts flashed a scripture verse from Matthew 18: "Whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea....offenses such as this will happen, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come!" My wife phoned the next day very distraught. She sounded as if she had been coached to suggest the following comments: "What were you doing telling other people what happened?" "If others find out about this, thousands of people will be affected, many souls will die and go to hell because of you" " I perceived in this further coaching and manipulation of the scriptural text as I encountered before with Pastor Stevens and Paul. I wasn't buying it.

She called again an hour later, now more composed, saying she wanted to come home. I asked her if she needed Pastor Stevens ermission to do so. She said the decision was hers, but admitted he told it was better for her to leave, as if he was thinking of her welfare first, and of course not his own reputation or possible scandal. Three words summarized his technique with Margaret: Use, confuse and dismiss. In a parting shot from Pastor Stevens, Margaret told me he said he "didn't believe we were called by God to Pittsburgh because the sentimental attachments of your husband with his family will keep you from God's call." Two weeks before, (on March 30th) in a phone call with Pastor Stevens, he told me he agreed with me that we should move back to Pittsburgh and separate ourselves from the ongoing situation, and would suggest this to my wife when he counseled her. We began the difficult task of reconciliation and rebuilding our marriage. Considering her state of mind and emotions Margaret refused to accept any form of professional counseling with a Christian association, or from a Christian counselor. It was too obvious even to her that this fierce struggle within her wouldn't go away. She could not openly admit this for fear of offending God by acknowledging that she was taken advantage of by 2 pastors. To openly express this to anyone would be to "uncover God's man" according to the inbred twisted teaching of Pastor Steven's. On April 28`,1999, during a very despondent episode and through suppressed sobs she added "I know I'm not supposed to, but sometimes I really hate them for what they did". She wondered out loud whether or not she was "saved". From our conversation it was apparent that Pastor Steven's made God's salvation to appear conditioned upon her compliance with his intentions. From the days I had met Margaret years before, I had known her to be a confident person assured of relationship with God. Six weeks later Margaret began Psychiatric counseling for her marked depression at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Anxiety & Depressive disorder. In my curiosity, I began to research for other cases of abuse associated with GGWO. Most poignant was the phone conversation I had with Mrs. Ruth Fisher of Waltham, Massachusetts. I identified myself, stated the reason for my call, and briefly related part of my own experience. She then willingly related her own account of grief. Her son Bobby was an active member of "The Bible Speaks" from 1984 to his death in 1987. Mrs. Fisher told me that her son put his heart and soul into serving "The Bible Speaks" while they encouraged him to exclude his natural family and friends from his sphere of influence. Mrs. Fisher's family witnessed a drastic personality change in Bobby during those few years, from a loving, popular, giving person into a scared, nervous withdrawn shell of his former self. He committed suicide on Feb. 17th, 1987, leaving a pregnant wife Joanne who later remarried within "the ministry" and a son Kyle. Mrs. Fisher loves her former daughter in law, and cherishes her grandchildren. Yet Mrs. Fisher to this day considers Carl Steven's "an evil man", largely responsible for the influence which pushed her son over the edge. ( see related news article)

I also spoke by phone with Jack Leonard of Boston, Massachusetts. Jack was the former president of "Stevens School of the Bible". The school closed its doors in 1987, and was renamed Maryland Bible College & Seminary during a publicized scandal involving Pastor Stevens. Jack and his wife along with twenty plus other administrators left their association with the church in 1987. Wanting to believe the best, Jack indicated that he hoped that the years since then would prove that Pastor Stevens had stopped "his usual shenanigans and dodging accountability by covering things up". He said that Pastor Stevens learned long ago to appoint only family and close friends in administrative positions. Jack related some of his own experience. He told of Pastor Stevens trafficking in church gossip in order to always have the goods on "anyone who may go against the ministry". Jack described this method of discrediting others by Pastor Stevens who would invoke but misuse the biblical text of Romans 16:17 which read " mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine you have learned and avoid them". Jack mentioned that Pastor Stevens often employed this phrase to "mark and avoid certain people" when advising his staff of those on Pastor Steven's enemy list. Jack grew disappointed with the practice of having an enemies list, the use of church gossip for retaliation, and "marking and avoiding" people he was not sure were wrong, but were viewed as a threat by Pastor Stevens.

A related incident I witnessed with Pastor Stevens is as follows; I was seated in his office one morning as he wanted to speak with me. Just as we were beginning to talk, the phone rang. I got up to leave & let him speak privately. He signaled for me to stay. After several moments of letting the caller speak, he said "this is not gossip, I'm your pastor, you can tell me anything". Before and after this he would occasionally preach against this method of redefining gossip or calling it by another name, unless it was something he considered detrimental to GGWO.

This next incident was then consistent with his thinking. On March 23rd,1999 Pastor Stevens called me and gently chided me for not informing him as our Pastor that Margaret and I went away the weekend that just passed. After not hearing from me for a few days he asked how things were going. I mentioned that I was job searching which included applying to the local Zurich Insurance branch office. He warned me that a certain man worked at Zurich whose name I recognized as a former member and pastor at GGWO. He immediately began to tell me that this man had an alcohol problem with a promiscuous wife who left him for an ex criminal. On top of this he added they left the ministry. He said he just wanted me to be aware of that "in case that guy says anything against the ministry".

Prior to this a stranger incident during this time took place on March 13',1999. I received a long distance phone call from Pastor Stevens secretary, Chantal Zeitler. They were in the country of Hungary at a GGWO conference. His secretary asked me to call Pastor Stevens immediately. She said they would pay for my phone bill. He said it was 1:00 am in the morning there and he couldn't sleep. He said he had been wondering how Margaret & I were doing. I told him I was thankful for his concern.

He said that he had to take sleeping pills to help him sleep because of the time-zone change when I mentioned that he sounded tired and his voice was a little slurred. What took me by surprise were his next questions. He asked if we have had sexual relations recently. Then what sounded like a strange attempt to sound clinical Pastor Stevens asked me "Is she having orgasms when you have sex?". I was speechless for several moments and said with a hint of surprise "Pastor, I'm not really comfortable talking about this". He changed the subject, saying he wanted to meet with me when he came back to the states in a few days. This brief long distance phone call had me wondering about his state of mind as he once again called me the next day long distance to say "forget what we talked about last night" as he "didn't know what (he) was saying".

Sometime in late May 1999 after Margaret and I were beginning to put our lives back together I received a phone call from Pastor John Hadley, Margaret's brother in Baltimore. At first I took the phone call for what appeared to be a sincere interest on her brothers part to see how we were doing. By Johns probative questions, I began to suspect that there may be another motive for his phone call. I asked John if anyone put him up to calling us and asking personal questions as he was.

John denied it. Twenty minutes later into the conversation I probed John further about his motive for calling with such questions. John finally admitted sheepishly that "Pastor (Stevens) did want me to call to see how you both were doing". The nature of the conversation suggested strongly to me that Pastor Stevens was using John to see if we had talked to anyone about what happened and to discourage this in any manner, including counseling. Before I hung up, I told John I didn't appreciate his lack of honesty, and fronting for Pastor Stevens in a dubious manner.

A different scheme consistent with the usual style of behavior took place before and during my family's move to Baltimore as follows. Paul suggested to Margaret that he wanted to replace his current secretary Jennifer Lynch with Margaret. This way she would have a job "safe within the ministry". Paul was unhappy that his dad had a say in picking his current secretary and appeared to resent his lack of choice. Paul led Margaret along implying he was going to act on this. Part of the rationale was that Jennifer was pregnant at the time and wasn't up to the demands, and that her personality was a little too subdued for someone to represent what he wanted to project. As I read a little of this on e-mail, I heard it also discussed in my presence during "counseling sessions" with Paul.During these months while I lived in Baltimore attempting to win my family back another scheme was at play. Pastor Stevens and Paul knowing I had sold our house in Pittsburgh often asked me how the house hunting was coming along. Paul urged me on two occasions acting as a counselor "just buy her a house first then say lets talk about our relationship". I told Paul that I believed he had things in the wrong order. First, I didn't have a full time job yet to support this, and I quoted the scripture that it was better to "establish your business before building your house" from Proverbs 24:27. More important I believed our relationship was something we needed as a married couple to reconcile before making a major decision like buying a house. Paul dismissed this with "there is a balance. You can't be too legalistic in interpreting the bible when you have the chance to do something like this". Paul even arranged to have real estate agent and church member Jim Turner call me to help us start looking. With the manner in which Paul showed interest in my buying a house for my wife along with her mood and personality swings I considered his motive suspect. He suggested I use our whole savings and equity to buy a house free and clear without a mortgage.

My experience with GGWO began 16 years earlier, like hundreds of others seeking Christian spiritual direction for our lives.

It has concluded in a very strange manner. I set out enthusiastically wanting to align myself with God's work of reaching others with the message of my savior Jesus Christ. Part of my reluctance to come to terms with my own experience has been my desire of wanting to believe the best of other Christians and give others the benefit of the doubt in accordance with the biblical teachings from Philippians 4:8. Only later did I did I remember that the scripture says to "... believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God" 1 John 4:1. 1 recalled that Christ received much opposition for challenging the accepted spiritual authorities of his day.

Christ saw through much of what they taught though some of it was good, to point out their error, and the evil effect it had on others. The words from the psalmist came back to me again "not a word from their mouth can be trusted, their heart is filled with destruction, their throat is an open grave, with their tongue they speak deceit" Psalm 5:9. If the end justified the means then Christ would have never gone to the cross. He could have taken advantage of people to establish his kingdom.

Instead He chose the cross. If my salvation depended upon my relationship with Carl and Paul Stevens I would have none since they have treated me as an enemy though I was a willing friend despite our initial differences. Thank GOD it does not. To a certain measure I recognize that my wife was a consenting adult. In a much larger measure she was their victim. She was seduced and taken advantage of at an extremely vulnerable time in her life and our marriage by Paul Stevens with his dads attempts to cover up if not weakly intervene for nothing else than to protect his own interests. It was done in an insidious evil manner, under the guise of spiritual authority. Christ reserved his severest criticism for such spiritual leaders: "Whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea... offenses such as this will happen, but woe to that man by whom the offenses come" (Mt.18). They both frequently and slightly misquoted the scriptures to support their own persuasions. This is strictly pointed out as evil in the old as well as the new testament (Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 21:18,19). Jesus rebuked the one who attempted to misuse the scriptures while tempting Him in Matthew 4:6,7.

After we returned to Pittsburgh in April 1999, as I mentioned earlier I continued to wonder how people fell prey to such deceit, and how widespread this was. I began to ask questions of people. In the past we were admonished by Pastor Stevens to consider any newspaper reports about him as an "an evil report from the pit of hell". We were warned that to read such reports was "to give place to Satan". We were also warned against reading the 62 page report on his ministry by the Christian Research Institute (or CRI.) in Santa Margarita, California. When CBS-60 Minutes did an expose on the ministry on Feb. 8th. 1987 we were also admonished from the pulpit that "it was full of lies" and to ignore it as such. It was then after reading these news clippings and the CRI report that it no longer surprised me that there was an ongoing pattern going back almost 30 years of covering things up instead of admitting wrongdoing. Pastor Stevens would often interpret such matters to his congregation as "persecution". He is as skilled as any political hack who spins the news to discredit others to make himself look better. Carl Stevens made himself accountable to no one except for appearance sake, the friends which he chose and appointed to his board. Those board members rarely had the sway to influence him or his son to be accountable on anything.

I came to realize that my family was by far not the first to see another side of what on the surface appears to be a healthy evangelical church that is supported by sincere, well intentioned Christians who are not aware of these things. Some choose not to know, or refuse to think such things happen. Many were my associates and even friends. Carl Steven's has used the scriptures to instruct them otherwise. Paul has learned to mimic his dad's loose play with the scriptures when convenient.

Like the well known televangelists caught in the compromising scandals of the the late 1980's, Carl Stevens and Paul displayed a public charm and a personal warmth to their own audience while covering a much sleazier side. I believe they have forfeited the sacred trust of Christ's people. Contrary to what they espouse, the scriptures prove God's work will continue without them.

Alan Lang
Pittsburgh, PA.
1999

[Anonymous (4.139.18.214)]

Go to the new thread - "Hadley Siblings: Step Up to the Plate and Tell the Truth."

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

pray God is still in control

[Anonymous (62.121.45.91)]

Is this a true story?

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Absolutely. Ask Jim Faucett.

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

to :62.121.45.91

Substantiated in legal proceedings during lawsuit against ggwo in april 2002.
Settled out of court quietly by Carl H. Stevens as quickly as possible.

[Anonymous (172.128.100.37)]

.

[Anonymous (67.163.201.62)]

.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

.

[Anonymous (62.121.45.91)]

Jim, is this true?

[Jim Faucett (66.90.181.249)]

Absolutely.

[Anonymous (62.121.45.91)]

I'm sorry to hear that.
Thanks Jim.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

Go and do something satan really doesn't want you to do today and pray instead of spending time on factnet.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Actually, Satan is probably just as unnerved about factnet as you are.
because Satan prefers darkness rather than light,
lies and coverups rather than exposure and repentance.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

.

[Anonymous (67.243.240.16)]

.

[mike anair (68.38.195.85)]

hi alan its mike anair give me an email under Fine_host@hotmail.com it will be good to talk with you mike

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (67.171.86.186)]

Does Colonel Selph mentioned in the story above have a brain ?
He was betrayed by the guy (CHS) he takes pride in "protecting".
He sounds like another example of having no life outside of ggwo?

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

Could someone direct me to the part where Alan takes 100s of thousands of dollars from the GGWO in a settlement. I didn't see it in the recitation.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

That part comes AFTER he loses his wife, home and family because of the actions of a member of GG who, while acting in an official capacity as a counselor, behaved in an immoral, unethical and possibly criminal manner. Right BEFORE the part where the the lawsuit would have made the newspapers.

[Anonymous (66.167.148.133)]

How much money was offered and did he accept it? Any documentation?

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Ask Jim Faucett.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

How did an adult find himself in a position where his wife, his home and his livelihood were in all in jeopardy?

And how does that justify his taking the churches money, anyway?

Surely, he didn't keep it for himself. He did donate it to another church to be used in the manner in which it was intended, right?

[Anonymous (66.167.148.133)]

Personally ask Jim Faucett?

[Jim Faucett (66.90.181.249)]

If you like you can,

somebonus@yahoo.com

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

An adult found himself in that situation when his wife was seduced by a pastor who used his position as marriage counselor to get to her at a time of extreme weakness.

Restitution for loss caused is quite biblical and right.

And what he did with the money is his business.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

What's the big secret. If it's true, why can't it be said here?

Alan's side of the story makes tons of accusations against GGWO. What's the other half of the story?

Every day someone sends this thread to the top of the pile because it's "important." Well, what is so important about a guy who took the church's money for his own personal gain?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

What is it that you don't quite comprehend about the "restitution for loss" part above?

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

205, would I be more correct by adressing you as Pastor Arguendo?

The story does indicate circumstances under which Mr. Lang incurred expenses, loss of income and loss of financial investment in excess of the personal losses that were noted. Hopefully, the Lang family received enough compensation to provide them with a stable home environment and professional, legitimate counseling.

The term "breach" comes to mind, but perhaps someone with more legal experience would explain the justification. (Skeet, are you out there?) At the very least, it could be called restitution or restoration.

Funny, the same question could be asked of Paul Stevens - "How did an adult find himself in a position where his wife, his home and his livelihood were in all in jeopardy?"

[nonotone (24.211.177.206)]

If you think Alan Lang took anybody's money for personal gain then you simply cannot see the facts of the case. Alan's story is ABSOLUTELY TRUE and his family and life were ALMOST destroyed because certain leaders don't seem to have the character they represent themselves as having. The other half of the story is the part where principles in GGWO lied, covered-up, and were complicit in enabling ongoing acts of adultery and slander against the sacredness of the Alan and Margaret Lang's wedding vows.

I was a "member in particular" AND faithful giver at GGWO Baltimore when all of this was occurring surreptitiously. I am ashamed of what "our ministry" (speaking in past tense) did to the Langs AND the fact that occurred without practical repentance in the involved leaders (and any real acknowledgement of the destuction wreaked on the Langs) is one of the primary reasons I left GGWO - second ONLY to coming to a sobering realization that Carl H. Steven's twisted doctrinal applications are part in parcel to why the Langs were treated the way they were.

Personally, I'm very happy that a portion of my tithes and offerings ultimately went to help restore the Lang family in a pratical way.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

So the pastor that abused his position used his own personal money to pay restitution to Alan Lang for the wrong he committed aginst him and his family. Is that correct?

[nonotone (24.211.177.206)]

Ideally, this the way it SHOULD be. However, there is the legal notion that the Pastor is an agent of the ministry he represents. The Pastor is held to codes of "professional" conduct that if breached expose the minstry to liability.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Arguendo, it appears you already know the source, don't you?

Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:44 pm
"Could someone direct me to the part where Alan takes 100s of thousands of dollars from the GGWO in a settlement. I didn't see it in the recitation."

Perhaps you are just attempting to chum the water to provoke a more hostile environment for Paul or to discourage those who have considered leaving Baltimore for his church?

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

So it was not Pastor Paul that paid restitution, it was GGWO using money given in offerings and tithes.

I am sorry, I do not see how taking this money in secret has addressed addressed the treacherous practices of GGWO.

How has Alan's quiet payoff done anything but make him part of the problem?

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Accepting restitution is a practical matter for the Lang family.

The real treachery is that of the leadership of GG, namely the elders, who have not acted to address this and many other matters of mis-deed in a biblical manner rendering them complicit.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

What's your agenda Arguendo? We've addressed the restitution--you keep saying "payoff." You got a dog in this hunt?

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

No. You've addressed the legal theory that supports the payment of restitution. You've ignored that the restitution has come from the wrong source. Just because the restitution came from an entity which was legally liable doesn't mean that Alan should have morally taken that money from GGWO.

Settlements are payoffs. One is being paid off to quietly go away. One is being paid off to avoid public accountability in court. Only a court determines what is just restitution. A settlement is the price paid to avoid prolonged exposure and defense in addition to restitution for any damages.

[Anonymous (67.171.86.186)]

Isnt it amusing that Arguendo, who is obviously from Greater Grace, is going to decide for the Langs and others what is "morally" correct?

Same old Greater Grace strategy: "We'll tell you what to believe"

Hey "Arguendo", READ THE SCRIPTURES (Leviticus for a start) they support material restitution.
Just cause you dont like it, doesnt mean God doesn't either. Actually, again, read the scriptures in the full context of the matter.

Greater Grace got off easy compared with what Jesus said about that which is due to Pharisees like Carl Stevens, Paul Stevens and all who feed themselves, while preaching abstinence from sin to others.
What a joke their lack of sound theology is.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Restitution is a BIBLICAL principle. You could look it up. See the story of the little man Zaccheus.

[Anonymous (67.171.86.186)]

"Arguendo" if you concede that a settelement is a payoff to quietly go away (your own words), then Greater Grace and Carl Stevens are GUILTY of bribery. (Also a no-no in the Bible)
Which causes me to ask;
Do you ever read the versions of the Bible without the pictures?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

See 1 Cor.6:1-11 as to who CAN arbitrate if they are present and capable. In this case there were none. Going to an attorney was the only available option. The settlement was for losses sustained.

This thread is long and all this banter is going to make it hard to load.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

I have no problem believing that there are pastors at GGWO that may have engage in and may be guilty of bribery, although a settlement is not viewed as bribery under the law.

Nor do I have a problem with restitution. At no time did I say that restitution was not Biblical, nor did I say that Alan was not entitled to restitution.

What I did ask is from whom did Alan take money and why?

FACTnet has developed its own "canon" and the Alan Lang story is part of that canon. It is dutifully sent to top of the pile of threads because people believe this to be the "truth." Well, the "truth" should be able to withstand a few inquiries regarding motivation and character.

Where the money came from and what Alan agreed to do for it matters. Who I am and my agenda is not relevant to the issue. If someone accepts this story as being the truth then they should be able to answer my questions. They should be able to tell me why Alan was not an opportunist that took advantage of an unhealthy and unethical church and they should be able to tell me why it was morally correct to take money from people that had not offended him (most people would agree that stealing from Peter to pay Paul is not morally correct, nor is it correct to take Peter's money in payment).

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Arguendo: “I have no problem believing that there are pastors at GGWO that may have engage in and may be guilty of bribery, although a settlement is not viewed as bribery under the law.”

In your opinion, was the payment of money: a settlement, bribery and/or restitution? Any or all of the aforementioned?

A: “Nor do I have a problem with restitution. At no time did I say that restitution was not Biblical, nor did I say that Alan was not entitled to restitution.”

In your opinion, to what type of restitution would the Lang family be entitled?

A: “What I did ask is from whom did Alan take money and why?”

Asked and answered – See post Wednesday, August 25, 2004 @ 8:26 pm, 9:04 pm, 9:31 pm and 9:46 pm.

A: “FACTnet has developed its own "canon" and the Alan Lang story is part of that canon. It is dutifully sent to top of the pile of threads because people believe this to be the "truth." Well, the "truth" should be able to withstand a few inquiries regarding motivation and character.”

Responses posted to your questions on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 @ 8:16 pm, 8:26 pm, 9:04 pm, 9:07 pm, 9:24 pm, 9:25 pm, 9:31 pm, 9:42 pm, 9:46 pm, 9:55 pm, 10:01 pm, 11:42 pm, 11:45 pm, 11:48 pm and 11:53 pm.

A: “Where the money came from and what Alan agreed to do for it matters.”

Disagree – The source of the restitution/settlement is irrelevant. If it came from the individual, it is appropriate. If I came from the employer of the individual, it is appropriate. The term respondeat superior comes to mind. Perhaps someone with more legal expertise can address the specifics of this. As to the use of the money by the Lang family – totally irrelevant. It doesn’t negate the breach or the entitlement to the restitution/settlement.

A: “Who I am and my agenda is not relevant to the issue.”

Disagree – Your questions are carefully crafted to portray GGWO as the innocent victim. That is an erroneous portrayal both legally and morally, since GGWO was at the very least the employer of the individual who committed the breach and possibly because the senior pastor was involved conspiratorially to cover the immoral, unethical and possibly criminal actions of the employee.

A: “If someone accepts this story as being the truth then they should be able to answer my questions.”

Asked and answered – on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 @ 8:16 pm, 8:26 pm, 9:04 pm, 9:07 pm, 9:24 pm, 9:25 pm, 9:31 pm, 9:42 pm, 9:46 pm, 9:55 pm, 10:01 pm, 11:42 pm, 11:45 pm, 11:48 pm and 11:53 pm.


A: “They should be able to tell me why Alan was not an opportunist that took advantage of an unhealthy and unethical church and they should be able to tell me why it was morally correct to take money from people that had not offended him (most people would agree that stealing from Peter to pay Paul is not morally correct, nor is it correct to take Peter's money in payment).

Asked and answered - on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 @ 8:16 pm, 8:26 pm, 9:04 pm, 9:07 pm, 9:24 pm, 9:25 pm, 9:31 pm, 9:42 pm, 9:46 pm, 9:55 pm, 10:01 pm, 11:42 pm, 11:45 pm, 11:48 pm and 11:53 pm.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

IMO: It was a settlement that included a payoff and restitution.

I have no reason to believe that the settlement is not legally enforceable.

IMO, Alan is legally entitled to whatever restitution he could get from GGWO in compliance with the law.

What he is morally entitled to is my question.

BTW, the source of the restitution/payoff is both legally and morally relevant. If the source is illegal then the settlement is void and unenforceable.

My questions have not been answered. And unless you think you're at a deposition or in court, it sounds odd to say "asked and answered." That is an objection to having one's witness badgered.

Obviously, I do not feel as though my questions have been answered. That's because there are a finite number of answers and none of them have appeared on the thread.

A settlement for restitution means Alan gives up his right to sue whoever harmed him. However, he also gave up rights that have nothing to do with restitution. Those rights he sold to GGWO and therein lies the payoff.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

A: "BTW, the source of the restitution/payoff is both legally and morally relevant. If the source is illegal then the settlement is void and unenforceable."

It is assumed that either source was legal, unless you would like to provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, as stated before, the source is irrelevant.

A: "My questions have not been answered."

Disagree – Many answers have been provided to you. You have chosen not to find them acceptable.

A: "And unless you think you're at a deposition or in court, it sounds odd to say "asked and answered." That is an objection to having one's witness badgered."

You asked. The questions were answered. You continued to ask the same questions, repeatedly in different forms in order to obtain the answer you desire. Badgering.

A: "Obviously, I do not feel as though my questions have been answered. That's because there are a finite number of answers and none of them have appeared on the thread."

What other answers do you believe there are?

A: "A settlement for restitution means Alan gives up his right to sue whoever harmed him. However, he also gave up rights that have nothing to do with restitution. Those rights he sold to GGWO and therein lies the payoff."

What rights do you believe he has sold?

"What he is morally entitled to is my question."

Any takers on this one?

[Roberta (151.203.163.174)]

Who are you? Why are you asking these questions? Why are you trying to hurt Alan? What is your agenda here? Are you here to cause trouble? Who sent you? Are you a member of GGWO? If you aren't what reason do you have to demand answers?

I smell a rat.

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

who knows maybe alan couldn't keep the home fires burnin' but I smell bacon at...

leave use a note at:

(http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com)

tell us why you hate stevens. there is an email address as well

liquidwavesoflove@yahoo.com

really tell us what you think of the man the myth the legend that is Stevens!

we might even post the best emails for everyone to read! also send us wacky stevens pics and we'll post them as well.

[RJ (151.203.163.174)]

Go away...you're an idiot

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

yeah i'm an idiot i'm not the one who let is wife go off an bang someone that looks like a fat stevens Seagul!

but even he digs the website!

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.31)]

Anon 24.58, Please stop this. Go bury yourself in the Word and spend some time thinking good thoughts. Get a life that isn't built out of tearing down innocent people.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

"Who are you? Why are you asking these questions? Why are you trying to hurt Alan? What is your agenda here? Are you here to cause trouble? Who sent you? Are you a member of GGWO? If you aren't what reason do you have to demand answers?"

Truth is truth, who is asking to know the truth doesn't matter. There is a true story here and then there are versions of the story told by different sides in a manner that serves a purpose.

Every once in awhile its healthy to determine what you know and what you think you know. What's all the fuss about healthy questioning? Fear of hard questions is something to avoid. Alan isn't being hurt here. This settlement was his choice. Every choice has an impact. I'm asking what choice did he make and what impact has it had.

I am merely poking at the holes in Alan's story to make people realize that they exist. This guy is not a total victim. This is a guy that sold his right to tell the members of GGWO what happened to him and his family at GGWO and that he was given their money in restitution and payoff to avoid a public scandal.

While you all are wasting your time being suspicious, please consider that I have already identified GGWO as "unhealthy and unethical."

[Roberta (151.203.163.174)]

"Truth is truth, who is asking to know the truth doesn't matter. There is a true story here and then there are versions of the story told by different sides in a manner that serves a purpose."

Truth may be truth, but perspective matters. It does matter who tyou are if you really want your questions answered. If you aren't up to the scrutinity areound here, you'll find it hard to get any communication from anyone who could help you.

"Every once in awhile its healthy to determine what you know and what you think you know. What's all the fuss about healthy questioning? Fear of hard questions is something to avoid. Alan isn't being hurt here. This settlement was his choice. Every choice has an impact. I'm asking what choice did he make and what impact has it had."

Healthy questioning? If it so healthy tell us who you are that we might know the context. You are on a board of people who have survived the abuses of a cult. None of us fear hard questions. We ask them of each other. Have you asked these questions of Alan himself? If not, why not? Why address your questions to us and not him?

"I am merely poking at the holes in Alan's story to make people realize that they exist. This guy is not a total victim. This is a guy that sold his right to tell the members of GGWO what happened to him and his family at GGWO and that he was given their money in restitution and payoff to avoid a public scandal."

Poking hole to prove Alan was not a total victim? Give us a break. it is obvious that few if anyone of us knows the whole story. The money was the churches money, which is raised by more means than the tithes and offerings of a small congregation. You don't believe in restitution?

"While you all are wasting your time being suspicious, please consider that I have already identified GGWO as "unhealthy and unethical."

Wasting time? Who's time? Sorry sir or madame, I'll say it again...we are survivors of a destructive cult. If you want to discuss anything with us you'll have to be more convincing.

[RJ (151.203.163.174)]

.

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

"Anon 24.58, Please stop this. Go bury yourself in the Word and spend some time thinking good thoughts. Get a life that isn't built out of tearing down innocent people."

hey if someone is stupid enough to give all their money to stevens or let their wifes sleep around, they are not innocent, they are in fact not paying attention to life!

as far as "bury yourself in the word," last time i checked the bible says to love thy neighbor not go and make websites about them...speaking of which go see http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous (151.203.163.174)]

.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.31)]

You're right 24.58; The Bible does not address the issue of websites.

[Anonymous (67.243.240.109)]

24.58 sounds just like Neil Carrick who himself could NOT "keep the home fires burning".
Witness his own family split up by the devices of Michael Marr, Scott Robinson, Paul Stevens, Pastor Monroe and company. Yet Neil still wants to maintain his loyalty to them, in spite of the spiritual malpractice they worked on his marriage.
Although he is upset with carl h. stevens,
is he hoping that once one of these other guys takes over the ggwo kingdom, that he (neil) will get back in their good graces, thereby recovering his little comfy position of ggwo power he had back in the "good ole days" when he was "one with the body"?

[Anonymous (63.27.14.239)]

Perhaps it's provocation for some "BIG BUCKS," much like the Lang's achieved?

[Anonymous (67.193.44.79)]

Probably...

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

(67.243.240.109) well i'm NOT neil but if you want to dig up some dirt on me, go for it tough guy!

you'll love what you find let me tell ya!

[Anonymous (67.243.240.182)]

ooooooh you talk sooo tufff !!!
(no substance bet vewy vewy tuff !!)
LOL

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

check out all my dirt at

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/

new poll and updates!

[Anonymous (131.191.71.202)]

My question is... If Pastor Paul committed adultry and was caught how could he possibly even show his face again within this church? How is he even allowed to remain a pastor? I'm all for forgivness but acts such as this cross the line. Is this story really true and accurate?

[Anonymous (68.33.132.7)]

If I have read the Alan Lang Story correctly, the big issue for me isn't really the payoff, although it is dishonest for a church to take tithe money and use it for payoffs unless it is openly announced to the congregation.

My big issue, and it is part of the larger problem at GGWO is that Paul told Mrs. Lang that having an affair with him was God's will! Given the pastor worshipping scenario at GGWO, this is definitely abuse of pastoral authority. Many things like this appear to have taken place.

Further, the most important thing to Carl was not that his son had abused his pastoral position, but that something derogatory might come out of the scandal, something that would stain the ministry. Thus, it was more important to cover it up as opposed to fixing the problem!

Misuse of pastoral authority, to the point of claiming that something for the pastor's edification (getting a little action on the side) is the Will of God. I wonder how far the affair would have gone if not for Paul's claims of God's Will?

Boss Martian

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

i'm not sure i believe pastor Stevens or a some people on the internet, the call is yours.

but this site is something you can all believe in!

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/

check out the poll and the new updates!

[RJ (151.203.163.174)]

Anonymous (131.191.71.202)
Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 02:32 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is... If Pastor Paul committed adultry and was caught how could he possibly even show his face again within this church? How is he even allowed to remain a pastor? I'm all for forgivness but acts such as this cross the line. Is this story really true and accurate?


This is completely true and accurate.

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

yeah we always believe the bitter on the internet!

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

.

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

b

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

'

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

ALAN

THAT WAS A LONG STORY. NOW LET'S MAKE A LONG STORY SHORTER.
WHY WOULD A MIDDLE AGED, MEDIUM BUILD WOMAN WITH KIDS AND A HUSBAND GO THE GYM ANYHOW? NOT JUST OCCASIONALLY, CONSISTANTLY, REALLY HAVE A REGIMENTED TRAINING/MUSCLE BUILDING GOING ON?
WHY WOULD SHE TAKE SELF-DEFENSE CLASSES?
NOW, WE HAVE A FEW THINGS TO CONSIDER:
1) SHE IS A BODY BUILDER -- marg??? NOT!
2) SHE IS BORED -- she's an active gal!!!
3) SHE WANTS TO BECOME STRONGER, SHE WANTS TO PROTECT HERSELF FROM SOMEONE BIGGER AND PERHAPS STRONGER IN HER LIFE...(i doubt that would be P.Paul, but someone about that same size perhaps!)

Let's just allow our imaginations to soar!!!
- - - - - - - - - -
Mike Anair, am I shocked to see you in this little window of rediculous comments? Show your flair Mike Anair!!!
- - - - - - - - - -
JF do you know Jeannie???

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Hey Alan -- Mikie wants you to give him a call!

Did you ever try to post something on this site and for some reason after you post it and it seems like it should be visible -- you find it never posts??? Wierd

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

What's it to you, 64.12? I know Alan and Margaret. I know the intimations you make are crap.

[Anon Brief (152.163.101.13)]

64, if your inference were true, it would render the actions of Paul Stevens even more reprehensible.

Margaret's increased vulnerability = Paul's increased culpability

The state or specifics of the marriage are immaterial and irrelevant to the moral, ethical and/or legal responsibilities and requirements of Paul, who was acting in the capacity of a counsellor.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

My reference is not in regards to P.Paul at all, I was making it simple, read between the lines. It is clear as day. None of you have heard Margaret's side of the story - - just what's his name, huh, huh, huh Alan boys' Have any of you ever spoken to Margaret directly -- guess not. You're too hyped up on assumption -- that you know it all. All of you. All your messages. All your comments. But so few of you know really nothing at all. Just imagine yourselves in one little bubble world -- this site is just somewhere you can come to visit when you want to escape from reality -- isn't it??? DON'T ANSWER THAT! It was just a lure to get you to make another stupid comment!

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

You're right. I have not heard Margaret say anything, but then again, I really don't need to. She is a friend, I care about her and Alan and their children, and I care about Paul as well. The repercussions of their situation are something they will have to deal with. I would not presume to inquire. Alan is a decent man...I knew him in Lenox as well. He's a serious, articulate and loving man. His love for Margaret when they were engaged was obvious as was hers for him.

The matter is settled, and the principles will have a lifetime to work out the spiritual, emotional and logistical effects. The best thing people can do is pray for them with a non judgemental heart.

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

,

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

.

[jf (66.90.181.249)]

I have heard Margaret's side of the story. From her directly. All of it. It validates Alan's. Did you think they weren't speaking?

[Anonymous (63.27.5.0)]

Did Alan Lang take a bribe by accepting this money? If so, what about (Isaiah 33:15a) then?

"...He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly, who despises gain from fraud and from oppression, WHO SHAKES HIS HAND FREE FROM THE TAKING OF BRIBES..."

Was Alan Lang wrong to accept this money and keep the matter covered? Perhaps he should have refused their "tithes" and shouted from the rooftops what was happening.

[Brie (216.99.185.50)]

I agree with 63. If Alan is such an upright Christian man, how could he accept a bribe (no matter how you sugarcoat it) knowing full well that the money probably came from the Body's tithes and offerings?

In fact, now there just may be some truth to GG's constant pleas that tithes and offerings are down, because I know of quite a few who have put their money to a halt since this story surfaced again.

Amen? Amen!

[Anonymous (152.163.101.13)]

JF, perhaps you would answer the questions posed by 63 and Brie?

Your insight here would be useful.

Was there any indication to you, JF, that there was ANY other way to handle this circumstance?

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Paying restitution for loss is not a "bribe" and to call it that is to misunderstand the principle. If you cause someone to suffer loss you owe them. My suggestion is that a "little knowledge" is often dangerous. So Brie, you and 63 can call it whatever you please. You are ignorant of the circumstances, the agreement, the amount of settlement and the amount of the loss caused by GG and Paul Stevens. That part of it is just plain none of your business. Were your tithes used in payment? Sorry, find somewhere else to pay them, then.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

restitution
n. 1) returning to the proper owner property or the monetary value of loss.

Alan has a right to talk about what he wishes and has a right to tell his story to anyone he wishes. Any compensation to agree to not exercise that right is seperate compensation from any restitution due to him as a result of the actions of Paul--his loss.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

There was no payment for silence. There was payment for loss. The agreement to silence was on both sides, not just on Alan's. This would also have been the case in a scriptural situation had there been no payment at all, had there been complete repentance.

Alan does not need to speak out at the moment. His story is up and out. He has told his story.

So there was not any "separate compensation" as you suggest.

You are very hard-headed Mr. Argue-innuendo, you don't seem to get the facts at all here. You seem to want to impugn sin to people. Is that your aim? Have you followed the pattern of Matt.18 and Gal.6:1ff in your accusations? If you call yourself a Christian and you feel your brother is sinning, you have a duty to go to him. Have you done that? I think not. You would rather get on here and play argue innuendo.

I am sure you are ignorant of the facts in this situation but you seem to be drawn to it like a fly to sugar.

What is your difficulty? The payment meets the exact definition that you put up. Two parties can agree to whatever terms they like. The issue of Paul's suitability for ministry is separate from that agreement.

[S.S. (152.163.101.13)]

JF...I understand where you are coming from in your posts and your defense of your personal friend, Alan Lang. I realize that Pastor Paul overstepped his boundaries as a counselor, you and Anon Brief helped many through that debate.

However, many still question the character of Alan Lang in taking the money. He knew GGWO would pay after the Lenox fiasco. To me, his character in that area sucked.

Why hasn't Margaret Lang or Paul Stevens posted their side of the story??? After all, the story discredits both their characters. Is it because of the gag order? Most likely. Still, reading the story and seeing where Paul and Margaret CONTINUED to see each other -- if she didn't want to be there, she wouldn't have been. I believe that Alan was obcessed with getting his wife back and following her and Pastor Paul (which he said he did and that he had others doing it also) -- that was kinda very obcessive and neurotic in my opinion.

Arguendo, there's more to this than whats been said and you and "Brie" have VALID questions. JF is prejudiced in this area, he hates Pastor Paul and he sides with his friend Alan Lang through this whole story.

Gee, I thought the bible said we were to love the sinner but hate the sin. Hmmm.

[S.S. (152.163.101.13)]

This post is addressed to Boss Martian.

Boss you said yourself you weren't ever a member/attendee of GGWO. You read one story about Alan Lang on this post and draw the most herendous conclusions from it. You weren't there you have no idea as to what exactly went down. Even biblically you are "off" for taking on another man's offense (Alan Lang's). So is JF and everyone else here and I don't care who likes what is posted here, its the truth in Gods word.

No one has yet to post Margaret Lang or Paul Steven's side of this story. Yeah there's a gag order but that was broken (by Alan Lang behind the scenes which we can't prove) having Louise and Jim post the story from his perspective.

No one discounts what Paul did was wrong in the eyes of God or that it was swept under the rug by his dad. As far as "131" questioning his being back on the pulpit, he had his own conscience to deal with before God. (Paul). Chastizing him now is ludacrous its over 6 years since the affair occurred. Thats his and God's business now.

You don't know all the facts Boss. None of us do.
Be careful with what you post about things you don't know about ok?

S.S.

[S.S. (152.163.101.13)]

This post is addressed to "JF"
who posted this:
Monday, September 27, 2004 - 11:03 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have heard Margaret's side of the story. From her directly. All of it. It validates Alan's. Did you think they weren't speaking?

**************************

JF. You are their personal friend and whatever you say about the two of them people are going to shrug off because of that point.

Here's a good point. When Paul and Margaret were in the middle of their love tryst, Margaret obviously was NOT speaking to her husband, was she. So you truly have NO conclusive facts that their stories are an exact match. Sure they line up now. It was planned that way to get the cash from the church. Our tithe money. And then you have the nerve to tell Brie to spend her tithe money elsewhere? You would be royally ****ed off if your tithe money went to pay off the settlement agreement.

And why do you "hide" the amount of the settlement asking people to privately email you? You seem to be the main spokesman for the Langs on here, what's the damn difference if you post the amount? Geez all other facts are out in the open except for the color of the underwear she and Paul removed before then engaged in you know what. Or are you privy to the underwear color too?

S.S.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

The settlement was $500,000.

I have been told by Christian experts which deal with such groups as GGWO the only effective way to stop them is sue them! I was personally told by a leading expert to hit them with a 2x4 between the eyes. SUE THEM.

Betsy said same but added "they are like a terrorist group and will just pop up somewhere else."

Anyone with a case of slander, especially if it caused disasterous family splits should consider suing.

[Anonymous (69.143.68.103)]

To S.S.,

Thanks, but I think your attitude is what enables crap like this affair to continue at GGWO. The GGWO leadership have little or no formal training, no oversight, no accountability to anyone, and continually seek refuge behind the sorry excuse of having repented to God. There are MANY people in prison right now that have committed some serious crimes that have repented to God. As far as God is concerned, they are sinless and, further, if you met these people, you would KNOW that they are good Christian people. But they still have to pay the price on Earth.

There is no dispute that Paul had an affair. Even you agree with that. He has continued, without one minute's pause, in a position of authority and even COUNSELED THE PERSON HE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH! This is fact. You are right about the other stuff (although I believe it).

Don't get all sanctimonious with me. I was approached by GGWO. I never sought this church out. That is one of the things that ****es me off about hard core evangelists. They (GGWO included) think absolutely nothing about conducting some blitz at your house or on the street or at your workplace (in my case) and bombarding you with the message that you need to come to whatever church. As soon as I start investigating the church, NOW it's none of my business.

Look, if it's none of my business, don't approach me about your church and your doctrine in the first place. After hearing so much about this place and its wonderful doctrine, and becoming friends with someone inside, it has become my business.

If a bank is robbed, but I don't have any money in it, yet I see who robbed the bank, is it none of my business? This cult/church is MESSED UP. Period.

"Be careful with what you post about things you don't know about ok?" Is this a threat, S.S.?

Boss Martian

[Arguendo (64.12.117.20)]

1. Restitution is normally determined by a court. What Alan was compensated for, regarding his loss, was to not sue for restitution.

2. The definition I posted regarding restitution does not include foregoing the exercise of a future right. By definiion, Alan cannot receive restitution for agreeing to not exercise a future right. Agreeing to not exercise a future right is not a loss for which restitution can be granted by a court.

2. Settlements are contracts. One is compensated under a contract for not exercising one's right to do something or not do something. If both sides agreed to silence then both sides have been somehow compensated for not exercising that right to speak. And silence on GGWO's side is not much of a concession.

4. I do understand the facts, but I am not sentimental about the facts.

5. Personally, were Alan my friend, I would not have posted his story here, or made it possible. I would not have subjected him or his family to public scrutiny and questioning, nor would I have used him and his family just to make a point about GGWO. The time to worry about how people were going to deal with Alan's actions was before letting his story be posted in a forum dedicated to public debate.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

Biblical restitution is not determined by a court, is it?

People can make binding agreements quite apart from going to court, as in arbitration is that not so?

You are not aware what the compensation was for or what it was not or you would state it. How much was for loss? How much for silence? Who got what?

I did not post the story on factnet nor did I make it possible, I would have emailed it to those who wanted it. Alan posted it on the internet through NEIRR long ago, and it was available--the scrutiny began then.

The point stands that the restitution was hardly a "bribe."

205 above apparently knows more than I do, because I am not privy to the exact amount of the settlement and did not desire to be.

[JF (66.90.181.249)]

By the way, I don't hate Paul Stevens. Never have, never will. Just because I am amongst those who call him out on the issue of conformity to the biblical requirements of elder does not mean I hate him.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

Restitution from GGWO as opposed to Paul is a function of the law. Where do you find the law of agency in the Bible?

People have made binding agreements in bars written on cocktail napkins that have rocked the world. One doesn't need a court or an arbitrator (referee) to make an agreement. However, restitution is detemination by a court about what is ncessary to make someone whole, and perhaps t compensate for damages.

What I know about Alan's agreement is what I know about any binding agreement that is made in the US.

I never said restitution is bribe.

My point is that Alan has been paid for his silence and that silence was purchased with member's offerings and tithes.

[Anonymous (152.163.101.12)]

Dear Boss
I am not getting sanctimonious with you. Sorry to say, I'm also not the one responsible for a blitz at your job, street or house. Last I knew, evangelizing is allowed on public streets and people can knock at anyone's door, unless they "refuse" the solicitation with a sign posted on doorway. They can offer you pamphlets, but if you are not home, they cannot be put inside the mailbox, that is not legal. So whats your point?
You thing GGWO was PERSONALLY seeking YOU?????
LOL now that is funny. Since you don't own the street you can't stop anybody from sharing the gospel there, putting out pizza flyers or whatever other pamphlets get left on our doorsteps these days.

For the record, I didn't threaten you with my last statement admonishing you to be careful about what you posted, it was to save you from being blasted again by JF. Geez!!! Lighten up ok?

You have an awful lot of questions lastely which is good, but you aren't God and you need to quit trying to play God in other's lives. Its not up to you who is fit to minister and who isn't. Its up to the Lord.

Whether anybody cares or not, God STILL allowed Paul Stevens to continue preaching, teaching, counselling, etc. AFTER the affair with Margaret Lang, no matter what the scriptures say that JF adamently posts or anybody else. Yes it was wrong (the affair). Yes what he did as a leader in the church was wrong also. NOBODY is denying that. However, since GOD is on the throne last I looked, why don't we just leave whatever is to be "done" to Paul before the Lord, and see what HE does with it/him. Its getting sickening!!

S.S.

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

A half a million dollars...

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

S.S.,
God also allows the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and other false prophets to continue preaching. That does not mean He approves of it.

[Anonymous (67.249.230.194)]

S.S.,

God allows a LOT of bad things to happen in this world. God also gives strength to those who would oppose evil. Good men and women do not stand by and allow evil to take place if they can help it. Good men and women have DIED to stop evil. Should the good men and women who recognize the EVIL at GGWO just stand by? Someone should have stood up to these people LONG ago. And by the way, God has been known to use a person or two to combat evil.

Paul Stevens is no more fit to be a pastor than Carl. He's out for the same glory as Carl.

I only went to GGWO for a little less than three months. I saw and experienced enough of that place to last ten lifetimes. I was really weirded out by the standing ovations. I felt like I was being watched if I didn't stand up quickly enough. If I hadn't tried to be nice about it, I would have given up on this snakepit in a week or two.

If Boss Martian's experience was anything like mine, yes, the "blitz" was personal. I had two friends, and three "friends of friends" ask me on a lot of occasions to come to GGWO because "the pastor teaches the Bible", "it's laid back", "you'll really get your spirit fed", etc. If that's not seeking someone out personally, I don't know what is. After spending some time reading here, I think I got "recruited" because I have a good paying job. And maybe because I'm a young and single woman, although I don't fit the GGWO mold for women.

I'm remaining anonymous because frankly, I don't want to embarrass my friends if they see my name on this board.

[Brie (216.99.185.50)]

Bottom Line: Carl and Paul abused and sinned against Alan and Margaret, even though Marg for a while was a willing participant (hey, so was Betsy at first). However, for Alan to take money in exchange for his silence, was certainly a bribe. Calling it restitution is just a bunch of bull. Knowing how manipulative Carl and Paul were, Alan certainly could not have thought these bucks were paid out of either of their pockets. No, he had to realize they would be paid from church funds. Church funds that came from hundreds of body members who innocently believed that their money was being used to promote the cause of Christ. In a sense, what Alan did was to say, "Okay, my family has been abused by these men, now I will arrange it so that the rest of the body members get abused too. Someone with real integrity would have refused any money and made sure that their story stayed out there to help others from falling into the same pit of manipulation. "Restitution" is never given in exchange for silence - that's a BRIBE!

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

Brie,

I do agree with much of what you say. I only have one question. What happened to the Langs' house? Did it or the money from its sale fall into the ministry's hands? If so, then I think restitution applies--if it was equitable. Otherwise, the agreement is questionable.

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

Good point Karen. As I understand the story, Alan had to give up his job and home and move away. I'd say that that is certainly enough cause for restitution. Also, there is the emotional component. Our courts offer compensation for that.

It's clear though, that the money came from people who worked hard to make it. They gave it in faith, believing it was to further the work of the gospel and their ministry, which they believe is the best. It's not surprising that so many find it difficult to convince those that are in , that their Pastor is no better than a criminal, or some slick businessman in his dealings with people. They have a hard time believing that he could be so far off track. Not to mention the group he has around him, letting him get away with it.

I'm saddened to not hear that anyone in GGWO didn't correct what Carl said on the radio a few days ago about Matt 18.......that was a clear cut blatant error! His son didn't correct him? His son diddn't correct it on air? What has happened to him?

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

I also want to say that none of us can appreciate the difficult situation Alan Lang must have been in. If he had suffered the loss of a lot of money through manipulation and dishonesty, he had every right to try to recover it. But what recourse did he have? If he sued through the court system, many would have accused him of being unbiblical. But by dealing with it privately, he is accused of taking a bribe. At least with the second option, he saved his family (I am thinking of his children) further trauma. Of course, now that this whole matter is being debated on the Internet, I'm not sure this is true any longer.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Money, Power and Position is what happened to him. Just like all the rest of the men Carl has around him today. It is horrendous to realize that at one time Steve and Marcie Stevens were very vocal about the rotten to the core ministry and why they left! Shame on them both!

[Anonymous (69.143.68.103)]

S.S.

The two people (my friend and my co-worker) who asked me to come to GGWO didn't just show up on my porch. Both of them knew me personally for some time before approaching me about attending GGWO. In particular, my co-worker was pretty persistent since she knew I was from out of town. My issue is that both of these GGWOers were all gung ho about getting me to attend. Now that I've done some research and found out what a cesspool this place is and have concern for a friend inside, now it's none of my business. Bull****. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to tell someone all about your church and why someone should go, be prepared to answer questions and concerns about activities there, both good and bad.

I agreed at one point to attend GGWO with my dear friend with the caveat that while I would not make a scene or be disrespectful or disruptive, I would not lie about what I saw or felt there. In other words, if I didn't participate in a standing ovation and was asked why, I would respond truthfully that I don't worship a man. If I disagreed with a sermon ("five men died", etc.), I would NOT lie about my feelings on it. Strangely, the requests to attend disappeared. Why might this be?

Bottome line, if you're going to bring up a subject, be prepared to discuss it.

Boss Martian

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Well Boss that is very telling when your stand for honesty caused the invitations to dry up! Bottom line is everyone in GG is programmed NOT to make waves for Pastor. Everyone there plays the dysfunctional family game. Everyone enables the abuser/head of the family. It is sick abuse played out on a larger scale. That is why Carl could be an incoherent drug addict and no one (other than Paul with chilling results) intervenes. It is one sick sick family of believers!

[Brie (216.99.185.50)]

OK - some good points made, Karen and Lee. It's still a shame that people had to pay for GG's abuse of power and funds.

What's the story with Steve and Marcie once speaking out against the goings on of GGWO?

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

Yes, Brie, it is a shame that people had to pay for their abuses......people have been paying for years. Whether it be their tithes, their service, their loyalty, they pay, and pay and pay.

I don't understand Steve and Marcie's return at all. It's one thing to forgive yet when one knows what they know, forgiveness is just the beginning of making things right. I pray for them and just tremble that what others have said about money, power, position has indeed got ahold of them. If thats true, then I fear for the condition of their souls.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

This issue does bring up some questions for me. I'd like to throw them out there for those of you who support Alan's moral right to seek restitution through the court system (I believe you advised Alan to hire a lawyer, Jim?).

Matthew 5: 38-40:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also."

I Cor. 6:4-7:
"If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?"

Although my sense of justice supports Alan's desire to recoup his losses, these Scriptures seem to be in conflict. The only passages in the Bible that speak of restitution I can think of are in the Old Testament. But both Jesus and Paul seem to be saying that this is not how believers should handle such situations. Any thoughts?

[Anonymous (63.27.3.35)]

JF,
Just posed question; that is all.

Also, perhaps people from GGWO should prayerfully boycott God's money to other godly and reputable ministries until there is financial accountability at GGWO.

[Anonymous (63.27.3.35)]

Hey, "Fake Crying Steve" has it made in the shade. Daddy got him a brand new gymnasium to "inspire" fodder for his teary sermons.
In the name of growth this family butters their own bread; while congregants barely eek out a living because they are told to attend every rap, Saturday outreach, church three times a week...therefore, having NO time to make a decent living or contribute back to society at large; instead of the STEVENS EMPIRE!

[Anonymous (64.26.82.18)]

I agree with 63! The Stevens family have used people for years for their own personal glory, power and financial comfort. What a bunch of thieves. Anyone stupid enough to follow Paul Stevens needs to have their head examined!

[Dave Drago (68.91.72.9)]

Karen Duhamel,
These are very honest questions. I will do my best to take a stab at them. (one at a time)http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Matthew 5: 38-40:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also."

1. (Verse 39b)
Context: How to handle insults. In Jewish custom the worse insult one could do is slap you in the face. It was very calculated and deliberate. Notice he mentions the right cheek, which means probably a back handed slap because most people are right handed. In rabbinic law to back hand someone was twice as insulting as hitting him with the flat portion of the hand. The backhand is deliberate contempt; it is absolute scorn. It is tantamount to calling you a complete heretic. (Remember what happened to Jesus before the temple officials). Of course your blood would boil! Also, when you are slapped on the right cheek, it is an insult you endure for your faith. In the LEX TALIONIS you could actually seek legal restitution for such an insult.

Application: Jesus is saying if you are insulted for being My follower, do not seek legal remedy. Instead, overcome the evil by demonstrating meekness and forgiveness, instead of suing the *#@*& out of them. Jesus is teaching us how to respond to an insult. He is saying, when you are insulted do not get even; instead absorb it and reveal the life of Christ. Every one of us here would do well to heed His words, (esp. me).

2. (Verse 40)
Context: Jesus is teaching us how to respond to a rip off. In Jewish law you could sew and take the shirt right off their backs. However, if you took their cloak you had to return it every evening because a person had to sleep with it. They could not survive without it. That was the law. What is the situation here? He is probably giving advice to the poor among His disciples. (Those who had been reduced to the clothes they wore because of persecution for their faith). Jesus is saying, if someone sues you (no doubt falsely) for your shirt and takes it; give them your cloak too; even though he cannot legally take it.

Application: If the righteous are being pushed up against the wall and being bilked for their beliefs we are to repay evil with good. This will reveal Jesus to those who persecute us.
Paul told taught it this way in Romans 12:17-21
“17Don't hit back; discover beauty in everyone. 18If you've got it in you, get along with everybody. 19Don't insist on getting even; that's not for you to do. "I'll do the judging," says God. "I'll take care of it." 20Our Scriptures tell us that if you see your enemy hungry, go buy that person lunch, or if he's thirsty, get him a drink. Your generosity will surprise him with goodness. 21Don't let evil get the best of you; get the best of evil by doing good.” (The Message)

Conclusion: This passage deals with how we handle persecution for our beliefs. The Alan Lang situation does not apply here. However, the next passage you cite does deal with the issue of lawsuits amongst individual believers. What makes the situation unique is that Alan tried to follow the biblical pattern of confrontation, in accordance with Matthew 18 verses 15-17.
For Him,
Dave

[Dave Drago (68.91.72.9)]

Karen, this is part II
What makes the situation unique is that Alan tried to follow the biblical pattern of confrontation, in accordance with Matthew 18 verses 15-17.

Let me explain because it sheds light on Alan’s options.

Alan states:
“My prayers became more specific as I became more desperate. I prayed that God would show me someone whom I could trust to talk to within the church about this mess we were in. That day (Jan.20th, 1999), while picking my kids up at school, I saw a long time friend of Margaret and I, named Barbara Evans. Barbara and her husband Dave were also friends and financial supporter of Pastor Stevens. Barbara employed Margaret parttime in her Court Reporting firm. Sensing that we were having problems she mentioned that if Margaret & I ever needed to have someone to talk with she and her husband Dave were available. I hesitated at first but then took her up on the offer only if they could meet with me alone that evening as I told her what I wanted to discuss was rather serious. They invited me to dinner at their home that night a Wednesday before church service. I left sensing our meeting was more than chance, but an answer to my prayer. I found hope in recalling the scriptural text of Matthew 18:16,17 about church members who constantly commit the same offense: " if he will not listen to you, take one or two witnesses along. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church, if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would an unbeliever". As I had found Paul to be this untruthful, I knew it was time to find the I or 2 witnesses that Jesus suggested.”

The NASB renders:
“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Observation: Alan confronted Paul before the Evans and Pastor Carl H. Stevens the Chief Elder/Senior Pastor of GGWO/pioneer of Christian talk radio/head of an international ministry/ founder of Maryland Bible College and Seminary.

Alan states in his report:
“Pastor Stevens appeared nervous when I told him briefly what I knew and pointed to the copies of the e-mail letters on the table. Paul broke down weeping, falling to his knees before us while admitting to his dad this was true, saying he was "so sorry" to me, & then to his dad. Pastor Stevens asked me if I wanted his son Paul to step down as a Pastor. Sidestepping the question I said all I wanted was my wife back, and for Paul to cooperate by honoring our marriage, and staying away from my wife completely. As much as I wanted to trust Pastor Steven's apparent good will, I quietly doubted that he had the fortitude to have his son step down as a pastor and marriage counselor. Though he insisted he wanted to advise me "as your pastor", my instincts suggested that he was Paul's dad first. He asked me if we could keep this from being known, from Paul's wife, and causing scandal in his church. I restated that Paul & Margaret should cease all contact with each other for the sake of my marriage and family. Pastor Stevens agreed, while complementing me profusely for what he considered the biblical and private manner in which I handled this. Pastor Stevens suggested that we would make a covenant before God for this to be. David & Barbara, Pastor Stevens, Paul and I Stood together and briefly prayed such before leaving.”

Observation: Alan also handled the biblical discipline of an elder properly in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:19-22
“19Don't listen to a complaint against a leader that isn't backed up by two or three responsible witnesses.20If anyone falls into sin, call that person on the carpet. Those who are inclined that way will know right off they can't get by with it.21God and Jesus and angels all back me up in these instructions. Carry them out without favoritism, without taking sides. 22Don't appoint people to church leadership positions too hastily. If a person is involved in some serious sins, you don't want to become an unwitting accomplice. In any event, keep a close check on yourself.” (The Message)

Observation: You would think an elder in such a position would honor the scriptures. Instead, he conspired to commit cover up. Not only that, he even brought his son with him the next day out to Vegas to preach! Alan states: “The next morning, Jan 21St, Pastor Stevens & Paul left for a three-Day church conference in Las Vegas, where they both preached.”
“On Sunday morning January 24’,1999 at 1:00 am, I was awakened by a phone call from Pastor Stevens in Las Vegas. He apologized for calling late, explaining that he just finished preaching and wanted to see how I was. I briefly replied that I now had more hope for my wife and family after our meeting at the Evan’s home a few nights before. He interrupted to tell me “God does speak to you”, and “ you handled this matter as a gentleman and so biblically” and “I want you to consider being a pastor”, and “your like a son to me”, and “you can trust me as your pastor, because I refuse to be sentimental with him (Paul). I’ll pull his ordination papers in a second if I ever hear he’s done this again.” Finally “let’s both agree to quietly keep an eye out for how they (his son & my wife) conduct themselves and let each other know so you have the peace to know this is over”. I agreed, thanked him for the call, checked my notes as I had written down his verbatim comments in my notebook next to the phone, during our conversation.”

Observation: Pastor Stevens should have brought the matter before the elders and then rebuked his son before the church. Then, the elders could have determined a proper road map to recovery for all the parties concerned. Also, after the confrontation, Paul returned to his old ways with Alan’s wife while maintaining his position in the ministry.

3. Question: What possibly could Alan do then? He has only one option remaining. He must take it to the church, with the Evans as his witnesses to the original confrontation...But, how can he when there is no system in place to make this happen?

Observation: Matthew 18 also states that when the believer ignores confrontation you have the right to treat them as a tax collector or gentile. "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” At this point Alan (and the church) should have treated Paul and Margaret like an outsider, until they repented. This did not happen. I point this out because it is the root of the problem at GGWO; a false doctrine and a spirit of pride and error that reveals no humility, accountability, or credibility within the current system of GGWO.

Question: What does it mean to treat a believer like a gentile or tax collector? I believe since the church leadership denied Alan the biblical justice due all believers in CHRIST’S church, he had the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to publish his report. He also had the right to handle them as unbelievers and seek legal counsel. This was his judgment call.

Core issue: Alan could not bring it before the church because there is no biblical vehicle in place at GGWO to make that happen.
For Him,
Dave Drago

[Dave Drago (68.91.72.9)]

Karen, this is part III
Question: What does it mean to treat a believer like a gentile or tax collector? I believe since the church leadership denied Alan the biblical justice due all believers in CHRIST’S church, he had the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to publish his report. He also had the right to handle them as unbelievers and seek legal counsel. This was his judgment call.

Core issue: Alan could not bring it before the church because there is no biblical vehicle in place at GGWO to make that happen.

4. Now, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6:4-7:
"If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?"

Context: This passage is dealing with frivolous lawsuits among believers. Paul is saying to settle these issues out of court within the confines of Christian arbitration for testimony sake. He is also saying that if that can’t happen it is better to take the loss then embarrass the testimony of Christ. If a church does not offer or honor this principle, they are setting themselves up for failure.

Application: If I have a conflict with a church member (perhaps they cheat me in a business deal, etc.) then the church should arbitrate the decision. This keeps our testimony pure.


Conclusion: The scriptures were not followed. However, Alan, who was lied to and and manipulated was wise to seek legal counsel. I wonder if the lawyer was a Christian? It would still honor this passage because it is arbitrated betwen believers still. Alan and GGWO did arbitrate a mutually amicable decision outside of court, I would surmise for pain and suffering. And, both parties, in this case the Langs and the elders (not the attendees because they are not informed) are satisfied with the outcome. Again, the leadership failed to disclose the financial decision or discipline the elders involved. What is done in the darkness is brought to the light.
Even though restitution was made, God is still waiting for repentance.
For Him,
Dave

[Dave Drago (68.91.72.9)]

Karen, this is the final part, ugh IV!
Regarding order and procedures in the church:

Observations:
1. When a church deals with disputes between two believers there should be Christian arbitration and we follow I Corinthians 6:4-7.

2. When there is a sin issue of a believer we follow Matthew 18:15-17.
(Both these passages deal with individual relationships.)

3. When there is a sin issue involving an elder the church is to follow 1Timothy 5:19-22. This is to protect the flock and keep the elders in line. This is a church wide issue and not a private matter.

4. No matter how we proceed, we do all things in meekness with a view towards correction and restoration, considering our own lives.

Galatians 6:1-10
1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, 5for each one should carry his own load.
6Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[1] will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (NIV)

Colossians 3:12-17
12So, chosen by God for this new life of love, dress in the wardrobe God picked out for you: compassion, kindness, humility, quiet strength, discipline. 13Be even-tempered, content with second place, quick to forgive an offense. Forgive as quickly and completely as the Master forgave you. 14And regardless of what else you put on, wear love. It's your basic, all-purpose garment. Never be without it.
15Let the peace of Christ keep you in tune with each other, in step with each other. None of this going off and doing your own thing. And cultivate thankfulness. 16Let the Word of Christ--the Message--have the run of the house. Give it plenty of room in your lives. Instruct and direct one another using good common sense. And sing, sing your hearts out to God! 17Let every detail in your lives--words, actions, whatever--be done in the name of the Master, Jesus, thanking God the Father every step of the way.
(The Message)

For Him,
Dave

[Anonymous (64.26.82.18)]

The name "Drago" suits you with you LONNNNGGGG, drawn out posts!

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

Thank you, Dave! I will need to read all your "installments" several times to put it all together. I appreciate your taking the time to prepare such a thorough response.

Much appreciated.
-Karen

[Dave Drago (68.91.72.9)]

Karen,
You are welcome. I know it is lonnnngggg winded, but I think thoroughness is important.
For Him,
Dave

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

Dave, this raises another issue for me. Now, it had seemed to me that at least the passage in I Cor. was very clear on the subject, and I know many believers would have interpreted Alan Lang's actions as wrong because of it. I read the passage and understood it in that light, but yet my "judgment" or spiritual discernment--depending on how you want to categorize it--went counter to the apparent meaning of the verse in this situation. If I blindly submitted to the verse though my conscience bore witness to something else, I would have been wrong. Of course, studying the Word in depth and rightly dividing it is our goal, but there will be times when we are off base in our understanding. The point I have been trying to make all along is that if I sense a contradiction in what the Bible appears to say and what the Spirit is telling me, I cannot submit to it. Instead, I will bring it to God and ask Him to show me. And until I get the green light--in other words, the Scripture and the Spirit line up--I cannot come under its authority. (And for those who think I'm trying to find an excuse for living in sin, that is not the case; my issues with the Bible are not related to areas of personal sin at all.)

I don't know if this makes sense to you, but after many years of grieving the Holy Spirit in the name of obedience to the Bible, I will not and cannot do it anymore.

-Karen

[Dave Drago (68.91.72.9)]

Karen,
Let me oversimplify. All I can tell you is that the Scriptures, which reveal Jesus Christ cannot be contradicted by the Holy Spirit who reveals Jesus Christ and inspired the very same Scritures. Many times it is our understanding of the passage that is wrong and that leads to us quenching the Spirit.. When I do not understand (Or like) a passage (which happens alot) I ask The Holy Spirit to reveal the proper interpreatation. I know all Scripture is true and pure. However, I am a sinner saved by grace, so I will not always readily grasp it. I will email you a manuscript from a sermon, "You Can Trust Your Bible". It is very encouraging. Not heavy. It is my preaching notes, it will be a little clusmy, but it has great illustrations of the reliability of the Bible. I won't post it here, because it is lonnnggg winded, and I do not have time to edit for essay style. It is outline style.

For Him,
Dave

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

"after many years of grieving the Holy Spirit in the name of obedience to the Bible, I will not and cannot do it anymore."

Love you Karen...hang in there.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

I noted that above there is some confusion, which I think I contributed to, regarding restitution. This is a simpler way to think about it.

Ed rent's a house worth $5,000.
Ed smokes in bed, falls asleep and starts a fire.
Ed's landlord, Ted, who lives across the street, sees the fire, rushes in and pulls Mr. Ed out of the bed and saves his life.
Ted inhales smoke in the process and misses a week of work. His salary is $500 a week.

Ted is out $5,000 for the house plus $500 for a week of work, which equals $5,500. Now Ted says to Ed, "You owe me $5,500 and if you don't pay me I'm going to sue you and I'm going to tell everyone who asks that you burned down my house."

Well, If Ted sues Ed, a court will probably award compensation for the house and a missed week of work, AND Ted will still be able to tell anyone that hasn't read about it in the newspaper that Ed burns down rented houses. That will make it very hard for Ed to find another place to live.

Ed says to Ted, "I'll pay you $6,000 if you promise not tell anyone that I burned your house down." Ted takes the money. In the example, Ted has been paid $5,500 in restitution and $500 to be silent.

The $500 to be silent was an additional promise that is severable from Ted's claim for restitution for his house and salary.

The problem with Ted's silence is that the next time Ed rent's a place, in an apartment building perhaps, and smokes in bed and starts another fire, not everyone gets out and some people die in the fire. Now Ted didn't start the fire and it's not his fault people died, and Ted had no legal obligation to tell anyone that Ed smokes in bed and starts fires, but he sure could have prevented the fire by telling any prospective landlords that asked. And perhaps Ted was morally, if not legally, obligated to tell.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Why was Ted compensated the $500 for Ed's missed week of work?

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

but for the actions of Ed, Ted would not have missed work

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Oh, TED missed work, not Ed. Sorry, I got confused...too many Teds and Eds in the story.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

Yeah, it's very disturbing to me too, it seems I've turned into that which I despised.

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

which is???

[Anonymous (67.243.131.7)]

Karen,

I don't know you, but I know that you have posted some things on this board that touched and helped me personally and that means a lot. I'm thinking about you and praying, too.

Love and thanks,

Boss Martian

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

I understand your point, Arguendo. I believe the Lang's had a right before God and man to seek restitution. The gray area is the part of the settlement bought their silence. I do not stand in judgement of their decision because I am not privy (because of their silence) to the why's of that decision. I assume Alan may have believed he put his story out in the public domain by posting it on the internet before the settlement. In one sense he did more to undercover the underbelly of GGWO before the birth of GGWO/FACTNet and maybe he felt that was enough. The sad truth is he is not the only one in the history of TBS/GGWO that chose to be silent. I believe many of the women Carl had affairs with also were bought out. It is unfortunate how many remain silent. Even with close to 30,000 posts the silence is deafening. There are pastors who have left that have stories to tell. Some have documentation to back their stories. I think this points to the damage caused by Carl and this group. So many walk away shattered, only capable of taking care of themselves. Seeking healing and getting as far away as possible. These men have witnessed the ruthless behaviors and know what Carl is capable of. They just want to go on with their lives. How unfortunate they do not see the greater good would be to tell their story, uncover the lies. The cost is great and self-healing is the easier road but if only; if only there were more of us, brave enough, to tell the real stories. That is one of the reasons I admire Jack and Lee Leonard, it is a selfless act to come here and tell the truth. But there are many more Jack Leonards that could do the same. Where are they? Do they not know what a difference they could make in other's lives that are struggling? Where are they?

[Bob Brinton (70.17.128.228)]

Karen, I really like what you posted above at 4:15 pm. An aditional aspect of this should also be taken into account, which is that I should not receive someone else's interpretation of the Word which conflicts with what the Spirit tells me about it. And there's a difference between listening and even respecting another's view and taking it on as one's own when it is not given by God but by that other's understanding of God. We walk some sometimes fine lines here. The Spirit does split hairs at times.

[Anonymous (68.33.70.187)]

OOOOH, I SEE! A LEOPARD CAN'T LOSE HIS SPOTS, RIGHT? SO THE BLOOD OF CHRIST DOESN'T REALLY COVER OUR SINS AND MAKE US NEW? ALTHOUGH OUR SINS ARE PAID FOR, WE'RE NEVER REALLY FREE? OH, I GET IT NOW.... we ARE our sins! SO, IF I GOT PLASTERED ONCE, I AM A DRUNK!
THANKS, BUT NO THANKS... THAT IS NOT THE KIND OF CHRISTIANITY I WANT. YOU MISREPRESENT GOD.

[Anonymous (152.163.101.12)]

It is not sin but the system. The individual stands or falls before God. The system put into place by Carl Stevens where the habitual practice of spiritual abuse has continued for decades needs to be exposed. The twisted doctrines that has kept this system spinning along needs to scrutinized. The leaders who enable this system with their lies, cover-ups and slander need to be made accountable. Not for the purpose of exposing them as sinners, we already know we are sinners, but to stop the abuse. Through exposure, we give others the tools they need to make a choice NOT to be involved in this ministry. We equip others not to join this counterfeit group in the future. Again, it is not a matter of exposing sin but exposing the lies that allow the sin to habitually continue. It is up to the indivivdual to take all the information available and use their own brain and leading of the Holy Spirit to decide if this is a church they would want to be a part of. For many years Carl perfected his counterfeit Christianity on the backs of those he destroyed by slanderous evil. Too many, including myself, were duped to believe his twisted scriptures and did not use the God-given ability to hear all the information and make a rational and spirit-led decision. Study the scripture for yourself, the "touch not God's anointed" is a false doctrine and it is the cornerstone of TBS/GGWO. Look at the end result of this doctrine in GG today. You have a man who had been doing drugs for years, he has dementia from the drugs. He needed intervention over a year ago. He destroyed his own son for trying. But the men around to this day allow it to continue. He has preached heresy while high on drugs, he counsels high on drugs. he has split apart families and destroyed reputations high on drugs. Hundreds of members have left this church while he is high on drugs. But not one leader has told the truth or intervened. Instead they fight among themselves and jockey for the top position. Why? Because they want to be God's Next Anointed. Hey, why not, it's a great job. You can do whatever you please, hurt whoever you want and NO ONE can touch you. IT IS TIME TO EXPOSE THE LIE WITH THE TRUTH.

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

"We walk sometimes fine lines here."

Yes, like on a tightrope, Bob. Balance is everything.


Thanks, Boss. Your take on things is always interesting, bold, honest and humorous. Now here is something good to come from the ministry. Without it, we would have missed out on your penetrating wit and generous, warm heart.

-Karen

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

DITTO to that Karen, I was just thinking how much I've grown to like Boss. Who would have thought!
Glad to know ya Boss.

[Arguendo (152.163.101.12)]

Boss is the bomb. Very impressed with Dave, also.

Both interesting additions to the board.

Balance may be the reason for the lovefest on my part.

Or it may be gas.

[Anonymous (152.163.101.12)]

Boss is the man. Everyone offers a unique perspective. A lot more could be accomplished if we welcomed the diversity of thought instead of focusing on our differences. And Arguendo you are not too bad yourself!

[Anonymous (69.143.68.103)]

Can we get a group hug here?

All kidding aside, I'm a little choked up this morning. I love you all. Although my time on this board has been "challenging" at times, I think I have learned a lot from other points of view.

Today is a great day!

Boss Martian
"Revolution starts at home, preferably in the bathroom mirror." Bob Mould

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Well, you already know how I feel aboutcha, Boss http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

And I wanna say I am glad to have cleared up so much with Dave on the phone this AM.

[Arguendo (205.188.117.20)]

And what, RJ? What is it supposed to mean that you talked to Dave this morning and cleared things up. What is that supposed to mean to us? That Dave is not all the negative things you said he was? That he can be trusted?

Lady, your relationship with Dave stopped being a personal thing when you emoted all of FACTNet about him. If you said things that you no longer fell are true or accurate then you are obligated fix the record.

You need to be responsible about the things you say about people. There is much I respect about you, but I think you are really irresponsible about making accusations. You want to test everyone with fire, and that is manipulative and unfair.

[Anonymous (152.163.101.12)]

Arguendo,
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
I agree with you totally, except there is nothing I respect about RJ

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

There is much that can be communicated via the keyboard and there is much that cannot. Dave and I and our spouses were all students together at TBS in Lenox. We have many of the same memories. I make no hesitation to say that every single word I have written to this date to Dave and about Dave and his view of things about GGWO I meant exactly as stated.

But just as I realized a long time back, that Jim and I were at odds with each other over every issue and we needed to speak personally to fully understand each other, I made it a point today to call Dave just like months ago I made a point to call Jim.

A personal conversation, even over the phone clears us many misunderstandings ON BOTH SIDES. I still disagree with both Dave and Jim on many issues, but now I know what they mean when they say things. The voice inflections are more evident when one at least hears the voice. Something on my computer screen has no voice until I have heard someone speak it in my ear, so I know what direction they are coming from.

I am bold enough to persue the truth about a situation if I think there are subtleties that are not apparent from my computer screen. I have spoken to a number of people that post here, for that same reason. I thoroughly enjoyed my open, honest discussion of the issues with Dave and remembering together some of the things peculiar to TBS campus living and our days there.

My desire to know the truth about a person I "tangle" with on issues helps me to better understand where they are truly coming from. I suggest it for others who are in serious discussions with people on the board. It is enlightening and can clarify much.

Do I know trust Dave? The odd thing is, I never considered him to be anything but trustworthy and sincere...it is the fact that he was having communication with GGWO that made me not be more open with him. I have never hidden the fact that I was/am wary that good people like Dave and others can easily be used by corrupt people. Having discussed this openly with Dave, he undserstands my position and I understand his.

We do not have to agree to respect each other. We do not have to agree on everything to be friends. We do not have to see things the same way to be on the same team.


I enjoyed talking with him and clearing the air. I believe in the direct approach to freindships and controvery everybit as much as I believe that GGWO is an extremely dangerous place that more people need to be free from.

[Anonymous (152.163.101.12)]

I am surprised that Dave talked to you at all after the way you mocked him and ripped him apart.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

I am sure you are.

[Anonymous (152.163.101.12)]

who cares... its just a lousey message board. you all take this all WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY to seriously

[Anonymous (63.27.82.50)]

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN 152!

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

For some this message board has helped them get out of an unhealthy situation, it has opened eyes and that makes it more than just a lousy message board. Taking it seriously is important for some. If you don't like the place there are other less serious places.

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

just a reminder about factnet taken from their home page..............

Independent individuals, organizations, or authors contributing documents to F.A.C.T.Net's research libraries may be exercising their constitutional rights of petition, free speech, participation in government, or freedom of religion in researching, evaluating and freely discussing any matter. These discussions or statements may be the constitutionally protected opinions, allegations, satire, fiction, or religious beliefs or religious opinions of these independent individuals, organizations, or authors and, as such, MAY OR MAY NOT BE FACTUAL

[Anonymous (67.243.241.1)]

In response to the last post.
It is very sobering however when you realize that much of what has been written about the abuses by Carl Stevens and Greater Grace World Outreach is corroborated by 2 or three winessses in many cases.
Also, a lot is documented in Courtrooms in Massachusetts and Maryland.
Simply put a lot of what you come across here on GG/Factnet is based on fact and in fact FACTUAL !

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

there is no excuse for personal attacks on anyone in or out of the church

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

And, no matter how much effort is put into disputing these facts, or even casting a bit of doubt......they remain true and they will not go away. The evidence has piled high. Ignorance is no excuse. No amount of discrediting and disregarding can change it.

[Anonymous (64.26.82.18)]

Do ya think Carl will give us some money to shut us up too?

[Anonymous (67.243.240.20)]

Who is "us" Anon 64 ?

Your postings have always been as someone still in GGWO!
So ask Carl yourself.
LOL

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

They had Carl by the balls and made him squeal like a pig,
thats the only reason CHS payed them the money.

[Anonymous (63.27.22.239)]

Does the self-proclaimed Head of the Church on Earth have balls?

[ariel]

PLEASE NOTICE..
the 'Alan Lang Story" has been edited) on the link at the CarlStevens.org website.

The link on the left menu of the Carlstevens.org website reads "the Frank Smith Story"

The Lang's names (Alan & Margaret) have been changed to "Frank & Tricia"
A little revisionist history on Greater Graces part huh?

Don't be misled