Lake Elsinore LetterPLEASE READ

[RJ (141.154.186.91)]

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:20 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace bible Church in Lake Elsinore
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 2330

The Bible Speaks World Outreach Board of Elders
40 Kemble Street
Lenox, Massachusetts 01240

Dear Sirs:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is because of a deep love for The Bible Speaks Ministry and a sincere desire to adhere to God's Word that this correspondence is made necessary. We ask that you, as the Elders of the church, consider our letter prayerfully and deal with it accordingly as the Holy Spirit leads you.

With heaviness of heart, we find it needful to follow through with the order of church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-17 and also inform you of the reasons for our formal separation as a ministry from The Bible Speaks. We do so in much sobriety and with no malice towards any particular individual or the ministry as a whole. Our action comes only after we have followed the aforementioned Scripture and found no attitude of repentance forthcoming.
Our desire is, as a ministry which was a part of your church, to bring to light doctrine and practices which we can no longer support and pray that you, as leaders, will find the
correct path to take. We find this action to be extremely difficult as we have a deep love for all those in The Bible Speaks Ministry and have no desire to cause any harm to come to the soul winning efforts of the ministry; however, we are forced by our conviction to confront this issue head on and present our views to you as church leaders. The reasons behind our decision can be summed up as follows:

1. DEFINITE LACK OF FOLLOWING GOD'S WORD DEFINING CHURCH DISCIPLINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN INVOLVING A PASTOR.

A. The Bible is very clear that if it takes a confrontation for a Pastor to repent of a serious sin he is engaged in, then he is no spiritual shape to lead the church and is to be brought before the entire church for reproof.

D. We have found The Bible Speaks to have dealt with this issue in complete partiality (conflicting with I Timothy 5:21); and while overlooking known questionable pastoral moral behavior, pastoral manipulation of people and finances, or lying, they prosecute to the fullest extent of Scripture (and sometimes beyond) any individual who has sinned or erred in conforming to Bible Speaks doctrine. This can be best shown by actions taken against people who have repented of their actions without pastoral prompting, yet have been brought before the church, fired, and kicked off 'campus; while pastors who have had to be confronted to repent of adultery or embezzlement have been simply relocated to teach in Lenox or given their own church.

C. Doctrinally, this can be best seen in the lengthy apologetic which was endorsed by the ministry and sent to Christian Research Institute to explain and defend the doctrinal stance of The Bible Speaks and Pastor Stevens' preaching on the issue.

Page 2

While any references were made to "loving", "submitting to", "not questioning or doubting", "honoring", "obeying" and "co-operating with what God lays upon his (the Pastor's) Heart" and with his (again the Pastor's) vision", with regard to a pastor, while the only reference nude to dealing with pastoral infidelity was a short quote from Tape 2260 preached in Scarborough on 4/1/79, "What they say, what I say, what everybody says, has to be according to the Word of God; you follow the Word of God and PRAY HE'LL (THE PASTOR) GET IT RIGHT." The only mention of how to respond to a pastor's humanity in a 27-page defense of The Bible Speaks position of pastoral authority is that the people in the church are to pray and hope he gets his doctrine right. No mention of any verses on pastoral responsibility to God and the church, no mention of confronting a pastor on sin; just let him go on as he is, love him and pray for him. Extreme unbalance and very dangerous is our best description of this view. Matthew 18:15-17, Luke 17:3, Galatiain: 6:1, and I Timothy 5:19-21 contain material we feel to best outline our positions us they bring out main points on this issue.

2. POOR APPLICATION OF MENEUTICAL PRINCIPALS LEADING TO DOCTRINAL INACCURACY AND CHURCH STRIFE AND DIVISION.
*Please note that many of the "doctrines" we discuss here are not stated doctrines in The Bible Speaks publications or messages per se, but have been formed in the minds of all those who have been under The Bible Speaks' teaching for some time.

A. The dual doctrines of love covers all sins (Proverbs 10:12) and don't deal with sin (especially not a Pastor's) because God will (Proverbs 3:12), are presented in such a way as to exclude Pastors from correction or reproof from the congregation. This is in direct conflict with the Bible's stance on this issue as we have seen and causes many individuals much confusion and heartache when they observe wrong doing and are forced to rationalize it away in their mind. We believe that the Bible is very clear on this point. The only sins that are covered (covered, meaning not mentioned to others) are those repented of; those not repented of are to be brought before the entire church. Pastors must be brought to the realization that they, more so than anyone else, are held responsible by God for their actions (James 3:1) and are accountable to all those they serve.

B. As a compliment doctrine, we find the teachings of "Don't listen to an evil report", "Don't spread cockatrice eggs", "Don't be deceived by Satan and become a casualty", "If a person is causing division, have nothing to do with them", and "When you leave, don't backbite", all strongly emphasized in conjunction with a person's loyalty to Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks. We have found these teachings to give the individual a warped sense of loyalty and cause numerous wrongs to go unrighted. This unhealthy loyalty, as we see it, is extremely dangerous and is reminiscent of any totalitarian type structure which emphasizes a person's blind acceptance of what surrounds him, to be in his best interest, designed by the leadership.3

C. The association of any negative report with Satan and demonic attack. Many of us have seen in the past (from Wiscasset until now) what happens to a person when they attempt to deal with problems in The Bible Speaks, especially anything concerning Pastor Stevens' personal actions. They are immediately overwhelmed with Bible Speaks doctrine; and if this fails to calm their fears to the satisfaction of the leadership, they are branded as "causing division", "being influenced by demons", or "fellowshipping with darkness". Whatever it is they have to say is "of the devil" and must not be listened to with any credibility, if listened to at all. This is taken to the extent that one of our Pastors was threatened not to receive his ordination if he did not stop fellowshipping with a labeled "division causer" because it cast doubts upon his "loyalty".

Page 3

We find all of this to be extremely disconcerting; it creates an unhealthy air of blind acceptance and closed mindedness, we see as in direct conflict with Paul's attitude in I Thessalonians 5:21 (prove all things). Please do not think that we are ignorant of the multitude of verses which deal with this subject; however, they are the means by which The Bible Speaks has used to cause all attempts at constructive criticism, or in more biblical terms, "reproof" to be either thwarted in its process or never begun because of the fear of being "used by Satan." These verses must be taught in accordance with hermeneutical principles to obtain a biblical balance.

D. The Doctrine that those who leave The Bible Speaks and have any disagreement with Pastor Stevens (whether spoken or silent) or attempt to cause change, are in serious; danger of divine punishment - We have experienced many messages and conversation that imply or have directly stated that God has brought severe judgment to those who dared entertain critical thoughts or actions against Pastor Stevens; incidents have been cited starting from cancer of the tongue or throat all the way to physical death or spiritual darkness and reprobation. This can only be described as a completely heretical fear tactic used to manipulate people and bring strict orthodoxy to The Bible Speaks, or more specifically, Pastor Stevens' doctrine. Another aspect of this doctrine is that all problems experienced or illnesses incurred by those loyal to Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks are the result of persecution; when these same events befall those who are antagonistic to The Bible Speaks or who have left, they become evidence of God's dis¬pleasure and judgment.

We find all of this extremely unacceptable, causing many who have honest question or criticisms to be in complete bondage and confusion. They hear one thing preached only to see Pastors act in a totally opposite manner (i.e., speak no evil, yet Pastors con¬stantly ridicule, belittle and malign congregation members, other ministries and pastors; but most of all, those who hold opposing views.). This doctrine has created spiritually crippled people who have much difficulty in holding an opposing view or in questioning a doctrine, even when they know they are right and have absolute proof of their con¬victions. Fearful puppets fill The Bible Speaks churches, even though they won't admit it openly, they cry inwardly for release and guidance.

E. The doctrine of submission and authority which was taught in Wiscasset, Scar¬borough, South Berwick, Lenox, and is still in practice today in branch ministries and home base, having never been dealt with honestly or taught correctly to all those who have been under these teachings.

We feel this doctrine can best be summed up by quoting a passage from a book highly acclaimed by Stevens (at one point required yearly reading by Staff in Lenox and taught in Bible School), written by Watchman Nee, "Spiritual Authority," page 71. The first two paragraphs state very clearly that no one who follows the directions from a spiritual leader will be held responsible for their obedience; it is not their concern if the leader is right or wrong, just to obey. We find this in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture, especially those verses which deal with our personal responsibility and relationship to our Lord. This doctrine has been engrained in all who were present when these teachings were taught openly and are being "rained into others by those Pastors and church members who pass this attitude on through words and actions.

This leads to an unscriptural and unhealthy dependence on Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks for a person's relationship with Christ. It has been evidenced by many that those who have turned their spiritual walk (even in the least) over to
Page 4
Pastor Stevens or their respective Bible Speaks Pastor, have limited or no fellowship with the Lord outside their Bible Speaks realm, even to the point of physical locale. This dependence was voiced by one graduate of The Bible Speaks Bible School (who has his own ministry with The Bible Speaks) in defense of the teachings of The bible Speaks when he posed this question to one of our church members, "How can you survive without Lenox tapes?" This type of dependence can only be described as unbiblical and unsound to anyone's spiritual walk. Stevens, as well as many others, will claim this not to be true. On careful examination and honest consideration, on your part, of people's lives in branch ministries or in Lenox, we feel you will see the truth in this point.

F. The doctrine of the superiority of The Bible Speaks understanding of "grace" and the "body concept." This is an unspoken and many times spoken attitude taken by all those who become "one" with The Bible Speaks. This attitude leads to spiritual snobbery and becoming closed as far as considering other churches' understanding of Scripture, correction or reproof from outside persons or groups which desire to help; but, worst of all, it leaves a completely helpless and worthless feeling in all those who leave the ministry for one reason or another. The ministry seems to have won many people by pride and kept them by fear.

G. The doctrine of the "cross life" and how it is used to manipulate people' actions by playing on their moral conscience. It has been clearly manifested in past years how The Bible Speaks has used the preaching of the "cross" to cause behavior modification on the part of its congregation to fit the needs of the ministry by causing people to feel guilty, or less spiritual, if they refused the "cross," the ministry could manipulate people into various actions which benefited the church, either financially or otherwise. Preaching soon became a time where the "cross" would be determined by the pulpit as the church had needs. If the property needed people as residents, then the "cross" would be to sell your house, donate the money to the church and move on campus. Message after message asserted that a person was not loyal to the "Body" if they didn't live on campus and never register a complaint because of ridiculous living conditions. The "corporate vision" forced people into situations where their moral conscience caused their actions instead of the Holy Spirit's leading. Anytime a person complained about conditions on campus or in the church, they were said to "not desire the cross in their life." People soon took this doctrine to the point of leaving their families, financial responsibility, or saying that anything that a person did that did not agree with Pastor Stevens' view had to be due to "their flesh rejecting the cross." Please do not misunderstand us to the point of saying we do not believe in the "preaching of the cross," we do; but we are extremely disturbed when a person or a church chooses to manipulate people by doctrinal means and leave them in a place where their moral conscience is pitted against their being led by the Spirit. We must conclude that this preaching is a result of one of the following

1. Ignorance;
2. Willful manipulation for personal gain; or
3. Lack of trust in Cod and His Spirit to meet needs.

We have experienced people who have come from Lenox that have backslidden and claimed they need to be in Lenox to hear "the cross" preached. What they should have said was that they never established a personal relationship with the Lord and desire their lives to be manipulated into desired Christian behavior. We feel this is an accurate view from the standpoint that our pulpit has taken a very strong stance concerning the type of sins they had fallen into and that the "cross" as we see it has been preached repeatedly. -We cannot come to the.. point where we believe it is correct-to manipulate

Page 5

people's flesh for the sake of the Kingdom. The result is always that they fail as soon as our manipulation ceases. They must be brought to the lord to establish a relationship with His Holy Spirit for conviction, not our "cross." Because of people's ability to confuse preaching or take it to a point where it was never meant; people have abandoned parents, husbands, wives, children, jobs, homes or financial responsibility to appease this strong burden placed on their moral conscience when it has nothing to do at all with being led by the Spirit. This doctrine, as much as any other doctrine, has frequently caused family conflict, personal strife and church confusion to the point where it must be dealt with swiftly and thoroughly to stop further damage.
H. The doctrine of branch ministries with Lenox as "Home Base." We find this doctrine to be completely and thoroughly perpetrated to the fullest extent when it is beneficial for Lenox or the branch church to do so and just as vehemently denied if it is inconvenient or unbeneficial for either. We were given a copy of a letter to Pastor Stevens which confronted him with dealing with the California Ministry in complete dishonesty. He had told the individuals that Leon Devoid was under him in the ministry hierarchy and he would deal with the situation as an over¬seeing Pastor. When Pastor Stevens came out to deal with the situation, he assured them he would correct the problem. Instead, he preached about not "dishonoring the Pastor" and compared Devoid's situation to one similar he had experienced when he was let down out of a church window in Bath, Maine. He claimed to individuals who lead spoken to those that had written the letter that the California Ministry was a com¬pletely separate organization and that he had no authorization to do anything. He asserted that he had never made any of the statements they were claiming he had, making them out to be liars, even to their children.

Situations like these are caused because The Bible Speaks has engendered a doctrine which goes against biblical principles concerning a local church, placing Pastor Stevens as the apostle, master builder, Head Pastor or whatever title you desire to use. The Bible is clearly for the establishment of local churches dependent upon no one but the Lord and themselves for their government, sustenance, and decisions. "The Bible Speaks stance is in no way biblically based."

and finally;

3. THE ELEVATION OF PASTORS ON A WHOLE, BUT ESPECIALLY PASTOR STEVENS, TO A PLACE OF UNDUE WORSHIP AND REVERENCE.

A. The Bible Speaks is not the first to establish such an attitude, nor will it be the last. However, we do not wish to address ourselves to this problem on a whole but to. the particular difficulties caused in The Bible Speaks ministry as a result of this doctrine.

B. In The Bible Speaks publication, "The Bible Speaks Goes On Record" (printed to clear up any questions concerning The Bible Speaks doctrinal views), we find a section entitled, "The Authority of Church Leadership." It is here we find again no mention of specifics in dealing with pastoral sin or error, but numerous references too Old Testament examples and reference to "rebuke not an Elder." It seems as if no where in any Bible Speaks message, devotional, or official publication can we find reference to Paul's specific instructions found in I Timothy 5:19-21:

"Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three'`witnesses'. Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and we elect angels, that thou observe these things without

Page 6

preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." How is it possible that this verse has gone unnoticed throughout The Bible Speaks Ministry? Possibly because it makes pastors mare responsible to their church, not less, and brings down pastors off their pedestals to a place of accountability to humans as well as Gad.

C. This has caused frequent and continual problems to occur in Lenox and the brunch ministries, both in the execution of church affairs and in the individual lives of believers.
In one ministry, this doctrine eventually caused the church to close its doors and the pastor to make a complete re-evaluation of his calling. Strife resulted when the inability to live up to The Bible Speaks pastoral image was obvious to all, causing the church to became confused when every male who came from Lenox was called "Pastor" and few, if any, were ever called to such a position. Needless to say, the entire congregation suffered as a result of poor teaching and foolish pastoral decision

In another ministry, this caused people to be verbally slandered and attacked from the pulpit, finances to be manipulated and wasted, complete church division, and pastoral behavior to be unquestioned to the point that the pastor would feel comfortable in asking one individual before a group of people, "Who the (expletive deleted) are you to question me?" Pastoral attacks of other Christian ministries over radio air¬waves carried with it the message of pastoral authority. The end result has been nothing short of giving Christ and His Gospel a poor name in the town and many out¬lying areas.

In various branch ministries this doctrine has caused the ordination and elevation of many novices (including a Head Pastor who was ordained, after only being saved a short time, because he was an undesirable steward of the finances in Lenox) who have larded it over the people in their church, crushing numerous young, sincere Christians by their "Pastoral Dictatorship."

(We cite the North Carolina, Milpitas, Lake Elsinore, Rhode Island, and Wilmington Ministries, to name a few, far our preceding statements.)10

Last, but most importantly, this specific doctrine (added to the rest) has
caused Pastor Stevens to commit many pastoral inconsistencies which have added to the entire problem concerning The Bible Speaks. Unlike Barnabas and Paul in Acts 14:14 (they rent their clothes to prove they were human), Pastor Stevens has done everything in his power, it seems, to give his church the opposite view. Many different situations shall be discussed in this section and we desire you to keep in mind that all of the following can be proven via tapes letters, eye-witness testimony (2 or 3) or personal conversation. We do not wish to crucify Stevens" or "destroy The Bible Speaks," but to bring to your attention serious problems in need of correction. Whether the doctrines are a result of the man or the man is a result of the doctrines, we cannot discern. However, our experience with Carl Stevens (through his preaching and private conversation) has led us to believe that he has come to consider himself someone who is not accountable to just any sincere believer, but to God only. He believe that whatever means he chooses to propagate The Bible Speaks Gospel are perfectly legitimate with a definite air of the "ends justifying the means" in many areas in both church actions as well as personal behavior.

The area of his position in the church government has been experienced by many of us both in personal situations and messages; "Jesus told me, you're (referring to Stevens) the prophet," quotes Stevens in one message from a conversation he had with a girl in a bowling alley. Not only does be not clarify what she meant, he does not offer his opinion - he just continues his message, leaving us with the view that Jesus is going around telling people Carl St evens is The prophet.12 We could list numerous

Page 7

quotes from messages, classes, and written material in which Stevens compares himself to Paul, Moses, or some other Biblical leader. He repeatedly has used himself as a "good example" in messages, but in all the messages we have experienced, there are very few times, if any, where Stevens refers to specific faults in his life or uses himself to illustrate failure to bring a balance in people's minds.

He has caused people to consider him as infallible in the pulpit, not because of personal infallibility, but because they believe he would never be dishonest or preach something that wasn't biblically sound. Many people have commented on how great it will be to "receive an apostle's reward" because they "received an apostle" (referring to Stevens). Try as we might to convince ourselves that no one really believes that Stevens is anyone special, we cannot rationalize the hundreds of people that have testified to their total and complete trust in him.

He is special to everyone in The Bible Speaks. Take his title for example; no one loyal to The Bible Speaks would ever consider calling Stevens anything but "Dr. Stevens" or "Pastor." We think nothing of saying, "Billy Graham, Rex Humbard, Richard Wurmbrand or Robert Schuller;" but for someone who has been 'baptised into the body of The Bible Speaks," it is a sign of the utmost disrespect to call Stevens "Carl," and when people leave, it is as if they have to train themselves to call him by his first name. Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that we have put Carl Stevens in a place where no man should be. One Pastor referred to Stevens in a message in Lenox, saying, "Because he is, I am." Another Pastor in a class tape makes the statement that there is "nothing that comes from this pulpit that isn't right on." One of our Pastors taught in a class in Lenox that Carl Stevens was an apostle and was never corrected or told to clarify his statement.'

Stevens has been dishonest in respect to his "honorary" degree to many of us personally. We have contacted Roy Stewart of The Clarksville School of Theology as well as Mr. David Mitchell, Dean of The Baptist Bible College in Clarksville, Tennessee. We have found a Doctor of Divinity Degree to cost $631.00, Clarksville School of Theology to be a "diploma mill" and that Stevens knew that his "Honorary Degrees" were nothing but purchased credibility, and while many have claimed he has stopped using them, we have been given a letter dated December 28, 1982 which has Stevens' doctorate degrees on the letterhead. This may seem to be nothing but proof of some ego on the part of Stevens, while in truth we find it falls right in line
with many inconsistencies Stevens has exhibited that we have passed off too many times.

Stevens has also exhibited seeming callousness concerning his personal con¬versations; we have experienced numerous times Stevens has railed congregation members, other pastors, other ministries or just revealed personal confidences with the excuse he was "testing people's loyalty" -- People seem to feel he has the right to do so because of his position in the ministry. If the church were to apply Stevens' teachings concerning "speaking evil" or "don't eat with a railer" to Stevens, he would be a lonely man.
We could tell so many stories of wounded Christians, disillusioned young people, pastoral infidelity, and church strife that it would fill many more pages. We pass all of this off because of all the souls the ministry wins. We can no longer justify allowing pastoral sin and doctrinal manipulation to go unchallenged simply because we win souls. We cannot justify evil behavior because good comes from it, no matter how "good" the good is. We cannot continue to take widows' money and leave them penniless, manipulate people, to expand the Kingdom of The Bible Speaks
and ignore Gods warnings from sincere loving people.

Page 8

A Pastor in Lenox has been told that one of our Pastors has "left God" and is very deep in sin. This is in no way true. Others have been kept completely in the dark concerning the views of David McAdam and Ron Kelly, and the reasons why their ministries have left. People who feel as we do are totally belittled when they leave the ministry so as to completely discredit their testimony and keep the truth from being brought out into the open.
People have been confronted with discrepancies in various stories told by Stevens and others, their attitude more often than not is that if Stevens has said it, then they have no need to verify it - This was voiced by one Pastor when he replied to the honest questioning of another Pastor in regards to many of the aforementioned problems by saying, "We've grown past that baby stuff, we now have a much higher revelation."

We firmly believe that Carl Stevens' complete repentance before the church in Lenox, followed by his resignation is the only way for healing to start. These doctrines must be retaught and Christ must be put back on the thrones of the lives of individuals where He belongs.

It is because of these reasons and more that can be found in Walter Martin's report that we have separated ourselves from The Bible Speaks church and present this letter to you. Many things we have said have sounded harsh and void of love; but please understand that we love Carl Stevens and owe much to The Bible Speaks. Many of us were saved through the ministry; however, we cannot compromise the Word of God and continue to accept uncorrected error as uncorrectable. We ask you to prayerfully consider this letter and Christian Research Institute's report.

May God's guidance and discernment be with you as you carry out your duties as Elders.

With a deep felt love and desire for the Ministry's best,
The Elders of The Grace Bible Church
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 92330


Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:21 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Notes attached to Lake Elsinore Letter

NOTES
1. An Apologetic on The Bible Speaks' Position on Pastoral Authority, The Bible Speaks, October 1981, Pates 2, 3, 5-16.
2. In Tape No. 1479, Stevens dogmatically states that he will not tolerate so much us a mental attitude against the ministry. If a mental attitude is not allowed, then it is not too hard to come to the conclusion that only delegated authority has any authority to deal with infidelity and sin. (Personal letters from leaders in The Bible Speaks voiced this view in recent months to our congregation members.)
3. 1984, George Orwell, Harcourt Inc. 1949, Pages 32,33,69. This type of mental gymnastics is termed "double think" by Orwell; it allows the person to see wrong or hear wrong yet still conclude there is no wrong. Orwell describes this process for us. - "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing both of them, to use logic against logic (Stevens is fallible, he often misquotes scripture, yet he is never wrong in the pulpit and is above questioning.)... to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then & once again to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.
True Believer, Eric Hoffer, Pages 75, 76. Hoffer sheds some light on the psychological adjustments that are made in this process and their ramifications.
4. The True Believer, Eric Hoffer, Harper & Row 1959, Pages 114-115. "Strict Orthodoxy is as much the result of mutual suspicion as of ardent faith... suspicion is given a sharp edge by associating all opposition within the ranks with the enemy threatening the movement from without. This enemy - the indispensible devil of every mass movement - is omnipresent. He plots both outside and inside the ranks of the faithful. It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter and the deviationists are his stooges. If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing." This association causes all attempts to bring about change to be rendered useless. We can see how this was illustrated by Orwell in his work, Animal Farm Pages 72-74."Presumption vs. Speaking to the Rock," (Tape) Carl Stevens, The Bible Speaks World Outreach. "If you have a close friend that evaluates anybody in delegated authority, I'll guarantee you that if it is done with any consistency, you'll be weak and nick and die in the future months...don't say a sentence, not a sentence, not a line, don't presume or you'll die in the future months."
See also - A Close Look at The Bible Speaks World Outreach, Elliot Miller, CRI 1983, Pages 12, 16.
Spiritual Authority, Watchman Nee, Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1972, Page 71.
People will perhaps argue, 'What if the authority is wrong?' ...Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us ... the Lord will not hold uss responsibility for any mistaken obedience."

NOTES(CONTINUED)
6.(Continued)

True Believer, Hoffer, Pages 35-36. "We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility; or, in the words of the ardent young NAZI, 'to be free from freedom.' It was not sheer hypocrasy when the rank-and-file NAZIS declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the NAZI movement in order to be free from responsibility."
Many people testify of a freedom they feel when coming into The Bible Speaks. We feel this freedom is a result of allowing personal responsibility to be replaced by strict obedience; thus, this feeling is not from a positive growth pattern but from feeling the weight of responsibility for one's own life and decisions lifted off them, to be placed on "God's man" or "delegated authority for the covering of the body." (TI3S from the Throne, February 1976, Page 23)

Animal Farm, Orwell, Page 81. We see how Orwell associates blind devotion with an individual's taking the leader's word as absolute truth which needs no verification (even if it opposes known fact). "Ah, that is different!" said Boxer, "If Comrade Napolean says it, it must be right."

7. 1984., Orwell, Page 47. "Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
"He shall be for you in God's stead," TAPE, Carl Stevens, TBS World Outreach.
"if I said tonight that the ministry here in South Berwick needs $30,000.00, I want six of you to raise it, that you have got it, to bring it in to lay it at our feet, I want you to do it. You shouldn't even have to pray about that. I am here in Christ's stead.
The True Believer,, Hoffer, Page 77. "When a mass movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over: ... If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable."

8. Letter from Dick & Marge Wallis to Carl Steven. "We brought these matters to you and you told us we were right in coming to you because you were the overseeing Pastor. You told us you would take action to right these things. You made it clear to us that you were over Pastor Devoid in authority when you came (to California) you reinforced Pastor Devoid from the pulpit.. . .with the matter of Pastor Devoid (referring to his authority) you told her (their daughter) he was only affiliated
with The Bible Speaks. That was a lie."
9. The Bible Speaks Goes on Record, TBS 1980, Pages 12, 13.
10. Frederick M. Bower, Jim Heinz, Frank & Pat Manchester, Dick & Marge Wallia, Patricia Saunders, Fred & Joann Bower, Rick Petlicki, Bill Fisher, Wayne & Polly Davis, Ed & Patty Mosher, Bob Olivadoti, Gordon & Nancy Berry, Leon Libby, Jack & Sue Daley, Ron Kelly, Elliot Miller, Marty O'Brien, Steve Quuinlan, Alien & Gwen Joy, Fran & Sue Franco. and many others added to our view.

11. "Wisdom is Justified of Her Children." TAPE #1655, TBS, Carl Stet/ CLOSE LOOK AT THE BIBLE SPEAKS WORLD OUTREACH, Eliot Miller, l6, 45

NOTES (CONTINUED)
12. "'The Psychology of Thinking," TAPE # 926, TBS, Carl Stevens, Unedited Version. 13. Animal Farm, Orwell, Pages 69, 89, 90.

14. A CLOSE LOOK AT THE BIBLE SPEARS WORLD OUTREACH, Elliot Miller, CRI 1983. Homiletics Class Tape, Ed Mosber, Stevens School of the Bible, Fall 1977. Homiletics Class Tape, Mark Bower, Stevens School of the Bible, Spring 1978.

15. Phone Conversations on May 12, 1982, 1:00 p.m., PST
16. Animal Farm,, Orwell, Pages 65, 69, 81, 116.


Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:26 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above letter and its referenced notes unfortunately had no date. We can hope that the board's historian Jim Faucett may be able to put some timeframe upon it. It is a powerful testimony of the fact that what TBS/GGWO is intentional. TBS/GGWO has not gone astray along the way. TBS/GGWO does what it does on purpose and there is a lot of destruction reaped along the way measured in hurt and ruined lives.

[Anonymous (67.242.153.41)]

Why is there no date on this letter? That is a red flag. Letters are always dated in the heading.

Who originally posted it and where did they get it?

1 Thess. 5:21 "Examine everything carefully...."

Thanks.

[Isabella (207.7.194.227)]

Thank you Louise (and RJ for putting this on its own thread). And thank you 67 for keeping it up there! I agree, "examine everything carefully" and when you do, you will realize the truth about this matter. I'm going to read it again.

The letter had to be written after the CRI Evaluation because that report is mentioned more than once, in the letter.

It is fitting that they left the date off because the letter is 'timeless'. It was an important document then and it's important now, (all the more so because not many got to see it back then, now, thanks to the internet and factnet.org, everyone can read it)

Anyone who knows anything about GGWO/TBS knows that this is a real letter. Above all, Carl Stevens knows it.

Thank you again...thank you, God, for the internet and factnet.org.

[Anonymous (68.34.67.195)]

Wow!! Anybody I know who served out at Lake Elsinore always rolls their eyes when they talk about their time there. I never understood how a ministry could go so "astray." Now I see the truth again... It was another castaway from the closed world of TBS/GGWO. Just another "off" group of people who were actually trying to speak the truth. I am blown away!

[Isabella (207.7.194.227)]

I have to quit now. It's a beutiful day outside and I have so much to do. Please keep this on top until enough people have had time to see it. <FONT COLOR="ff0000">YES!</FONT>

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

No date? Was this a draft of a letter never actually sent?

Why weren't the elders of Grace Bible Church in Lake Elsinore named at the close of the letter? The actual letter should have a place for each elder to sign above their typewritten name. While it is obvious that signatures cannot be posted here, the names of the elders could have been.

Does this church exist today?


Yes, my questions ARE designed to call into question the credibility of the alledged letter.

[Joe Black (141.157.118.173)]

Next thing you'll want to see the postmark on the envelope, proof that Carl Stevens read it, etc.....People who don't want to believe, will find every reason not to.

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

Were my questions unreasonable?

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

Where there is doubt, I tend to give the benifit of the doubt to the accused.

If I were the accused, I would want that. Wouldn't you?

[rj (141.154.186.91)]

Anon 68

Your questions are not unreasonable, per se, but what I gathered from them is that you somehow think this is some kind of hoax. I can say this...even before I came to Lenox to bible school in the mid 80's, the "Lake Elsinore" thing was spoken of...that they decided Carl was wrong in his teachings, his doctrines and that they were under unde influence. I recall Carl talking about them ...saying how degenerate they all were, unfaithful,disloyal and probably not even saved. Ack.

I do not personally know the date of this incident, but I am assuming those who were in the ministry at that time will know. Many are likely at church services or spending time with family today and may not see the post and your questions till the morrow...

hang in there. I am sure someone here has the answers.

Roberta

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

The same constitution that gives us the right of free speach on this forum also grants the accused the right to defend themselves.

While I do not like to defend, I do like to point out flaws in the accusations and question their credibility.

In my opinion, however, this is usually not necessary, since many who post here reveal their true nature through their many postings. They discredit themselves much better than I ever could. Unfortunatly, there are defenders who also discredit themselves through assumptions and made up excuses. I take my questions to the top and never would post the answers here, since I believe legitimate questions deserve honest answers and anything I could say here is heresay even if I know it to be true.

If I did post the answers here, my credibility would also be questioned. So, if you have a question, ask the leadership, then you can decide for yourself whether or not to believe the answers.

[Jack Brown (141.157.123.240)]

68...

Pardon the misunderstanding. The previous post under my number was by an anonymous visitor. My name is Jack Brown and I've never hidden that fact from anyone on this board.

Now....MY answers to your questions if that's alright:

Unreasonable questions? No
Would I want the benefit of the doubt? Yes

Now....with regard to a uniform standard. You MUST, in the interest of truth, give the same benefit of the doubt to the Lake Elsinore people who I also will tell you were blantantly and openly maligned and slandered in Lenox. I know, I was there and knew many of them personally.

Further, would you give the same benefit of the doubt to those of us who have been attacked, maligned, slandered and accused of many things by GGWO defenders on this board with no proof?

Please think about that.

Regards,

Jack

[rj (141.154.186.91)]

Ask the leadership....did I read that right?

Questioning credibility is not a problem for me...I do it all the time. But to judge this letter upon the credibility of those who posted it, namely Louise and myself....am I correct in thinking that is what you are saying?..is to assume it it is false without evidence, is it not?

Ask the leadership. The leadership at GGWO are pathological liars who believe and in numerous ways displayed their belief in "the ends justifying the means". Do you expect a truthful answer from this band of liars? How odd. I wouldn't but I see your point, I think.

I just spoke with someone by phone who remembers this incident, says it happened just after the CRI?Martin report was made public, but other than that couldn't pinpoint a date. Does this person lack credibility because of a friendship with me?

I do so hope I have misread your post. But I say again...eventually someone will recall the date and perhaps the signers are being protected from the fray therfore left off the document...this is conjecture on my part, but when Louise is back on line I am sure she will address your concerns.

Roberta

[Anon the Brief (205.188.117.20)]

The questions have been asked repeatedly.

It is the response and the responding actions of the leadership which has not been credible.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.164.61)]

I think the point really is that anyone who was in Lenox in the time leading up to the report and the Elsinore letter knows that the content of the letter is an accurate assessment of what 'the Ministry' was like (and from the postings here apparently still is). Since Alan Joy's name (along with Gwen's) was listed in the notes, I'll ask again here if anyone knows their whereabouts or how to reach them. Bob

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

RJ, I did not judge the letter on the credibility of whoever posted it, but soley on the content of the letter, that it was unsigned and not dated. To me, that is an incomplete letter or a draft. I do not know if it was sent or if it was, whether it was responded to. What is the other side of the story? I don't know.

[Anon the Brief (205.188.117.20)]

Jack Brown @ 12:46 pm noted the response that he witnessed.

[RJ (141.154.186.91)]

Anon 68

I do not "know" the complete details myself, this I freely admit. There are those here who do and I am sure when they catch up to the posts they will comment. I do know what I heard with my own ears from Carl Stevens on this issue...and it wasn't pretty. He was fit to be tied.

It was the first time a branch ministry took doctrinal issue with him, they sent a letter stating their differences and that they no longer wanted to be a part of TBS. He was livid...and still livid on the subject years later whenever the subject came up...I know that much first hand.

That the letter, as published here is unsigned and undated, I am sure Louise will speak to that when she realizes there is a question.

I am glad that I merely misunderstood you...sometimes it can be difficult for me to readily understand a person's attitude or emotion via a computer screen.

Respectfully
Roberta

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

Also RJ,

When you call GG leadership pathological liars, it might sound good to those who already agree with you, but it only shows me that you have a bias against the church. I therefore conclude, rightly or wrongly, that your posts are one sided and vindictive. If your goal here is to express your feelings, good job, but if you want to lead others to what you believe to be the truth, you need to change your methods. If you try to beat me into submission, how are you better than those you want to separate me from?

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

I went out to California in 1979. Leon Devoid was in deep trouble with Quinlan and others because they wanted Carl to go back to Maine and minister up there. No way Carl was going to step down. Leon had his own demons. Chrissie Moulton was labled a "witch" from the pulpit. People were paid paltry salaries, etc. There was a ton of abuse. Mark Bower was labeled "off" from Lenox. Quinlan, et al. left in 80-81. This letter dates from about 1983-4 is my guess.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

After my trip, Carl came down on me like a brick. I took my punches and stayed in. Doh!

[RJ (141.154.186.91)]

Anon 68

These men lie. Period. That is not my bias, that is fact. I am not here to lead anyone anywhere. I am here to say what I know to be true. I am not beating anyone into submission, nor am I employing any methods to do so. If you feel "beaten" by my use of blunt honest language, I can't help that.

This "church" is not a church. It is a cult. I am of the belief that cults are manipulative and not good for people. I am against cults.

I am not here to persuade you or anyone else. If the truth can lead some out of the abusive cult called GGWO, that would be excellent. Again, I employ no methods. Methods are for manipulators. If you aren't happy with the blunt approach, that's okay. You aren't obliged to communicate with me.

But I will no longer be silenced. I will no longer "make nice" for the sake of Carl Stevens and his lying cronies. I will no longer pretend that I believe in anything Carl does, for I don't.

I know too many good people who have been damaged by these liars and abusers. Nope. No more silence. No more "making nice".

Homey dont play dat.

Roberta

[Anonymous (68.33.60.157)]

RJ,

Like I said earlier today:
If your goal here is to express your feelings, good job.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.144.190)]

Let's put this back on top.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Remember hearing how evil the church was in Lake Elsinore? How off they were but now we have this letter, they were biblical and saying the same things as we are today.

[Isabella (207.7.205.82)]

Dear Bob, I am posting the following on all the discussions design for diversion of things like this letter:

<FONT COLOR="0000ff">Lake Elsinore Letter...PLEASE READ</FONT>
This is a letter written in the 80's. It is a branch church explaining why they could no longer be part of TBS/GGWO.

The problem is, it will move the letter down every time I do it unless you keep posting: Let's put this back on top. Just in case people wander on these rediculous discussions and think it's all stupid-baby-ish. So give me a few minutes and then post that again.

Love, Isabella

[Bob Brinton (141.154.144.190)]

Alan Joy was my friend. He's the only reason I ever knew about Bible Speaks. Didn't David Huff spend some time out there? They weren't particularly off. They were abused, as we have been. It's okay, in a sense. We learned from it. Now we can help others. Bob

[Bob Brinton (141.154.144.190)]

Copy the letter on top and other letters you consider are descriptive of the abuse from GGWO as you've experienced it. It's good to have record of these things; and to repost them as necessary. Bob

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

I am giving the copy of the Lake Elsinore letter to everyone I know.

[Anonymous (207.7.205.82)]

Go to the top of this thread and see:
<FONT COLOR="0000ff">Lake Elsinore Letter...PLEASE READ</FONT>
This is a letter written in the 80's. It is a branch church explaining why they could no longer be part of TBS/GGWO.

Let's try to direct others, who need to know about it, to this timely document.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

bump

[777 (195.93.97.54)]

THIS LETTER IS INCREDIBLE... BECAUSE IT PARALELLS A CURRENT SITUATION... I WANT TO KNOW MORE

[Bob Brinton (141.154.144.190)]

If you can, tell us about the current situation.

[777 (195.93.97.54)]

SORRY BUT I CANT RIGHT NOW

[Anon the Brief (152.163.253.102)]

Deja vu.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

We firmly believe that Carl Stevens' complete repentance before the church in Lenox, followed by his resignation is the only way for healing to start. These doctrines must be retaught and Christ must be put back on the thrones of the lives of individuals where He belongs.


An excerpt from the Elders of the Lake Elsinore Letter. It is deja vu!

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

We need to get the full CRI report on factnet also.

This so-called "evil report" goes into even more depth. Also prophetic!

[Anonymous (207.44.132.115)]

Please read:

Grace bible Church in Lake Elsinore
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 2330

The Bible Speaks World Outreach Board of Elders
40 Kemble Street
Lenox, Massachusetts 01240

Dear Sirs:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is because of a deep love for The Bible Speaks Ministry and a sincere desire to adhere to God's Word that this correspondence is made necessary. We ask that you, as the Elders of the church, consider our letter prayerfully and deal with it accordingly as the Holy Spirit leads you.


In April this year the libel case brought by Dr. Laurence Godfrey against Demon Internet Limited was settled, Demon paying a substantial sum to Dr. Godfrey. The case of Godfrey v Demon Internet Limited was the first defamation action involving the internet in this jurisdiction. It was heard before Mr. Justice Morland in the Queen’s Bench Division, judgment being handed down on the 26th March 1999.

With heaviness of heart, we find it needful to follow through with the order of church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-17 and also inform you of the reasons for our formal separation as a ministry from The Bible Speaks. We do so in much sobriety and with no malice towards any particular individual or the ministry as a whole. Our action comes only after we have followed the aforementioned Scripture and found no attitude of repentance forthcoming.
Our desire is, as a ministry which was a part of your church, to bring to light doctrine and practices which we can no longer support and pray that you, as leaders, will find the
correct path to take. We find this action to be extremely difficult as we have a deep love for all those in The Bible Speaks Ministry and have no desire to cause any harm to come to the soul winning efforts of the ministry; however, we are forced by our conviction to confront this issue head on and present our views to you as church leaders. The reasons behind our decision can be summed up as follows:


On the lst May, the Supreme Court in the United States let stand the dismissal of a lawsuit against an internet service provider after an imposter using a 15 year old boy’s name sent a threatening, profane e-mail and posted two vulgar bulletin board messages. The case , Lunney v Prodigy Services, was similar to the Demon case.

The Demon case has provoked comment, much of it expressing fear of repression of free speech on the net. For example: "The ruling, if not reversed on appeal, not only threatens to damage the internet industry, but also users, proponents of freedom of expression and electronic commerce…". ( See ZDNetUK )


According to David Furniss, director of Scottish Telecom’s Internet Services "This decision will affect not only the way ISPs operate their services, but impact the entire concept of freedom of information that has been the driving force in the development of the internet." ( See ZDNetUK )

A spokesman for Demon has been quoted as saying: "If someone insulted you in a pub, would you sue the pub owner for housing the defamatory remark?" ( Independent News 4th April 2000 ) The short answer is, no you would not but if the same pub landlord did not remove a notice from his pub notice board, knowing that the notice contained defamatory material, then you would be entitled to sue.

The Demon Case
This case concerned a forged posting described by Morland J as "squalid, obscene and defamatory of the plaintiff". It originated in the USA on 13th January 1997 and found its way to the defendants’ news server in England. It purported to come from Dr. Godfrey and invited replies by giving Dr. Godfrey’s e-mail address. The posting was not removed until the 27th January 1997 when it had expired, despite Dr. Godfrey having faxed the defendants’ Managing Director on the 17th January informing him that it was a forgery, he was not responsible for it and requesting the defendants to remove it.

The plaintiff claimed damages for libel in respect of the posting after the 17th January 1997 when the defendants had notice that it was defamatory. The defendants pleaded the defence under Section 1 Defamation Act 1996.

Section 1(1) Defamation Act 1996 provides:-

"In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that:-

(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of;

(b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication; and

(c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.

All three elements of the defence must be proved by the defendant.

Was Demon a publisher?
According to Section 1(2) a publisher is:-

"…[A] commercial publisher, that is. a person whose busines is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business."

But by virtue of Section 1(3) "A person shall not be considered the…publisher of a statement if he is only involved:-

(e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control."

Section 1(3)(e) clearly covers an ISP and, according to Morland J: "In my judgment the defendants were clearly not the publisher of the posting…and incontrovertibly can avail themselves of Section 1(1)(a)."

It is not enough, however, that defendants can avail themselves of Section 1(1)(a); there are other requirements in the section.

Was there publication by Demon?
The difficulties, in this regard, facing the defendant were the provisions contained in Section 1(1)(b) and (c) (above) as after the 17th January, having received the claimant’s fax Demon knew of the defamatory posting and chose not to remove it from their news servers.

As Morland J pointed out: At common law, liability for the publication of defamatory material was strict. There was still publication even if the defendant was ignorant of the defamatory material within the document. Once publication had been established the defendant was guilty of publishing the libel unless he could establish, and the onus was upon him, that he was an innocent disseminator.

A. The Bible is very clear that if it takes a confrontation for a Pastor to repent of a serious sin he is engaged in, then he is no spiritual shape to lead the church and is to be brought before the entire church for reproof.

D. We have found The Bible Speaks to have dealt with this issue in complete partiality (conflicting with I Timothy 5:21); and while overlooking known questionable pastoral moral behavior, pastoral manipulation of people and finances, or lying, they prosecute to the fullest extent of Scripture (and sometimes beyond) any individual who has sinned or erred in conforming to Bible Speaks doctrine. This can be best shown by actions taken against people who have repented of their actions without pastoral prompting, yet have been brought before the church, fired, and kicked off 'campus; while pastors who have had to be confronted to repent of adultery or embezzlement have been simply relocated to teach in Lenox or given their own church.

C. Doctrinally, this can be best seen in the lengthy apologetic which was endorsed by the ministry and sent to Christian Research Institute to explain and defend the doctrinal stance of The Bible Speaks and Pastor Stevens' preaching on the issue.


Morland J cited Greene LJ in the case of Byrne v Dean [1937] 1KB 818. A case concerning a defamatory notice allowed by the defendant to remain on a "terrestrial" notice board in a golf club.

"It is said that, as a general proposition, where the act of the person alleged to have published a libel has not been any positive act, but has merely been the refraining from doing some act, he cannot be guilty of publication…The test it appears to me is this: having regard to all the facts of the case is the proper inference that by not removing the defamatory matter the defendant really made himself responsible for its continued presence in the place where it had been put?" (at page 837.)(italics added)

Morland J then commented that every time one of Demon’s customers accessed their news server and saw the defamatory posting there was a publication to that customer. He considered that the defendants were not merely owners of an electronic device through which postings were transmitted. They chose to store postings within their computers, postings which they could obliterate.

He concluded: "In my judgment the defamatory posting was published by the defendants and, as from the 17th January 1997 they knew of the defamatory content of the posting, they cannot avail themselves of the protection provided by Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 and their defence under Section 1 is, in law, hopeless."

The decision in this case clearly illustrates that an ISP is not, without more, a publisher within the terms of the statute. Therefore, as long as providers take reasonable care in relation to publications and (unlike Demon) neither know or have reason to believe that a publication on any of their servers is defamatory they will be innocent disseminators and not guilty of libel.

The Lunney case
The judges in the Supreme Court without any comment or dissent denied an appeal by Lunney upholding the decision of the New York Court of Appeals. Previously, the New York Appellate Division had held, per Bracken JP: (and cited by the defendants in the Demon case) "We conclude that Prodigy cannot be held legally responsible for [e-mail] nor for the allegedly defamatory bulletin board posting, because (1) Prodigy did not publish the statement and (2) even if Prodigy could be considered a publisher of the statement, a qualified privilege protects it from any liability given the absence of proof that Prodigy knew such a statement would be false." (italics added) Rosenblatt J in the NY Court of Appeals agreed with Bracken J describing what he had said as a "thoughtful opinion" and : "We agree with the Appellate Division’s analysis and conclude that…common law privilege should apply".

So far as e-mails were concerned, Rosenblatt J stated: "In this respect an ISP, like a telephone company, is merely a conduit. Thus, we conclude that under the decisional law of this State, Prodigy was not a publisher of the e-mail transmitted through its system by a third party".

The Court of Appeals then considered the issue of bulletin board messages acknowledging that this was a more difficult issue than e-mails. For example per Rosenblatt J: "In some instances, an electronic bulletin board could be made to resemble a newspaper’s editorial page; in others it may function more like a ‘chat room’.

Ultimately, however, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division stating that…"The Appellate Divison aptly concluded that even if Prodigy ‘exercised the power to exclude certain vulgarities from the text of certain [bulletin board] messages this would not alter its passive character in the millions of other messages in whose transmission it did not participate." The Court of Appeals held that "Prodigy was not a publisher of the electronic bulletin board messages."

Comment
The Internet gives people the opportunity to speak out on matters of public importance or, indeed, on anything that interests them knowing, that if they choose their site carefully, their views will reach a large audience. The internet, however, also affords greater opportunity for individuals to defame others. As the internet enables world wide communication to millions of users the potential damage is incalculable and although, within this jurisdiction, individuals are personally liable for their defamatory statements anyone who publishes a defamatory statement may also be liable.

The challenge, therefore, to any legal system is to adapt its laws (on e.g. defamation, copyright etc.) to a global method of instantaneous communication that transcends jurisdictions.

Before the Demon case, it had been thought that Section 1 of the Defamation act would provide an internet defence. And so it does but it has proved not to be as far reaching as that in the US provided by Section 230 Communications Decency Act 1996.(See below)

Defamation law in the United States distinguishes between publishers, such as newspapers and magazines which control the content of their publications, and distributors (e.g. newsagents) which merely distribute material without knowing its content. The position is similar under this jurisdiction. The pressing question therefore becomes, both here and in the United States: should an ISP be treated as a publisher or a distributor?

The tendency in the United States has been to treat ISPs as distributors but they cannot, however, claim absolute privilege in respect of defamatory information which they disseminate. The position seems to be, however, that they can claim the qualified privilege accorded to telephone companies in respect of defamatory e-mails to third parties and are not "publishers" for this purpose.

So far as English law is concerned, the issue of defamatory e-mails to third parties has not come before a court in that the Demon case concerned a posting to a newsgroup. It is likely, however, a defamation action would, in this regard not lie, in the absence of notice and want of reasonable care on the part of the ISP. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 1 of the l996 Act could give rise to an obligation on the part of the ISP to terminate the account of a user known to them to have sent a defamatory email to a third party. We have not, however, had a decision on this point.

As regards "postings" this was the issue that came before the Court in the Demon case.

The decision in that case made it clear that the defence under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 did not give absolute protection to ISPs in respect of defamatory materials they might disseminate. The case also made it equally clear that a provider is not, without more, a publisher.

It is somewhat different in the United States. However, even after the enactment by Congress in 1996 of the Communications Decency Act it would appear that the protection given to ISPs is unlikely to be absolute. Section 230 of this Act states: "…no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In the case of Zeran v AOL the Supreme Court in June 1998 refused to review the ruling of the inferior court that Section 230 prevented AOL from being held liable for a forged and defamatory, message that had been transmitted over an AOL bulletin board.

However, the New York Court of Appeals in Lunney refused a request by the defendant to interpret Section 230 to render an ISP unconditionally free from notice-based liability. As stated above, the Supreme Court on lst May 2000 did not dissent from the decision of this court.

Interestingly, Rosenblatt J in this case also said: "We see no occasion to hypothesize whether there may be other instances in which the role of an electronic bulletin board operator would qualify it as a publisher." It would appear that despite Section 230 the door of ISP responsibility may still, at least for the moment, be slightly ajar.

Conclusion
Although there are lessons to be learnt from the US approach to cyberlibel there are some points which should be borne in mind. Whilst there are striking similarities between the common law of England and the US in respect of defamation there are also differences (e.g. under English law, in cases of innocent dissemination, the defendant publisher has to establish his innocence, whereas under American law the plaintiff who has been libelled has to prove that the publisher was not innocent). This means that direct comparisons cannot always be made.

It should also be noted that the US, being a federation, its laws (including defamation laws) frequently vary from state to state. The First Amendment, however, applies to all citizens in every state and the Communications Decency Act 1996 is federal law and therefore generally applicable. US citizens are, generally, more litigious than those in this country. There has, for a long time, been a contingency fee system (i.e. no win no fee) operating in the US and litigation, especially in the field of tort has reached epidemic proportions. In fact, before the enactment of the Communications Decency Act, there was concern at the "deep pockets" of ISPs being a likely target for vexatious litigants.

The position is not quite the same here. Defamation actions are extremely expensive and legal aid is not available to fund such an action. Although the contingency fee system is now available to litigants it is still in its infancy.

ISPs are likely to make substantial profits from their operations. That is why they are in business. It should not be too onerous a burden to expect them to direct some of these profits into investigating complaints of defamation thus nipping in the bud, potential suits. There seems to have been a certain amount of overreaction to the decision in the Demon case but it is unlikely that the number of complaints will reach, still less maintain, the epidemic proportions that some commentators envisage. In fact, it is likely that if it became generally known that complaints were being properly investigated this would act as a deterrent to vexatious complainants with spurious complaints. In addition, it would go some way towards protecting the reputations of those who had a genuine grievance.

ISPs, it is submitted, must take at least a minimum of responsibility for that which they disseminate but the question is how much? On the one hand a limitless field of liability would be unjust and inappropriate but so too on the other hand would be anything approaching absolute privilege for ISPs.

It is suggested that one approach might be to treat cyberlibel as though it were slander rather than libel. Exceptions have been made before in the law of defamation. For example, by virtue of the Broadcasting Act 1990 a defamatory statement broadcast on radio or television, or in a cable programme is treated as libel. Similarly, by virtue of the Theatres Act 1968 a defamatory statement in a public performance of a play is also treated as libel.

To treat cyberlibel as slander would mean that (subject to the four exceptions) the onus would be on a claimant to prove that actual damage had been suffered. (Actual damage is presumed in the case of libel.) This would have the effect of providing a cause of action for those whose reputations have been damaged but would deter those who have not suffered damage but may have redress under the law as it is at the moment.

Freedom of speech, in the United States, is a right guaranteed to citizens under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and this, naturally, has influenced both legislation and judicial decisions in that country. There is always a balance to be struck between freedoms. The First Amendment does not give US citizens carte blanche. There are limits. For example "While Congress acted to keep government regulation of the internet to a mimumum, it also found it to be the policy of the United States ‘to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer’. Congress made a policy choice, however, not to deter harmful on-line speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties’ potentially injurious messages." Per Wilkinson CJ in Zeran v AOL [1997] 129 F3d 327.

It was a "policy choice" and policy choices will have to be made in the future by both Parliament and the courts in this jurisdiction. It is to be hoped that a sensible balance will be struck between freedom of speech on the one hand and the protection of the reputation and dignity of the individual on the other.

It is because of these reasons and more that can be found in Walter Martin's report that we have separated ourselves from The Bible Speaks church and present this letter to you. Many things we have said have sounded harsh and void of love; but please understand that we love Carl Stevens and owe much to The Bible Speaks. Many of us were saved through the ministry; however, we cannot compromise the Word of God and continue to accept uncorrected error as uncorrectable. We ask you to prayerfully consider this letter and Christian Research Institute's report.

May God's guidance and discernment be with you as you carry out your duties as Elders.

With a deep felt love and desire for the Ministry's best,
The Elders of The Grace Bible Church
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 92330

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

IGNORE ABOVE MESSAGE!

[Anonymous (207.44.132.115)]

Grace bible Church in Lake Elsinore
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 2330

The Greater Grace World Outreach Board of Elders
4025 Moravia Park Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21224

Dear Sirs and Other interest Cats,:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is because of a deep love for The Bible Speaks Ministry and a sincere desire to adhere to God's Word that this correspondence is made necessary. We ask that you, as the Elders of the church, consider our letter prayerfully and deal with it accordingly as the Holy Spirit leads you. But if you don't we will repost this letter years latter when we get a chance.

In His Monkey Service,

Joey Malone And Tyler Washmenton

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:20 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grace bible Church in Lake Elsinore
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 2330

The Bible Speaks World Outreach Board of Elders
40 Kemble Street
Lenox, Massachusetts 01240

Dear Sirs:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is because of a deep love for The Bible Speaks Ministry and a sincere desire to adhere to God's Word that this correspondence is made necessary. We ask that you, as the Elders of the church, consider our letter prayerfully and deal with it accordingly as the Holy Spirit leads you.

With heaviness of heart, we find it needful to follow through with the order of church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-17 and also inform you of the reasons for our formal separation as a ministry from The Bible Speaks. We do so in much sobriety and with no malice towards any particular individual or the ministry as a whole. Our action comes only after we have followed the aforementioned Scripture and found no attitude of repentance forthcoming.
Our desire is, as a ministry which was a part of your church, to bring to light doctrine and practices which we can no longer support and pray that you, as leaders, will find the
correct path to take. We find this action to be extremely difficult as we have a deep love for all those in The Bible Speaks Ministry and have no desire to cause any harm to come to the soul winning efforts of the ministry; however, we are forced by our conviction to confront this issue head on and present our views to you as church leaders. The reasons behind our decision can be summed up as follows:

1. DEFINITE LACK OF FOLLOWING GOD'S WORD DEFINING CHURCH DISCIPLINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN INVOLVING A PASTOR.

A. The Bible is very clear that if it takes a confrontation for a Pastor to repent of a serious sin he is engaged in, then he is no spiritual shape to lead the church and is to be brought before the entire church for reproof.

D. We have found The Bible Speaks to have dealt with this issue in complete partiality (conflicting with I Timothy 5:21); and while overlooking known questionable pastoral moral behavior, pastoral manipulation of people and finances, or lying, they prosecute to the fullest extent of Scripture (and sometimes beyond) any individual who has sinned or erred in conforming to Bible Speaks doctrine. This can be best shown by actions taken against people who have repented of their actions without pastoral prompting, yet have been brought before the church, fired, and kicked off 'campus; while pastors who have had to be confronted to repent of adultery or embezzlement have been simply relocated to teach in Lenox or given their own church.

C. Doctrinally, this can be best seen in the lengthy apologetic which was endorsed by the ministry and sent to Christian Research Institute to explain and defend the doctrinal stance of The Bible Speaks and Pastor Stevens' preaching on the issue.

Page 2

While any references were made to "loving", "submitting to", "not questioning or doubting", "honoring", "obeying" and "co-operating with what God lays upon his (the Pastor's) Heart" and with his (again the Pastor's) vision", with regard to a pastor, while the only reference nude to dealing with pastoral infidelity was a short quote from Tape 2260 preached in Scarborough on 4/1/79, "What they say, what I say, what everybody says, has to be according to the Word of God; you follow the Word of God and PRAY HE'LL (THE PASTOR) GET IT RIGHT." The only mention of how to respond to a pastor's humanity in a 27-page defense of The Bible Speaks position of pastoral authority is that the people in the church are to pray and hope he gets his doctrine right. No mention of any verses on pastoral responsibility to God and the church, no mention of confronting a pastor on sin; just let him go on as he is, love him and pray for him. Extreme unbalance and very dangerous is our best description of this view. Matthew 18:15-17, Luke 17:3, Galatiain: 6:1, and I Timothy 5:19-21 contain material we feel to best outline our positions us they bring out main points on this issue.

[Anonymous (207.44.132.115)]

Grace bible Church in Lake Elsinore
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 2330

The Bible Speaks World Outreach Board of Elders
40 Kemble Street
Lenox, Massachusetts 01240

Dear Sirs:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

It is because of a deep love for The Bible Speaks Ministry and a sincere desire to adhere to God's Word that this correspondence is made necessary. We ask that you, as the Elders of the church, consider our letter prayerfully and deal with it accordingly as the Holy Spirit leads you.

With heaviness of heart, we find it needful to follow through with the order of church discipline found in Matthew 18:15-17 and also inform you of the reasons for our formal separation as a ministry from The Bible Speaks. We do so in much sobriety and with no malice towards any particular individual or the ministry as a whole. Our action comes only after we have followed the aforementioned Scripture and found no attitude of repentance forthcoming.
Our desire is, as a ministry which was a part of your church, to bring to light doctrine and practices which we can no longer support and pray that you, as leaders, will find the
correct path to take. We find this action to be extremely difficult as we have a deep love for all those in The Bible Speaks Ministry and have no desire to cause any harm to come to the soul winning efforts of the ministry; however, we are forced by our conviction to confront this issue head on and present our views to you as church leaders. The reasons behind our decision can be summed up as follows:

1. DEFINITE LACK OF FOLLOWING GOD'S WORD DEFINING CHURCH DISCIPLINE, ESPECIALLY WHEN INVOLVING A PASTOR.

A. The Bible is very clear that if it takes a confrontation for a Pastor to repent of a serious sin he is engaged in, then he is no spiritual shape to lead the church and is to be brought before the entire church for reproof.

D. We have found The Bible Speaks to have dealt with this issue in complete partiality (conflicting with I Timothy 5:21); and while overlooking known questionable pastoral moral behavior, pastoral manipulation of people and finances, or lying, they prosecute to the fullest extent of Scripture (and sometimes beyond) any individual who has sinned or erred in conforming to Bible Speaks doctrine. This can be best shown by actions taken against people who have repented of their actions without pastoral prompting, yet have been brought before the church, fired, and kicked off 'campus; while pastors who have had to be confronted to repent of adultery or embezzlement have been simply relocated to teach in Lenox or given their own church.

C. Doctrinally, this can be best seen in the lengthy apologetic which was endorsed by the ministry and sent to Christian Research Institute to explain and defend the doctrinal stance of The Bible Speaks and Pastor Stevens' preaching on the issue.

Page 2

While any references were made to "loving", "submitting to", "not questioning or doubting", "honoring", "obeying" and "co-operating with what God lays upon his (the Pastor's) Heart" and with his (again the Pastor's) vision", with regard to a pastor, while the only reference nude to dealing with pastoral infidelity was a short quote from Tape 2260 preached in Scarborough on 4/1/79, "What they say, what I say, what everybody says, has to be according to the Word of God; you follow the Word of God and PRAY HE'LL (THE PASTOR) GET IT RIGHT." The only mention of how to respond to a pastor's humanity in a 27-page defense of The Bible Speaks position of pastoral authority is that the people in the church are to pray and hope he gets his doctrine right. No mention of any verses on pastoral responsibility to God and the church, no mention of confronting a pastor on sin; just let him go on as he is, love him and pray for him. Extreme unbalance and very dangerous is our best description of this view. Matthew 18:15-17, Luke 17:3, Galatiain: 6:1, and I Timothy 5:19-21 contain material we feel to best outline our positions us they bring out main points on this issue.

2. POOR APPLICATION OF MENEUTICAL PRINCIPALS LEADING TO DOCTRINAL INACCURACY AND CHURCH STRIFE AND DIVISION.
*Please note that many of the "doctrines" we discuss here are not stated doctrines in The Bible Speaks publications or messages per se, but have been formed in the minds of all those who have been under The Bible Speaks' teaching for some time.

A. The dual doctrines of love covers all sins (Proverbs 10:12) and don't deal with sin (especially not a Pastor's) because God will (Proverbs 3:12), are presented in such a way as to exclude Pastors from correction or reproof from the congregation. This is in direct conflict with the Bible's stance on this issue as we have seen and causes many individuals much confusion and heartache when they observe wrong doing and are forced to rationalize it away in their mind. We believe that the Bible is very clear on this point. The only sins that are covered (covered, meaning not mentioned to others) are those repented of; those not repented of are to be brought before the entire church. Pastors must be brought to the realization that they, more so than anyone else, are held responsible by God for their actions (James 3:1) and are accountable to all those they serve.

B. As a compliment doctrine, we find the teachings of "Don't listen to an evil report", "Don't spread cockatrice eggs", "Don't be deceived by Satan and become a casualty", "If a person is causing division, have nothing to do with them", and "When you leave, don't backbite", all strongly emphasized in conjunction with a person's loyalty to Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks. We have found these teachings to give the individual a warped sense of loyalty and cause numerous wrongs to go unrighted. This unhealthy loyalty, as we see it, is extremely dangerous and is reminiscent of any totalitarian type structure which emphasizes a person's blind acceptance of what surrounds him, to be in his best interest, designed by the leadership.3

C. The association of any negative report with Satan and demonic attack. Many of us have seen in the past (from Wiscasset until now) what happens to a person when they attempt to deal with problems in The Bible Speaks, especially anything concerning Pastor Stevens' personal actions. They are immediately overwhelmed with Bible Speaks doctrine; and if this fails to calm their fears to the satisfaction of the leadership, they are branded as "causing division", "being influenced by demons", or "fellowshipping with darkness". Whatever it is they have to say is "of the devil" and must not be listened to with any credibility, if listened to at all. This is taken to the extent that one of our Pastors was threatened not to receive his ordination if he did not stop fellowshipping with a labeled "division causer" because it cast doubts upon his "loyalty".

Page 3

We find all of this to be extremely disconcerting; it creates an unhealthy air of blind acceptance and closed mindedness, we see as in direct conflict with Paul's attitude in I Thessalonians 5:21 (prove all things). Please do not think that we are ignorant of the multitude of verses which deal with this subject; however, they are the means by which The Bible Speaks has used to cause all attempts at constructive criticism, or in more biblical terms, "reproof" to be either thwarted in its process or never begun because of the fear of being "used by Satan." These verses must be taught in accordance with hermeneutical principles to obtain a biblical balance.

D. The Doctrine that those who leave The Bible Speaks and have any disagreement with Pastor Stevens (whether spoken or silent) or attempt to cause change, are in serious; danger of divine punishment - We have experienced many messages and conversation that imply or have directly stated that God has brought severe judgment to those who dared entertain critical thoughts or actions against Pastor Stevens; incidents have been cited starting from cancer of the tongue or throat all the way to physical death or spiritual darkness and reprobation. This can only be described as a completely heretical fear tactic used to manipulate people and bring strict orthodoxy to The Bible Speaks, or more specifically, Pastor Stevens' doctrine. Another aspect of this doctrine is that all problems experienced or illnesses incurred by those loyal to Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks are the result of persecution; when these same events befall those who are antagonistic to The Bible Speaks or who have left, they become evidence of God's dis&not;pleasure and judgment.

We find all of this extremely unacceptable, causing many who have honest question or criticisms to be in complete bondage and confusion. They hear one thing preached only to see Pastors act in a totally opposite manner (i.e., speak no evil, yet Pastors con&not;stantly ridicule, belittle and malign congregation members, other ministries and pastors; but most of all, those who hold opposing views.). This doctrine has created spiritually crippled people who have much difficulty in holding an opposing view or in questioning a doctrine, even when they know they are right and have absolute proof of their con&not;victions. Fearful puppets fill The Bible Speaks churches, even though they won't admit it openly, they cry inwardly for release and guidance.

E. The doctrine of submission and authority which was taught in Wiscasset, Scar&not;borough, South Berwick, Lenox, and is still in practice today in branch ministries and home base, having never been dealt with honestly or taught correctly to all those who have been under these teachings.

We feel this doctrine can best be summed up by quoting a passage from a book highly acclaimed by Stevens (at one point required yearly reading by Staff in Lenox and taught in Bible School), written by Watchman Nee, "Spiritual Authority," page 71. The first two paragraphs state very clearly that no one who follows the directions from a spiritual leader will be held responsible for their obedience; it is not their concern if the leader is right or wrong, just to obey. We find this in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture, especially those verses which deal with our personal responsibility and relationship to our Lord. This doctrine has been engrained in all who were present when these teachings were taught openly and are being "rained into others by those Pastors and church members who pass this attitude on through words and actions.

This leads to an unscriptural and unhealthy dependence on Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks for a person's relationship with Christ. It has been evidenced by many that those who have turned their spiritual walk (even in the least) over to
Page 4
Pastor Stevens or their respective Bible Speaks Pastor, have limited or no fellowship with the Lord outside their Bible Speaks realm, even to the point of physical locale. This dependence was voiced by one graduate of The Bible Speaks Bible School (who has his own ministry with The Bible Speaks) in defense of the teachings of The bible Speaks when he posed this question to one of our church members, "How can you survive without Lenox tapes?" This type of dependence can only be described as unbiblical and unsound to anyone's spiritual walk. Stevens, as well as many others, will claim this not to be true. On careful examination and honest consideration, on your part, of people's lives in branch ministries or in Lenox, we feel you will see the truth in this point.

F. The doctrine of the superiority of The Bible Speaks understanding of "grace" and the "body concept." This is an unspoken and many times spoken attitude taken by all those who become "one" with The Bible Speaks. This attitude leads to spiritual snobbery and becoming closed as far as considering other churches' understanding of Scripture, correction or reproof from outside persons or groups which desire to help; but, worst of all, it leaves a completely helpless and worthless feeling in all those who leave the ministry for one reason or another. The ministry seems to have won many people by pride and kept them by fear.

G. The doctrine of the "cross life" and how it is used to manipulate people' actions by playing on their moral conscience. It has been clearly manifested in past years how The Bible Speaks has used the preaching of the "cross" to cause behavior modification on the part of its congregation to fit the needs of the ministry by causing people to feel guilty, or less spiritual, if they refused the "cross," the ministry could manipulate people into various actions which benefited the church, either financially or otherwise. Preaching soon became a time where the "cross" would be determined by the pulpit as the church had needs. If the property needed people as residents, then the "cross" would be to sell your house, donate the money to the church and move on campus. Message after message asserted that a person was not loyal to the "Body" if they didn't live on campus and never register a complaint because of ridiculous living conditions. The "corporate vision" forced people into situations where their moral conscience caused their actions instead of the Holy Spirit's leading. Anytime a person complained about conditions on campus or in the church, they were said to "not desire the cross in their life." People soon took this doctrine to the point of leaving their families, financial responsibility, or saying that anything that a person did that did not agree with Pastor Stevens' view had to be due to "their flesh rejecting the cross." Please do not misunderstand us to the point of saying we do not believe in the "preaching of the cross," we do; but we are extremely disturbed when a person or a church chooses to manipulate people by doctrinal means and leave them in a place where their moral conscience is pitted against their being led by the Spirit. We must conclude that this preaching is a result of one of the following

1. Ignorance;
2. Willful manipulation for personal gain; or
3. Lack of trust in Cod and His Spirit to meet needs.

We have experienced people who have come from Lenox that have backslidden and claimed they need to be in Lenox to hear "the cross" preached. What they should have said was that they never established a personal relationship with the Lord and desire their lives to be manipulated into desired Christian behavior. We feel this is an accurate view from the standpoint that our pulpit has taken a very strong stance concerning the type of sins they had fallen into and that the "cross" as we see it has been preached repeatedly. -We cannot come to the.. point where we believe it is correct-to manipulate

Page 5

people's flesh for the sake of the Kingdom. The result is always that they fail as soon as our manipulation ceases. They must be brought to the lord to establish a relationship with His Holy Spirit for conviction, not our "cross." Because of people's ability to confuse preaching or take it to a point where it was never meant; people have abandoned parents, husbands, wives, children, jobs, homes or financial responsibility to appease this strong burden placed on their moral conscience when it has nothing to do at all with being led by the Spirit. This doctrine, as much as any other doctrine, has frequently caused family conflict, personal strife and church confusion to the point where it must be dealt with swiftly and thoroughly to stop further damage.
H. The doctrine of branch ministries with Lenox as "Home Base." We find this doctrine to be completely and thoroughly perpetrated to the fullest extent when it is beneficial for Lenox or the branch church to do so and just as vehemently denied if it is inconvenient or unbeneficial for either. We were given a copy of a letter to Pastor Stevens which confronted him with dealing with the California Ministry in complete dishonesty. He had told the individuals that Leon Devoid was under him in the ministry hierarchy and he would deal with the situation as an over&not;seeing Pastor. When Pastor Stevens came out to deal with the situation, he assured them he would correct the problem. Instead, he preached about not "dishonoring the Pastor" and compared Devoid's situation to one similar he had experienced when he was let down out of a church window in Bath, Maine. He claimed to individuals who lead spoken to those that had written the letter that the California Ministry was a com&not;pletely separate organization and that he had no authorization to do anything. He asserted that he had never made any of the statements they were claiming he had, making them out to be liars, even to their children.

Situations like these are caused because The Bible Speaks has engendered a doctrine which goes against biblical principles concerning a local church, placing Pastor Stevens as the apostle, master builder, Head Pastor or whatever title you desire to use. The Bible is clearly for the establishment of local churches dependent upon no one but the Lord and themselves for their government, sustenance, and decisions. "The Bible Speaks stance is in no way biblically based."

and finally;

3. THE ELEVATION OF PASTORS ON A WHOLE, BUT ESPECIALLY PASTOR STEVENS, TO A PLACE OF UNDUE WORSHIP AND REVERENCE.

A. The Bible Speaks is not the first to establish such an attitude, nor will it be the last. However, we do not wish to address ourselves to this problem on a whole but to. the particular difficulties caused in The Bible Speaks ministry as a result of this doctrine.

B. In The Bible Speaks publication, "The Bible Speaks Goes On Record" (printed to clear up any questions concerning The Bible Speaks doctrinal views), we find a section entitled, "The Authority of Church Leadership." It is here we find again no mention of specifics in dealing with pastoral sin or error, but numerous references too Old Testament examples and reference to "rebuke not an Elder." It seems as if no where in any Bible Speaks message, devotional, or official publication can we find reference to Paul's specific instructions found in I Timothy 5:19-21:

"Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three'`witnesses'. Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and we elect angels, that thou observe these things without

Page 6

preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." How is it possible that this verse has gone unnoticed throughout The Bible Speaks Ministry? Possibly because it makes pastors mare responsible to their church, not less, and brings down pastors off their pedestals to a place of accountability to humans as well as Gad.

C. This has caused frequent and continual problems to occur in Lenox and the brunch ministries, both in the execution of church affairs and in the individual lives of believers.
In one ministry, this doctrine eventually caused the church to close its doors and the pastor to make a complete re-evaluation of his calling. Strife resulted when the inability to live up to The Bible Speaks pastoral image was obvious to all, causing the church to became confused when every male who came from Lenox was called "Pastor" and few, if any, were ever called to such a position. Needless to say, the entire congregation suffered as a result of poor teaching and foolish pastoral decision

In another ministry, this caused people to be verbally slandered and attacked from the pulpit, finances to be manipulated and wasted, complete church division, and pastoral behavior to be unquestioned to the point that the pastor would feel comfortable in asking one individual before a group of people, "Who the (expletive deleted) are you to question me?" Pastoral attacks of other Christian ministries over radio air&not;waves carried with it the message of pastoral authority. The end result has been nothing short of giving Christ and His Gospel a poor name in the town and many out&not;lying areas.

In various branch ministries this doctrine has caused the ordination and elevation of many novices (including a Head Pastor who was ordained, after only being saved a short time, because he was an undesirable steward of the finances in Lenox) who have larded it over the people in their church, crushing numerous young, sincere Christians by their "Pastoral Dictatorship."

(We cite the North Carolina, Milpitas, Lake Elsinore, Rhode Island, and Wilmington Ministries, to name a few, far our preceding statements.)10

Last, but most importantly, this specific doctrine (added to the rest) has
caused Pastor Stevens to commit many pastoral inconsistencies which have added to the entire problem concerning The Bible Speaks. Unlike Barnabas and Paul in Acts 14:14 (they rent their clothes to prove they were human), Pastor Stevens has done everything in his power, it seems, to give his church the opposite view. Many different situations shall be discussed in this section and we desire you to keep in mind that all of the following can be proven via tapes letters, eye-witness testimony (2 or 3) or personal conversation. We do not wish to crucify Stevens" or "destroy The Bible Speaks," but to bring to your attention serious problems in need of correction. Whether the doctrines are a result of the man or the man is a result of the doctrines, we cannot discern. However, our experience with Carl Stevens (through his preaching and private conversation) has led us to believe that he has come to consider himself someone who is not accountable to just any sincere believer, but to God only. He believe that whatever means he chooses to propagate The Bible Speaks Gospel are perfectly legitimate with a definite air of the "ends justifying the means" in many areas in both church actions as well as personal behavior.

The area of his position in the church government has been experienced by many of us both in personal situations and messages; "Jesus told me, you're (referring to Stevens) the prophet," quotes Stevens in one message from a conversation he had with a girl in a bowling alley. Not only does be not clarify what she meant, he does not offer his opinion - he just continues his message, leaving us with the view that Jesus is going around telling people Carl St evens is The prophet.12 We could list numerous

Page 7

quotes from messages, classes, and written material in which Stevens compares himself to Paul, Moses, or some other Biblical leader. He repeatedly has used himself as a "good example" in messages, but in all the messages we have experienced, there are very few times, if any, where Stevens refers to specific faults in his life or uses himself to illustrate failure to bring a balance in people's minds.

He has caused people to consider him as infallible in the pulpit, not because of personal infallibility, but because they believe he would never be dishonest or preach something that wasn't biblically sound. Many people have commented on how great it will be to "receive an apostle's reward" because they "received an apostle" (referring to Stevens). Try as we might to convince ourselves that no one really believes that Stevens is anyone special, we cannot rationalize the hundreds of people that have testified to their total and complete trust in him.

He is special to everyone in The Bible Speaks. Take his title for example; no one loyal to The Bible Speaks would ever consider calling Stevens anything but "Dr. Stevens" or "Pastor." We think nothing of saying, "Billy Graham, Rex Humbard, Richard Wurmbrand or Robert Schuller;" but for someone who has been 'baptised into the body of The Bible Speaks," it is a sign of the utmost disrespect to call Stevens "Carl," and when people leave, it is as if they have to train themselves to call him by his first name. Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that we have put Carl Stevens in a place where no man should be. One Pastor referred to Stevens in a message in Lenox, saying, "Because he is, I am." Another Pastor in a class tape makes the statement that there is "nothing that comes from this pulpit that isn't right on." One of our Pastors taught in a class in Lenox that Carl Stevens was an apostle and was never corrected or told to clarify his statement.'

Stevens has been dishonest in respect to his "honorary" degree to many of us personally. We have contacted Roy Stewart of The Clarksville School of Theology as well as Mr. David Mitchell, Dean of The Baptist Bible College in Clarksville, Tennessee. We have found a Doctor of Divinity Degree to cost $631.00, Clarksville School of Theology to be a "diploma mill" and that Stevens knew that his "Honorary Degrees" were nothing but purchased credibility, and while many have claimed he has stopped using them, we have been given a letter dated December 28, 1982 which has Stevens' doctorate degrees on the letterhead. This may seem to be nothing but proof of some ego on the part of Stevens, while in truth we find it falls right in line
with many inconsistencies Stevens has exhibited that we have passed off too many times.

Stevens has also exhibited seeming callousness concerning his personal con&not;versations; we have experienced numerous times Stevens has railed congregation members, other pastors, other ministries or just revealed personal confidences with the excuse he was "testing people's loyalty" -- People seem to feel he has the right to do so because of his position in the ministry. If the church were to apply Stevens' teachings concerning "speaking evil" or "don't eat with a railer" to Stevens, he would be a lonely man.
We could tell so many stories of wounded Christians, disillusioned young people, pastoral infidelity, and church strife that it would fill many more pages. We pass all of this off because of all the souls the ministry wins. We can no longer justify allowing pastoral sin and doctrinal manipulation to go unchallenged simply because we win souls. We cannot justify evil behavior because good comes from it, no matter how "good" the good is. We cannot continue to take widows' money and leave them penniless, manipulate people, to expand the Kingdom of The Bible Speaks
and ignore Gods warnings from sincere loving people.

Page 8

A Pastor in Lenox has been told that one of our Pastors has "left God" and is very deep in sin. This is in no way true. Others have been kept completely in the dark concerning the views of David McAdam and Ron Kelly, and the reasons why their ministries have left. People who feel as we do are totally belittled when they leave the ministry so as to completely discredit their testimony and keep the truth from being brought out into the open.
People have been confronted with discrepancies in various stories told by Stevens and others, their attitude more often than not is that if Stevens has said it, then they have no need to verify it - This was voiced by one Pastor when he replied to the honest questioning of another Pastor in regards to many of the aforementioned problems by saying, "We've grown past that baby stuff, we now have a much higher revelation."

We firmly believe that Carl Stevens' complete repentance before the church in Lenox, followed by his resignation is the only way for healing to start. These doctrines must be retaught and Christ must be put back on the thrones of the lives of individuals where He belongs.

It is because of these reasons and more that can be found in Walter Martin's report that we have separated ourselves from The Bible Speaks church and present this letter to you. Many things we have said have sounded harsh and void of love; but please understand that we love Carl Stevens and owe much to The Bible Speaks. Many of us were saved through the ministry; however, we cannot compromise the Word of God and continue to accept uncorrected error as uncorrectable. We ask you to prayerfully consider this letter and Christian Research Institute's report.

May God's guidance and discernment be with you as you carry out your duties as Elders.

With a deep felt love and desire for the Ministry's best,
The Elders of The Grace Bible Church
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 92330


Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:21 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Notes attached to Lake Elsinore Letter

NOTES
1. An Apologetic on The Bible Speaks' Position on Pastoral Authority, The Bible Speaks, October 1981, Pates 2, 3, 5-16.
2. In Tape No. 1479, Stevens dogmatically states that he will not tolerate so much us a mental attitude against the ministry. If a mental attitude is not allowed, then it is not too hard to come to the conclusion that only delegated authority has any authority to deal with infidelity and sin. (Personal letters from leaders in The Bible Speaks voiced this view in recent months to our congregation members.)
3. 1984, George Orwell, Harcourt Inc. 1949, Pages 32,33,69. This type of mental gymnastics is termed "double think" by Orwell; it allows the person to see wrong or hear wrong yet still conclude there is no wrong. Orwell describes this process for us. - "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing both of them, to use logic against logic (Stevens is fallible, he often misquotes scripture, yet he is never wrong in the pulpit and is above questioning.)... to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then &amp; once again to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.
True Believer, Eric Hoffer, Pages 75, 76. Hoffer sheds some light on the psychological adjustments that are made in this process and their ramifications.
4. The True Believer, Eric Hoffer, Harper &amp; Row 1959, Pages 114-115. "Strict Orthodoxy is as much the result of mutual suspicion as of ardent faith... suspicion is given a sharp edge by associating all opposition within the ranks with the enemy threatening the movement from without. This enemy - the indispensible devil of every mass movement - is omnipresent. He plots both outside and inside the ranks of the faithful. It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter and the deviationists are his stooges. If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing." This association causes all attempts to bring about change to be rendered useless. We can see how this was illustrated by Orwell in his work, Animal Farm Pages 72-74."Presumption vs. Speaking to the Rock," (Tape) Carl Stevens, The Bible Speaks World Outreach. "If you have a close friend that evaluates anybody in delegated authority, I'll guarantee you that if it is done with any consistency, you'll be weak and nick and die in the future months...don't say a sentence, not a sentence, not a line, don't presume or you'll die in the future months."
See also - A Close Look at The Bible Speaks World Outreach, Elliot Miller, CRI 1983, Pages 12, 16.
Spiritual Authority, Watchman Nee, Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1972, Page 71.
People will perhaps argue, 'What if the authority is wrong?' ...Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us ... the Lord will not hold uss responsibility for any mistaken obedience."

NOTES(CONTINUED)
6.(Continued)

True Believer, Hoffer, Pages 35-36. "We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility; or, in the words of the ardent young NAZI, 'to be free from freedom.' It was not sheer hypocrasy when the rank-and-file NAZIS declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the NAZI movement in order to be free from responsibility."
Many people testify of a freedom they feel when coming into The Bible Speaks. We feel this freedom is a result of allowing personal responsibility to be replaced by strict obedience; thus, this feeling is not from a positive growth pattern but from feeling the weight of responsibility for one's own life and decisions lifted off them, to be placed on "God's man" or "delegated authority for the covering of the body." (TI3S from the Throne, February 1976, Page 23)

Animal Farm, Orwell, Page 81. We see how Orwell associates blind devotion with an individual's taking the leader's word as absolute truth which needs no verification (even if it opposes known fact). "Ah, that is different!" said Boxer, "If Comrade Napolean says it, it must be right."

7. 1984., Orwell, Page 47. "Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
"He shall be for you in God's stead," TAPE, Carl Stevens, TBS World Outreach.
"if I said tonight that the ministry here in South Berwick needs $30,000.00, I want six of you to raise it, that you have got it, to bring it in to lay it at our feet, I want you to do it. You shouldn't even have to pray about that. I am here in Christ's stead.
The True Believer,, Hoffer, Page 77. "When a mass movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over: ... If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable."

8. Letter from Dick &amp; Marge Wallis to Carl Steven. "We brought these matters to you and you told us we were right in coming to you because you were the overseeing Pastor. You told us you would take action to right these things. You made it clear to us that you were over Pastor Devoid in authority when you came (to California) you reinforced Pastor Devoid from the pulpit.. . .with the matter of Pastor Devoid (referring to his authority) you told her (their daughter) he was only affiliated
with The Bible Speaks. That was a lie."
9. The Bible Speaks Goes on Record, TBS 1980, Pages 12, 13.
10. Frederick M. Bower, Jim Heinz, Frank &amp; Pat Manchester, Dick &amp; Marge Wallia, Patricia Saunders, Fred &amp; Joann Bower, Rick Petlicki, Bill Fisher, Wayne &amp; Polly Davis, Ed &amp; Patty Mosher, Bob Olivadoti, Gordon &amp; Nancy Berry, Leon Libby, Jack &amp; Sue Daley, Ron Kelly, Elliot Miller, Marty O'Brien, Steve Quuinlan, Alien &amp; Gwen Joy, Fran &amp; Sue Franco. and many others added to our view.

11. "Wisdom is Justified of Her Children." TAPE #1655, TBS, Carl Stet/ CLOSE LOOK AT THE BIBLE SPEAKS WORLD OUTREACH, Eliot Miller, l6, 45

NOTES (CONTINUED)
12. "'The Psychology of Thinking," TAPE # 926, TBS, Carl Stevens, Unedited Version. 13. Animal Farm, Orwell, Pages 69, 89, 90.

14. A CLOSE LOOK AT THE BIBLE SPEARS WORLD OUTREACH, Elliot Miller, CRI 1983. Homiletics Class Tape, Ed Mosber, Stevens School of the Bible, Fall 1977. Homiletics Class Tape, Mark Bower, Stevens School of the Bible, Spring 1978.

15. Phone Conversations on May 12, 1982, 1:00 p.m., PST
16. Animal Farm,, Orwell, Pages 65, 69, 81, 116.


Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:26 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above letter and its referenced notes unfortunately had no date. We can hope that the board's historian Jim Faucett may be able to put some timeframe upon it. It is a powerful testimony of the fact that what TBS/GGWO is intentional. TBS/GGWO has not gone astray along the way. TBS/GGWO does what it does on purpose and there is a lot of destruction reaped along the way measured in hurt and ruined lives.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

2. POOR APPLICATION OF MENEUTICAL PRINCIPALS LEADING TO DOCTRINAL INACCURACY AND CHURCH STRIFE AND DIVISION.
*Please note that many of the "doctrines" we discuss here are not stated doctrines in The Bible Speaks publications or messages per se, but have been formed in the minds of all those who have been under The Bible Speaks' teaching for some time.

A. The dual doctrines of love covers all sins (Proverbs 10:12) and don't deal with sin (especially not a Pastor's) because God will (Proverbs 3:12), are presented in such a way as to exclude Pastors from correction or reproof from the congregation. This is in direct conflict with the Bible's stance on this issue as we have seen and causes many individuals much confusion and heartache when they observe wrong doing and are forced to rationalize it away in their mind. We believe that the Bible is very clear on this point. The only sins that are covered (covered, meaning not mentioned to others) are those repented of; those not repented of are to be brought before the entire church. Pastors must be brought to the realization that they, more so than anyone else, are held responsible by God for their actions (James 3:1) and are accountable to all those they serve.

B. As a compliment doctrine, we find the teachings of "Don't listen to an evil report", "Don't spread cockatrice eggs", "Don't be deceived by Satan and become a casualty", "If a person is causing division, have nothing to do with them", and "When you leave, don't backbite", all strongly emphasized in conjunction with a person's loyalty to Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks. We have found these teachings to give the individual a warped sense of loyalty and cause numerous wrongs to go unrighted. This unhealthy loyalty, as we see it, is extremely dangerous and is reminiscent of any totalitarian type structure which emphasizes a person's blind acceptance of what surrounds him, to be in his best interest, designed by the leadership.3

C. The association of any negative report with Satan and demonic attack. Many of us have seen in the past (from Wiscasset until now) what happens to a person when they attempt to deal with problems in The Bible Speaks, especially anything concerning Pastor Stevens' personal actions. They are immediately overwhelmed with Bible Speaks doctrine; and if this fails to calm their fears to the satisfaction of the leadership, they are branded as "causing division", "being influenced by demons", or "fellowshipping with darkness". Whatever it is they have to say is "of the devil" and must not be listened to with any credibility, if listened to at all. This is taken to the extent that one of our Pastors was threatened not to receive his ordination if he did not stop fellowshipping with a labeled "division causer" because it cast doubts upon his "loyalty".

Page 3

We find all of this to be extremely disconcerting; it creates an unhealthy air of blind acceptance and closed mindedness, we see as in direct conflict with Paul's attitude in I Thessalonians 5:21 (prove all things). Please do not think that we are ignorant of the multitude of verses which deal with this subject; however, they are the means by which The Bible Speaks has used to cause all attempts at constructive criticism, or in more biblical terms, "reproof" to be either thwarted in its process or never begun because of the fear of being "used by Satan." These verses must be taught in accordance with hermeneutical principles to obtain a biblical balance.

D. The Doctrine that those who leave The Bible Speaks and have any disagreement with Pastor Stevens (whether spoken or silent) or attempt to cause change, are in serious; danger of divine punishment - We have experienced many messages and conversation that imply or have directly stated that God has brought severe judgment to those who dared entertain critical thoughts or actions against Pastor Stevens; incidents have been cited starting from cancer of the tongue or throat all the way to physical death or spiritual darkness and reprobation. This can only be described as a completely heretical fear tactic used to manipulate people and bring strict orthodoxy to The Bible Speaks, or more specifically, Pastor Stevens' doctrine. Another aspect of this doctrine is that all problems experienced or illnesses incurred by those loyal to Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks are the result of persecution; when these same events befall those who are antagonistic to The Bible Speaks or who have left, they become evidence of God's dis&not;pleasure and judgment.

We find all of this extremely unacceptable, causing many who have honest question or criticisms to be in complete bondage and confusion. They hear one thing preached only to see Pastors act in a totally opposite manner (i.e., speak no evil, yet Pastors con&not;stantly ridicule, belittle and malign congregation members, other ministries and pastors; but most of all, those who hold opposing views.). This doctrine has created spiritually crippled people who have much difficulty in holding an opposing view or in questioning a doctrine, even when they know they are right and have absolute proof of their con&not;victions. Fearful puppets fill The Bible Speaks churches, even though they won't admit it openly, they cry inwardly for release and guidance.

E. The doctrine of submission and authority which was taught in Wiscasset, Scar&not;borough, South Berwick, Lenox, and is still in practice today in branch ministries and home base, having never been dealt with honestly or taught correctly to all those who have been under these teachings.

We feel this doctrine can best be summed up by quoting a passage from a book highly acclaimed by Stevens (at one point required yearly reading by Staff in Lenox and taught in Bible School), written by Watchman Nee, "Spiritual Authority," page 71. The first two paragraphs state very clearly that no one who follows the directions from a spiritual leader will be held responsible for their obedience; it is not their concern if the leader is right or wrong, just to obey. We find this in direct conflict with the entirety of Scripture, especially those verses which deal with our personal responsibility and relationship to our Lord. This doctrine has been engrained in all who were present when these teachings were taught openly and are being "rained into others by those Pastors and church members who pass this attitude on through words and actions.

This leads to an unscriptural and unhealthy dependence on Pastor Stevens and The Bible Speaks for a person's relationship with Christ. It has been evidenced by many that those who have turned their spiritual walk (even in the least) over to
Page 4
Pastor Stevens or their respective Bible Speaks Pastor, have limited or no fellowship with the Lord outside their Bible Speaks realm, even to the point of physical locale. This dependence was voiced by one graduate of The Bible Speaks Bible School (who has his own ministry with The Bible Speaks) in defense of the teachings of The bible Speaks when he posed this question to one of our church members, "How can you survive without Lenox tapes?" This type of dependence can only be described as unbiblical and unsound to anyone's spiritual walk. Stevens, as well as many others, will claim this not to be true. On careful examination and honest consideration, on your part, of people's lives in branch ministries or in Lenox, we feel you will see the truth in this point.

F. The doctrine of the superiority of The Bible Speaks understanding of "grace" and the "body concept." This is an unspoken and many times spoken attitude taken by all those who become "one" with The Bible Speaks. This attitude leads to spiritual snobbery and becoming closed as far as considering other churches' understanding of Scripture, correction or reproof from outside persons or groups which desire to help; but, worst of all, it leaves a completely helpless and worthless feeling in all those who leave the ministry for one reason or another. The ministry seems to have won many people by pride and kept them by fear.

G. The doctrine of the "cross life" and how it is used to manipulate people' actions by playing on their moral conscience. It has been clearly manifested in past years how The Bible Speaks has used the preaching of the "cross" to cause behavior modification on the part of its congregation to fit the needs of the ministry by causing people to feel guilty, or less spiritual, if they refused the "cross," the ministry could manipulate people into various actions which benefited the church, either financially or otherwise. Preaching soon became a time where the "cross" would be determined by the pulpit as the church had needs. If the property needed people as residents, then the "cross" would be to sell your house, donate the money to the church and move on campus. Message after message asserted that a person was not loyal to the "Body" if they didn't live on campus and never register a complaint because of ridiculous living conditions. The "corporate vision" forced people into situations where their moral conscience caused their actions instead of the Holy Spirit's leading. Anytime a person complained about conditions on campus or in the church, they were said to "not desire the cross in their life." People soon took this doctrine to the point of leaving their families, financial responsibility, or saying that anything that a person did that did not agree with Pastor Stevens' view had to be due to "their flesh rejecting the cross." Please do not misunderstand us to the point of saying we do not believe in the "preaching of the cross," we do; but we are extremely disturbed when a person or a church chooses to manipulate people by doctrinal means and leave them in a place where their moral conscience is pitted against their being led by the Spirit. We must conclude that this preaching is a result of one of the following

1. Ignorance;
2. Willful manipulation for personal gain; or
3. Lack of trust in Cod and His Spirit to meet needs.

We have experienced people who have come from Lenox that have backslidden and claimed they need to be in Lenox to hear "the cross" preached. What they should have said was that they never established a personal relationship with the Lord and desire their lives to be manipulated into desired Christian behavior. We feel this is an accurate view from the standpoint that our pulpit has taken a very strong stance concerning the type of sins they had fallen into and that the "cross" as we see it has been preached repeatedly. -We cannot come to the.. point where we believe it is correct-to manipulate

Page 5

people's flesh for the sake of the Kingdom. The result is always that they fail as soon as our manipulation ceases. They must be brought to the lord to establish a relationship with His Holy Spirit for conviction, not our "cross." Because of people's ability to confuse preaching or take it to a point where it was never meant; people have abandoned parents, husbands, wives, children, jobs, homes or financial responsibility to appease this strong burden placed on their moral conscience when it has nothing to do at all with being led by the Spirit. This doctrine, as much as any other doctrine, has frequently caused family conflict, personal strife and church confusion to the point where it must be dealt with swiftly and thoroughly to stop further damage.
H. The doctrine of branch ministries with Lenox as "Home Base." We find this doctrine to be completely and thoroughly perpetrated to the fullest extent when it is beneficial for Lenox or the branch church to do so and just as vehemently denied if it is inconvenient or unbeneficial for either. We were given a copy of a letter to Pastor Stevens which confronted him with dealing with the California Ministry in complete dishonesty. He had told the individuals that Leon Devoid was under him in the ministry hierarchy and he would deal with the situation as an over&not;seeing Pastor. When Pastor Stevens came out to deal with the situation, he assured them he would correct the problem. Instead, he preached about not "dishonoring the Pastor" and compared Devoid's situation to one similar he had experienced when he was let down out of a church window in Bath, Maine. He claimed to individuals who lead spoken to those that had written the letter that the California Ministry was a com&not;pletely separate organization and that he had no authorization to do anything. He asserted that he had never made any of the statements they were claiming he had, making them out to be liars, even to their children.

Situations like these are caused because The Bible Speaks has engendered a doctrine which goes against biblical principles concerning a local church, placing Pastor Stevens as the apostle, master builder, Head Pastor or whatever title you desire to use. The Bible is clearly for the establishment of local churches dependent upon no one but the Lord and themselves for their government, sustenance, and decisions. "The Bible Speaks stance is in no way biblically based."

and finally;

[Anonymous (64.12.117.20)]

3. THE ELEVATION OF PASTORS ON A WHOLE, BUT ESPECIALLY PASTOR STEVENS, TO A PLACE OF UNDUE WORSHIP AND REVERENCE.

A. The Bible Speaks is not the first to establish such an attitude, nor will it be the last. However, we do not wish to address ourselves to this problem on a whole but to. the particular difficulties caused in The Bible Speaks ministry as a result of this doctrine.

B. In The Bible Speaks publication, "The Bible Speaks Goes On Record" (printed to clear up any questions concerning The Bible Speaks doctrinal views), we find a section entitled, "The Authority of Church Leadership." It is here we find again no mention of specifics in dealing with pastoral sin or error, but numerous references too Old Testament examples and reference to "rebuke not an Elder." It seems as if no where in any Bible Speaks message, devotional, or official publication can we find reference to Paul's specific instructions found in I Timothy 5:19-21:

"Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three'`witnesses'. Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and we elect angels, that thou observe these things without

Page 6

preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality." How is it possible that this verse has gone unnoticed throughout The Bible Speaks Ministry? Possibly because it makes pastors mare responsible to their church, not less, and brings down pastors off their pedestals to a place of accountability to humans as well as Gad.

C. This has caused frequent and continual problems to occur in Lenox and the brunch ministries, both in the execution of church affairs and in the individual lives of believers.
In one ministry, this doctrine eventually caused the church to close its doors and the pastor to make a complete re-evaluation of his calling. Strife resulted when the inability to live up to The Bible Speaks pastoral image was obvious to all, causing the church to became confused when every male who came from Lenox was called "Pastor" and few, if any, were ever called to such a position. Needless to say, the entire congregation suffered as a result of poor teaching and foolish pastoral decision

In another ministry, this caused people to be verbally slandered and attacked from the pulpit, finances to be manipulated and wasted, complete church division, and pastoral behavior to be unquestioned to the point that the pastor would feel comfortable in asking one individual before a group of people, "Who the (expletive deleted) are you to question me?" Pastoral attacks of other Christian ministries over radio air&not;waves carried with it the message of pastoral authority. The end result has been nothing short of giving Christ and His Gospel a poor name in the town and many out&not;lying areas.

In various branch ministries this doctrine has caused the ordination and elevation of many novices (including a Head Pastor who was ordained, after only being saved a short time, because he was an undesirable steward of the finances in Lenox) who have larded it over the people in their church, crushing numerous young, sincere Christians by their "Pastoral Dictatorship."

(We cite the North Carolina, Milpitas, Lake Elsinore, Rhode Island, and Wilmington Ministries, to name a few, far our preceding statements.)10

Last, but most importantly, this specific doctrine (added to the rest) has
caused Pastor Stevens to commit many pastoral inconsistencies which have added to the entire problem concerning The Bible Speaks. Unlike Barnabas and Paul in Acts 14:14 (they rent their clothes to prove they were human), Pastor Stevens has done everything in his power, it seems, to give his church the opposite view. Many different situations shall be discussed in this section and we desire you to keep in mind that all of the following can be proven via tapes letters, eye-witness testimony (2 or 3) or personal conversation. We do not wish to crucify Stevens" or "destroy The Bible Speaks," but to bring to your attention serious problems in need of correction. Whether the doctrines are a result of the man or the man is a result of the doctrines, we cannot discern. However, our experience with Carl Stevens (through his preaching and private conversation) has led us to believe that he has come to consider himself someone who is not accountable to just any sincere believer, but to God only. He believe that whatever means he chooses to propagate The Bible Speaks Gospel are perfectly legitimate with a definite air of the "ends justifying the means" in many areas in both church actions as well as personal behavior.

The area of his position in the church government has been experienced by many of us both in personal situations and messages; "Jesus told me, you're (referring to Stevens) the prophet," quotes Stevens in one message from a conversation he had with a girl in a bowling alley. Not only does be not clarify what she meant, he does not offer his opinion - he just continues his message, leaving us with the view that Jesus is going around telling people Carl St evens is The prophet.12 We could list numerous

Page 7

quotes from messages, classes, and written material in which Stevens compares himself to Paul, Moses, or some other Biblical leader. He repeatedly has used himself as a "good example" in messages, but in all the messages we have experienced, there are very few times, if any, where Stevens refers to specific faults in his life or uses himself to illustrate failure to bring a balance in people's minds.

He has caused people to consider him as infallible in the pulpit, not because of personal infallibility, but because they believe he would never be dishonest or preach something that wasn't biblically sound. Many people have commented on how great it will be to "receive an apostle's reward" because they "received an apostle" (referring to Stevens). Try as we might to convince ourselves that no one really believes that Stevens is anyone special, we cannot rationalize the hundreds of people that have testified to their total and complete trust in him.

He is special to everyone in The Bible Speaks. Take his title for example; no one loyal to The Bible Speaks would ever consider calling Stevens anything but "Dr. Stevens" or "Pastor." We think nothing of saying, "Billy Graham, Rex Humbard, Richard Wurmbrand or Robert Schuller;" but for someone who has been 'baptised into the body of The Bible Speaks," it is a sign of the utmost disrespect to call Stevens "Carl," and when people leave, it is as if they have to train themselves to call him by his first name. Try as we might, we cannot escape the fact that we have put Carl Stevens in a place where no man should be. One Pastor referred to Stevens in a message in Lenox, saying, "Because he is, I am." Another Pastor in a class tape makes the statement that there is "nothing that comes from this pulpit that isn't right on." One of our Pastors taught in a class in Lenox that Carl Stevens was an apostle and was never corrected or told to clarify his statement.'

Stevens has been dishonest in respect to his "honorary" degree to many of us personally. We have contacted Roy Stewart of The Clarksville School of Theology as well as Mr. David Mitchell, Dean of The Baptist Bible College in Clarksville, Tennessee. We have found a Doctor of Divinity Degree to cost $631.00, Clarksville School of Theology to be a "diploma mill" and that Stevens knew that his "Honorary Degrees" were nothing but purchased credibility, and while many have claimed he has stopped using them, we have been given a letter dated December 28, 1982 which has Stevens' doctorate degrees on the letterhead. This may seem to be nothing but proof of some ego on the part of Stevens, while in truth we find it falls right in line
with many inconsistencies Stevens has exhibited that we have passed off too many times.

Stevens has also exhibited seeming callousness concerning his personal con&not;versations; we have experienced numerous times Stevens has railed congregation members, other pastors, other ministries or just revealed personal confidences with the excuse he was "testing people's loyalty" -- People seem to feel he has the right to do so because of his position in the ministry. If the church were to apply Stevens' teachings concerning "speaking evil" or "don't eat with a railer" to Stevens, he would be a lonely man.
We could tell so many stories of wounded Christians, disillusioned young people, pastoral infidelity, and church strife that it would fill many more pages. We pass all of this off because of all the souls the ministry wins. We can no longer justify allowing pastoral sin and doctrinal manipulation to go unchallenged simply because we win souls. We cannot justify evil behavior because good comes from it, no matter how "good" the good is. We cannot continue to take widows' money and leave them penniless, manipulate people, to expand the Kingdom of The Bible Speaks
and ignore Gods warnings from sincere loving people.

Page 8

A Pastor in Lenox has been told that one of our Pastors has "left God" and is very deep in sin. This is in no way true. Others have been kept completely in the dark concerning the views of David McAdam and Ron Kelly, and the reasons why their ministries have left. People who feel as we do are totally belittled when they leave the ministry so as to completely discredit their testimony and keep the truth from being brought out into the open.
People have been confronted with discrepancies in various stories told by Stevens and others, their attitude more often than not is that if Stevens has said it, then they have no need to verify it - This was voiced by one Pastor when he replied to the honest questioning of another Pastor in regards to many of the aforementioned problems by saying, "We've grown past that baby stuff, we now have a much higher revelation."

We firmly believe that Carl Stevens' complete repentance before the church in Lenox, followed by his resignation is the only way for healing to start. These doctrines must be retaught and Christ must be put back on the thrones of the lives of individuals where He belongs.

It is because of these reasons and more that can be found in Walter Martin's report that we have separated ourselves from The Bible Speaks church and present this letter to you. Many things we have said have sounded harsh and void of love; but please understand that we love Carl Stevens and owe much to The Bible Speaks. Many of us were saved through the ministry; however, we cannot compromise the Word of God and continue to accept uncorrected error as uncorrectable. We ask you to prayerfully consider this letter and Christian Research Institute's report.

May God's guidance and discernment be with you as you carry out your duties as Elders.

With a deep felt love and desire for the Ministry's best,
The Elders of The Grace Bible Church
15900 Grand Avenue
Lake Elsinore, California 92330


Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:21 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Notes attached to Lake Elsinore Letter

NOTES
1. An Apologetic on The Bible Speaks' Position on Pastoral Authority, The Bible Speaks, October 1981, Pates 2, 3, 5-16.
2. In Tape No. 1479, Stevens dogmatically states that he will not tolerate so much us a mental attitude against the ministry. If a mental attitude is not allowed, then it is not too hard to come to the conclusion that only delegated authority has any authority to deal with infidelity and sin. (Personal letters from leaders in The Bible Speaks voiced this view in recent months to our congregation members.)
3. 1984, George Orwell, Harcourt Inc. 1949, Pages 32,33,69. This type of mental gymnastics is termed "double think" by Orwell; it allows the person to see wrong or hear wrong yet still conclude there is no wrong. Orwell describes this process for us. - "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing both of them, to use logic against logic (Stevens is fallible, he often misquotes scripture, yet he is never wrong in the pulpit and is above questioning.)... to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself - that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then &amp; once again to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.
True Believer, Eric Hoffer, Pages 75, 76. Hoffer sheds some light on the psychological adjustments that are made in this process and their ramifications.
4. The True Believer, Eric Hoffer, Harper &amp; Row 1959, Pages 114-115. "Strict Orthodoxy is as much the result of mutual suspicion as of ardent faith... suspicion is given a sharp edge by associating all opposition within the ranks with the enemy threatening the movement from without. This enemy - the indispensible devil of every mass movement - is omnipresent. He plots both outside and inside the ranks of the faithful. It is his voice that speaks through the mouth of the dissenter and the deviationists are his stooges. If anything goes wrong within the movement, it is his doing." This association causes all attempts to bring about change to be rendered useless. We can see how this was illustrated by Orwell in his work, Animal Farm Pages 72-74."Presumption vs. Speaking to the Rock," (Tape) Carl Stevens, The Bible Speaks World Outreach. "If you have a close friend that evaluates anybody in delegated authority, I'll guarantee you that if it is done with any consistency, you'll be weak and nick and die in the future months...don't say a sentence, not a sentence, not a line, don't presume or you'll die in the future months."
See also - A Close Look at The Bible Speaks World Outreach, Elliot Miller, CRI 1983, Pages 12, 16.
Spiritual Authority, Watchman Nee, Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1972, Page 71.
People will perhaps argue, 'What if the authority is wrong?' ...Whether the one in authority is right or wrong does not concern us ... the Lord will not hold uss responsibility for any mistaken obedience."

NOTES(CONTINUED)
6.(Continued)

True Believer, Hoffer, Pages 35-36. "We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility; or, in the words of the ardent young NAZI, 'to be free from freedom.' It was not sheer hypocrasy when the rank-and-file NAZIS declared themselves not guilty of all the enormities they had committed. They considered themselves cheated and maligned when made to shoulder responsibility for obeying orders. Had they not joined the NAZI movement in order to be free from responsibility."
Many people testify of a freedom they feel when coming into The Bible Speaks. We feel this freedom is a result of allowing personal responsibility to be replaced by strict obedience; thus, this feeling is not from a positive growth pattern but from feeling the weight of responsibility for one's own life and decisions lifted off them, to be placed on "God's man" or "delegated authority for the covering of the body." (TI3S from the Throne, February 1976, Page 23)

Animal Farm, Orwell, Page 81. We see how Orwell associates blind devotion with an individual's taking the leader's word as absolute truth which needs no verification (even if it opposes known fact). "Ah, that is different!" said Boxer, "If Comrade Napolean says it, it must be right."

7. 1984., Orwell, Page 47. "Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
"He shall be for you in God's stead," TAPE, Carl Stevens, TBS World Outreach.
"if I said tonight that the ministry here in South Berwick needs $30,000.00, I want six of you to raise it, that you have got it, to bring it in to lay it at our feet, I want you to do it. You shouldn't even have to pray about that. I am here in Christ's stead.
The True Believer,, Hoffer, Page 77. "When a mass movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over: ... If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable."

8. Letter from Dick &amp; Marge Wallis to Carl Steven. "We brought these matters to you and you told us we were right in coming to you because you were the overseeing Pastor. You told us you would take action to right these things. You made it clear to us that you were over Pastor Devoid in authority when you came (to California) you reinforced Pastor Devoid from the pulpit.. . .with the matter of Pastor Devoid (referring to his authority) you told her (their daughter) he was only affiliated
with The Bible Speaks. That was a lie."
9. The Bible Speaks Goes on Record, TBS 1980, Pages 12, 13.
10. Frederick M. Bower, Jim Heinz, Frank &amp; Pat Manchester, Dick &amp; Marge Wallia, Patricia Saunders, Fred &amp; Joann Bower, Rick Petlicki, Bill Fisher, Wayne &amp; Polly Davis, Ed &amp; Patty Mosher, Bob Olivadoti, Gordon &amp; Nancy Berry, Leon Libby, Jack &amp; Sue Daley, Ron Kelly, Elliot Miller, Marty O'Brien, Steve Quuinlan, Alien &amp; Gwen Joy, Fran &amp; Sue Franco. and many others added to our view.

11. "Wisdom is Justified of Her Children." TAPE #1655, TBS, Carl Stet/ CLOSE LOOK AT THE BIBLE SPEAKS WORLD OUTREACH, Eliot Miller, l6, 45

NOTES (CONTINUED)
12. "'The Psychology of Thinking," TAPE # 926, TBS, Carl Stevens, Unedited Version. 13. Animal Farm, Orwell, Pages 69, 89, 90.

14. A CLOSE LOOK AT THE BIBLE SPEARS WORLD OUTREACH, Elliot Miller, CRI 1983. Homiletics Class Tape, Ed Mosber, Stevens School of the Bible, Fall 1977. Homiletics Class Tape, Mark Bower, Stevens School of the Bible, Spring 1978.

15. Phone Conversations on May 12, 1982, 1:00 p.m., PST
16. Animal Farm,, Orwell, Pages 65, 69, 81, 116.

[Isabella (207.7.205.82)]

Yes, I agree, the CRI report should be posted too. I hope Louise will post it soon.
This is the document that showed me, finally, what was right in front of me the whole time. So much in that report described exactly what our little church was going through. That's when I realized that it was systematic. Same scam, different places, different "pastors", different people. I knew when I read it that they couldn't possible care about the people. The money and whatever else they got out of it was more important to them. That's the bottom line, they don't care about the people.

[Anonymous (141.154.186.91)]

.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.144.190)]

To those of you who haven't already read the letter this post started with; go to the top of this thread and read or copy it. Don't bother with the other long postings in the thread. They're plants. Bob

[Anonymous (4.155.9.162)]

The CRI report is 61 pages long! Is it possible to post such a lengthy report on this forum?

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

I have a copy of the report. I will see about getting it scanned to a disk and I can send it as an attachment to anyone who e-mails me.

-Karen

[John Krainis (207.5.239.219)]

FactNet prohibits posting copyrighted material, and the CRI report is copyrighted. I was going to request permission from CRI, and also see whether they had the report in an electronic format which would be quicker and more accurate than scanning. If so, I'll put it up here. It's really worth reading.

[RJ (141.154.186.91)]

Thank you so much John. The CRI Report was given to me by an exit counselor after we left, and it was a complete eye opener and revolutionized my thinking and understanding. I am hopeful it can be posted here.

Roberta

[KDuhamel (24.60.78.215)]

Thanks, John. Does a copyright also prohibit sending copies to individuals?

Anyway, when I inquired about having the report scanned, I was told it would cost $5 a page. You can do the math!

-Karen

[Anonymous (24.88.43.233)]

I'll be glad to put it up on the new website in HTML form is CRI would give us permission to us it.

[John Krainis (207.5.239.219)]

Yep, the report is even-handed, and carefully documented. CRI clearly wanted to help, not hurt, the ministry.

I'll also check on their policy about distributing their material to individuals.

[Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)]

Folks:

I just posted the CRI report under its own thread that someone had created already. If you want your own copy either cut and paste before the saboteurs get it or click on my name here and send me an email. I will be happy to send a copy to whomever desires it.

[RJ (141.154.186.91)]

I hope everyone who was told that the CRI Report was an "evil report" gets a chance finally to see that it is, in fact, no such thing at all. It was ans is a balanced view of the things taught, believed and never remedied at TBS/GGWO...

Please send the url of this thread to everyone you know that still listens to Carl and his associates. It is important that they understand that it is their walk with God we are trying to protect...that we are trying to get the truth to them that they might remedy the error in their doctrine on this pastoral authority issue.

Though they are saved they risk a lifetime without the true fellowship of the Holy Spirit if they cannot turn from this teaching. Please...if you love your brothers and sisters in Christ, tell them for their own sake. They are missing out on the true freedom in spirit that God has given freely through the blood of his son...one needs no man to lead them, they need no man to be God's conduit...tell them freedom is at hand.

Roberta

[Cara (64.12.117.20)]

Roberta, once again you speak the truth with such clarity. It is so important for everyone to read the CRI report! What an injustice to all that were told it is forbidden and evil to read this report. I can only pray that CRI once again, updates their findings. We need them now! Please anyone that feels led, write CRI about the current situation concerning GG. I have written them several times. Last response from them is they are trying to decide how to respond to GG's current state of affairs. They need to hear from more than one person. Please email them! http://www.equip.org/contact/question.asp

[rj (141.154.186.91)]

Cara, I just wrote to them.

Roberta

[Anonymous (141.154.186.91)]

"We're not just dealing with a situation of "This is my church." For many people, The Bible Speaks is their whole life. It affects every area: the way you think about your mother, your wife or girlfriend, your kids, your car, your clothes -­everything is affected by that preaching. It's impossible to erase it simply by saying "OK, we're not going to talk about 'delegated authority' anymore." It's permeated your entire being, it's going to take more than that to stop you from believing in it."

CRI Report

[mike (68.38.195.85)]

where is pastor heinz, i was a goof friend of his and was going to go on tht team but pastor stevens advised not to because he felt that pastor heinz was off so i stayed for 18 years

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[David B. (64.211.41.114)]

Jim and Patty Heinz were also close friends of mine. Is he still part of the Lake Elsinore church? Anyone have a contact for the chuch? Does it still exist?

[Anonymous (68.33.96.167)]

.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.149.184)]

I don't think the Elsinore church any longer exists.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[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 (151.203.163.174)]

.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.150.31)]

Pray and then come to factnet. Tell us what you've found out in that quiet place.

[Anonymous (151.203.163.174)]

.

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

who ever wrote it doesn't sound all that bright

[Anonymous (67.243.240.71)]

You have no room to talk Anon 24.

[Anonymous (67.243.240.71)]

LOL...LOL

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

.

[Anonymous (151.203.157.69)]

.

[Anonymous (24.58.114.87)]

does anyone ever watch CSI? great show! or nip tuck for that matter? i've never seen that one!