CRIMartin Report

[Anonymous (141.154.186.91)]

Please...someone who has a copy of the CRI/Martin Report...

PLEASE POST IT HERE

[Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)]

Cover Letter


CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Walter Marlin. Director
Dear Friends:

We would like to apologize for the length of time it has taken us to send you this final report on The Bible Speaks. When we began our investigation a number of years ago, we never thought it would evolve to the extent that it has.

We have tried to be as careful as possible in researching and evaluating all pertinent material on The Bible Speaks. We thank all of you for your prayerful support during this long process of research and writing, which was carried out under the direction of our Senior Literary Consultant, Elliot Miller.

When we originally proposed to make this report available free upon request, we had not anticipated the great amount of time and expense that would be necessary to satisfactorily complete the project, nor had we anticipated the length of the current report. If you can afford to send us a donation to aid in covering the cost of printing and mailing, it would be most appreciated.

Sincerely yours,
Clark F. Hyman
Assistant to Walter Martin

CFH:kz­


Page 1
A CLOSE LOOK AT
THE BIBLE SPEAKS WORLD OUTREACH


by Elliot Miller
copyright(E)1981 by Christian Research Institute, Inc.


Over the past four years Christian Research Institute (CRI) has conducted extensive research of, and dialogue with, The Bible Speaks World Outreach (whose headquarters are in Lenox, Massachu­setts). Early in our relationship with The Bible Speaks (TBS) we were persuaded that their membership is largely composed of genuine Christians. TBS has, up to the time of this writing, also maintained an orthodox, biblical. position on those doctrines most essential to the Christian faith. Thus, we do not consider TBS a non-Christian cult, but rather a Christian ministry.

However, since the mid-1970s The Bible Speaks has been a subject of great controversy in New England and other areas in America and abroad where its members have been active, and the relationship of TBS with numerous other evangelical bodies has been strained. The underlying cause of many of these problems has been TBS unusual concept of pastoral authority, which tends to both highly exalt the leadership of the ministry and stifle any critical evaluation of their teaching and decisions.

In March, 1979, The Bible Speaks contacted us and expressed a willingness to correct any problem areas that might have existed, and a desire to be reconciled with those members of the evangelical community whom they had offended. Our Director, Walter Martin, and Research Consultants Howard Pepper and Elliot Miller responded by engaging in an extensive dialogue with Carl Stevens, President of TBS, and his representatives. We pointed out to the TBS leaders the problem areas we saw in their teaching and practice, and made specific recommendations that we felt would help to rectify the problems that they contacted us about. By mid-1980 CRI and TBS reached an agreement that we would publish a report on TBS which would seek to promote the desired reconciliation with alienated Christians, while TBS would simultaneously publish a soundly biblical doctrinal statement which would be distributed to all of their pastors and strictly enforced.

As a result of our dialogue with The Bible Speaks, some positive changes were made. However, a few months after the doctrinal statement The Bible Speaks Goes on Record was pub­lished, we began to receive phone calls and letters from Lenox and other cities where TBS branch ministries existed. These essentially expressed the same complaint, concisely stated in the following excerpt from one such letter: "Pastor Stevens is not teaching delegated authority from the pulpit, but one doesn't dare listen to anyone who has anything against the ministry and
Page 2
the leaders; yet it's O.K. for leaders to sin while continuing their ministries." We proceeded to compile a list of charges made by members and former members that The Bible Speaks was deviating from their doctrinal statement, and forwarded the list to TBS leadership for their response. We received a lengthy response to the charges from Carl Stevens, but though some of the complaints were satisfactorily answered, our concern about a number of the more serious charges was not (and has never been)dispelled.
Why This Report?
While-people were communicating the aforementioned charges to us we were also receiving reports that certain leaders in The Bible Speaks were indicating to their own congregations and to the body of Christ at large (even on the radio in at least one case) that CRI had given TBS a "clean bill of health" as a Christian ministry. Additionally, while our report was not distributed in its entirety to TBS leadership, Stevens did have a compilation of exclusively positive excerpts from our report sent to his pastors, so that they could show them to people having doubts about the ministry.

In fact, we never gave The Bible Speaks an unqualified endorsement, neither in our report that was printed in Volume Three, Number Two of our research publication, Forward, nor in our longer report, that was sent out to those who requested it. In both reports we pointed out the areas in which TBS was to be commended (such as their active evangelism outreach and their emphasis on the completed work of Christ for our salvation and spiritual growth). However, we also identified at length the areas of theology and practice which had created serious problems for TBS in the past, and stressed the need for TBS to follow through with their stated intention to correct these areas. We endorsed the doctrinal statement, but qualified our endorsement of the ministry upon their faithfulness to the doctrinal state­ment. In the Forward report (p.8) we stated: "They are committing themselves publicly to an extensive statement of biblical theology (as broadly accepted by evangelicals today) which is historically orthodox on all major doctrines. If they should depart from this printed statement in their actual teachings or practices, our evaluation of them cannot and will not remain the same, and we reserve the right to modify our position should it become necessary at any time."

Because it was obvious to us that most of the representa­tives of The Bible Speaks with whom we dialogued sincerely desired to change the ministry, a reserved optimism was evident in our earlier reports concerning the possibility of substantial reforms being implemented within the organization. This updated

Page 3
report is being presented partly to counter any misleading effects that might result from our past optimism and the false reports that we've "cleared the ministry."

In this report we assume that the reader already has a degree of familiarity with The Bible Speaks. Those who desire a more basic approach to TBS history and beliefs will he sent our two earlier reports and additional information upon request.

In our estimation there has not been substantial, consistent evidence of a heartfelt repentance and change from The Bible Speaks' old views of pastoral authority. These controversial views (manifest in the unique TBS understanding of "delegated authority" and "anointing," and the excessive devotion of some members to Stevens and other leaders) underlie the ministry's continuing internal problems and difficulties in relating to other Christian groups. In this report we will closely examine these errant concepts of leadership, and we will consider the abuses and personal harm that they foster. We will look at the blatant manner in which these views were presented in the 1970s and the more subtle forms in which they've appeared since the publication of The Bible Speaks Goes on Record. We will also contrast with these concepts and practices what we believe to be a more biblical perspective of leadership and pastoral authority.

Our research of numerous Christian groups entangled in deviant theology and practice has made us keenly aware that such situations can be extremely complex, and impossible to accurately evaluate and categorize with simple, black-or-white standards. This is especially true in the case of The Bible Speaks. TBS has been instrumental in hundreds of conversions to Christ, and, in spite of recent upheavals, a number of sincere, dedicated Chris­tians remain within the organization. Though authoritarianism remains a problem, it is not as pervasive or blatant in TBS as it is in some of the other well-known aberrant Christian groups (e.g., the "local churches" of Witness Lee, the "Walk" of John Robert Stevens, and some of the extreme examples of the "shep­herding and discipleship movement").

It seems to us that if there were not some really good aspects to TBS, the group would not have generated such a high degree of controversy in New England. The Bible Speaks has been an emotionally charged subject among many Christians, partly because whether one is defending them or criticizing them, there is much in the organization worth caring about. Our dialogue with TBS would certainly not have progressed to the extent that it did were there not people within the ministry who cared about being biblical, and such people still exist within their ranks. In fact, it is this writer's belief that the great shaking that TBS has experienced over the last few years is evidence of God's concern about this ministry. In my view, because so many within

Page 4

TBS have been called by God to His service, He will not allow the leadership to get away with the sort of practices that are carried on with seemingly little difficulty year after year by non-Christian cult leaders.


The Bible Speaks in the 1970s

Our evaluation of The Bible Speaks in the 1980s will be difficult to appreciate if one does not realize the extent to which the errant views on pastoral authority were both taught and acted on in the 1970s. CRI Research Consultant George Mather, who witnessed the growth of The Bible Speaks in New England, observes: "God used The Bible Speaks to reach many people. It was becoming the biggest ministry in New England. But when they got into this authority emphasis an elitism developed and they exalted themselves over other ministries. As this developed it often occurred that members of TBS and people who considered joining would often notice the extreme effects of 'delegated authority,' and this would turn them off to the ministry." The negative consequences of the authority emphasis have been telling indeed upon a group which had the potential to be one of the leading youth oriented ministries in the country.

If we assume that there has never been any merit to the leadership of The Bible Speaks we will fail to perceive the scope of the tragedy involved. Ron Kelly, a former pastor who had been active in the ministry for years, commented:

I have to say that Pastor Stevens and the ministry have contributed an awful lot to my life. I just can't scrap the whole thing and say we didn't get any benefit at all. My family and I learned how to love in a deeper way. We gained more of an enthusiasm to win souls, and more of a vision for the world.

A former leader observed that Carl Stevens "... did have a passion for the lost. That's what's so confusing when you leave."

Stevens' personal charisma and vision for world evangelism and discipleship had great drawing power for many idealistic young believers (as well as quite a few older ones). Mark Bell, former pastor of the Brockton, Massachusetts Bible Speaks, observed: "There's really not much going on in New England, and The Bible Speaks ministry offers something more than nominal Christianity. They have a vision, and have made an attempt to give people something to do with their Christianity. I think that's why they've been successful in the past." Employing methodologies that had worked well for others, Stevens inspired

Page 4

and helped organize successful evangelism teams, visitation ministries, Sunday schools, and day schools. He also established the Stevens School of the Bible, which offers a three-year curriculum "committed to educating men and women in the life revealed in the Word of God."

Like Calvary Chapel on the West Coast, The Bible Speaks drew heavily upon the counter-culture for their membership, and util­ized more novel, less traditional approaches to ministry than did other evangelical churches in the surrounding areas. Though such approaches are likely to receive criticism, nonetheless they can often be at least as biblical and more useful than established forms that were developed to meet the needs of earlier times." However, we cannot attribute the bulk of the controversy that has surrounded TBS to mere novelty. The blame must be laid upon the unorthodox manner in which the leadership has perceived itself.

To put the matter in full perspective we must go back to a spiritual experience Carl Stevens reportedly had at the outset of his ministry:

In the early l960's when Pastor Stevens was preaching to a couple of very small congregations, God called him one day to the back of the woods near a lake. Then the Lord Jesus baptized him with what Pastor describes as liquid waves of love. Along, with this experience God promised him several things. First and foremost, God promised an anointing upon every message he would preach from then on" (emphasis ours).

As we will soon see with greater clarity, belief in this first promise of an anointing upon every message set up a potential psychological situation of unquestioning acceptance for Carl Stevens' interpretations of Scripture. It also encouraged a dependence upon him if one wanted to receive the progressive revelation of what was considered to be "God's heartbeat" or "God's thought" for the moment.

As with the relationship of the Pope-to Roman Catholicism, and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to Jehovah's Witnesses, when an individual or group is esteemed to have a unique link with God that is indispensable for those who desire the fullness of His grace, the potential for excessive devotion to and exaltation of the special "channel" is great. In the mid-seventies, as belief in Stevens' unique anointing took a firm hold, comments reflective of an attitude much more reminiscent of cultism than evangelical Christianity found their way into print:

Page 6

What was it like to walk with Jesus, to see His smile, and to be looked upon with that piercing glance, and to hear His precious voice speak those sanctified Words? What was it like to laugh with Him, to cry with Him, to eat with Him, and to be His friend. Most Christians have wondered this at one time or another. Those in the Bible Speaks stopped wondering years ago. To be a sheep under the shepherdship of Pastor Carl Stevens is to know intimately the person of the Lord .... To know Pastor Stevens is to know Christ. To love the Pastor is to love the One Who gave him to us. As one sheep, I speak for thousands who have been led by our beloved shepherd out of Egypt and out of the wilderness into the promised land. We pour our hearts out to him in thanksgiving and love for having, in his life, shown us the living Christ.

His constant expression of God's pure love toward the Body and of perfect grace toward sinners and the weak causes our hearts again and again to exclaim with joy, "Yes, that is what God is like!"...Dearest Pastor, we thank you with all of our hearts for a life so full and so free. We love you, dear Shepherd. We love you.5

Above all, our pastor, teacher, and prophet walks, talks, and practices every word that he receives in revelation. He is a man without spot or blemish and has shown himself approved All Tim. 2:15). He is indeed a true man of God.6

Whether from the pulpit, or on cassette tape, or in the college class, or just at informal times with him alone at lunch, each word that comes from Pastor Stevens' mouth is anointed richly and reveals more the at-one-ment and the Truth imparted to us by the Finished Work of Him in whom we trust.

An individual who was intimately involved in the early days of The Bible Speaks said that though Carl Stevens liked the adulation that he received, he did not evoke all of it himself. For example, it was not Stevens who first applied the title of "apostle" to himself. Some of Stevens' more dedicated followers were discussing what they thought an apostle is like, and decided Stevens fit their description. When they offered him recognition as a modern-day apostle, he accepted it.

People who were with Stevens from the beginning of his ministry say that it was in South Berwick, Maine that his

Page 7

emphasis on authority became especially heavy. He read Watchman Nee's Spiritual Authority, and using the book as a basis (though not remaining especially faithful to all of the principles it sets forth) he developed his own particular doctrine of "delegated authority." (There is nothing necessarily unbiblical about the concept of delegated authority per se; thus, when in this report that doctrine of delegated authority that Stevens has taught is referred to, it is distinguished with quotation marks.) He also absorbed some of the dubious ideas promoted by R.B.
Thieme of Berachah Church in Houston, Texas. In the mid­seventies much of Stevens' teaching was directed toward establishing as biblical fact the premise that all Christians should be submitted to a special man of God, or "God's man," who as Christ's delegated authority is given special vision to lead the Lord's people into the fullness of His plan. Though Stevens' estimation of his own importance during that period is not eminently clear, a former leader observes: "At one time most of us in South Berwick thought that all Christians would submit to Stevens."

Accompanying the conviction that their leader was superior
to other leaders in New England was the belief that The Bible Speaks was the most important, dynamic ministry around. Though not generally out of any premeditated designs, TBS members often caused fractures in local churches because of their conviction that Christians outside of their ministry were missing out on God's best. Marty,O'Brien, formerly the pastor of a large TBS church in Auburn, Maine, confessed: "In the early days when we found groups that were searching for life we gave them this 'unity, oneness, be a part of the body' thing. We were actually inducing people to be a part of our organization, though I didn't see it at the time."

Any effort to determine what has contributed to the problems that have beset The Bible Speaks should not overlook a situation ethic that has spread through much (though not all) of the minis­try. In the taped message Wisdom Is Justified of Her Children, Carl Stevens told his followers:

Wisdom; she's always justified. whatever she does, she's justified. Does that mean that the ends justifies the means? (That was the old Jesuit theory.) No, it doesn't -- it doesn't mean that. However, may I say this: it's possible for the end to justify the means. But the end doesn't always justify the means -- but it's possible for it to.

Former TBS public relations representative Leon Libby cogently observes:

Page 8

One of the biggest things we did in the early stages of the ministry that caused deception to filter in was this philosophy that the end justifies the means. The Bible story of Rahab the harlot lying to the spies, and the water looking like blood9 were used as justification for telling people less than the truth, omitting facts, misrepresentation, and so forth. It was reasoned that since the most important purpose was winning souls to Jesus Christ, if that meant sometimes
bolstering up your ministry and telling people you had more than was there, or enlarging what you were doing, it was justified. Once you start doing that, it's easy to carry it over. Before you came [i.e., before this writer visited TBS headquarters in Lenox for the first time] I spent weeks looking for any excerpt or one-liner out of a message that I could present to you. And you'd better believe I passed over a lot of stuff I
couldn't present to you.

Once a situation ethic was embraced by some of the leader­ship, a framework was established which would allow disobedience to biblical principles to be rationalized rather than faced and repented of. Thus, small sins could lead to bigger sins in a continuing progression with no inherent restraint to reverse the process -- until the consequences would reach devastating proportions.
Having considered the foregoing as background, if we are to sufficiently grasp the nature of Carl Stevens' teaching on leadership and authority in the mid-seventies we must turn our attention to some graphic examples of that teaching itself. Either by direct quote or summary we will review essential components and characteristic features of Stevens' theology on these subjects as he presented it in four taped messages. Additionally, we will offer our own comments and observations where we consider it appropriate.
In the tape What it Means to Be Baptized Unto a Man, Stevens spells out his doctrine of "delegated authority" in such a plain, comprehensive manner that the substance and implications of the doctrine are unmistakable.
In this message Stevens uses Moses as an example of "delegated authority." He points out that Moses (and thus, according to his analogy, all delegated authorities) had a direct communication with God inaccessible to the common people, which necessitated the people's complete obedience to his every word, under penalty of divine judgment. Stevens affirms: "I want to say this pertaining to the leadership of the ministry: [God] did
Page 9
not speak to them, He only spoke to Moses, and they had to follow Moses exactly -- verbatim. If they didn't, they were in serious trouble." He goes on to affirm that God speaks to delegated authorities mouth to mouth, as a man talks to a friend about the business. "God had to take Joshua away from the people to speak to them. He told Joshua -- Joshua told them."
Stevens points out that many people are not submitted to a single man of God, and maintains: "God has different people He wants to line up with different men, and that's how He operates." He makes an interesting comment which we will leave to the reader to interpret: "Jesus doesn't appoint many to these positions -­not many leaders of that caliber, because Jesus Christ usually only has one-of them in a generation."

In his explanation of exactly what it means to be baptized unto a man, Stevens reveals the extent off unreserved devotion he expected to receive from those who sat under his ministry: "...obey his teachings, submit to his love, protect and honor his ministry, co-labor with his purpose without question, without pretense, without hesitation, without giving him a hard time, [his voice rises] without putting him off again and again in procrastination and disobedience, and subtle rebellion... [the Christian should say to 'God's man'] 'I'm going to be with you until you drop, I'm going to be baptized unto your life, unto your heart, unto your soul, unto your prayers.'" Later in the tape Stevens affirms again that the believer ..must be baptized unto a man of God, be true to him, honor him with double honor, submit to him, never criticize him, being willing to die with him."

Stevens details the purpose and benefits of "delegated authority": "It gives you as a people clarity ... definition ... direction ... specific purpose in your life ... if you listen to [as many] of his messages as you can... you'll] get the whole content of what God is saying to the church." We might point out that as a result of this emphasis, and TBS' emphasis upon the "corporate body," the opportunity for one to receive an individual vision and leading from the Lord was severely restricted. The leadership received the full vision of where God was leading, and it was always a corporate vision. If one did not take up his "corporate cross" and do exactly what the body was doing, he was considered by many to have an "independent walk" which avoided the cross.

How can we recognize a man of God? Stevens goes on in What it Means to Be Baptized Unto a Man to explain that God's man always has a revelation. He preaches "astounding messages." He is a sinner saved by grace like others, but God has elevated him because of his anointing. He didn't deserve this anointing -- it is received by grace.

Page 10

Previously we cited the charge that "... one doesn't dare listen to anyone who has anything against the ministry and the leaders; yet it's O.K. for leaders to sin while continuing their ministries." How such a situation could have developed is perhaps more easily understood if we consider the psychological impact that statements such as the following (which have often been made) must have had: "Moses was called of God not because he was a good man. He had a vicious temper. He murdered an Egyptian...Aaron and Miriam thought God would speak to them equally as He did to him-she didn't think he was beyond challenging at that point, but God did ... even though he married out of his race .... She incurred judgment .... Nobody goes against God's man."

Stevens makes it clear that the concept of leadership he is presenting is not merely incidental to the Christian life. "You'll never be filled or full apart from God's man." To the Christian who responds, "I don't want to follow a man, I want to follow Jesus," Stevens replies: "I've got news for you -- that can't be done .... Thus saith the Lord."

In the tape Following a Man or God? Stevens develops an elaborate theology apparently calculated to suppress criticisms of his ministry that were being voiced by some of his former followers. He teaches that to receive the provision and pro­tection of the word of God one needs to receive it meekly. He then defines meekness as "transferring your rights." Among the rights that must be given up is the right to the "tree of knowl­edge." The "tree of knowledge" is what Adam ate of, and our "Adam" (carnal nature) seeks knowledge as a pretext for rebelling against authority. Stevens exhorts his congregation to "lean not to your own understanding" (which he associates with the "self life"), but rather come under the authority of God's word, man, body, and Jesus Christ (he insists it's not possible to follow Jesus alone). Otherwise, they will be double-minded, will not receive the word of God in meekness, and thus will not be blessed
(he cites James 1:6 21-25).

How do you overcome that double-mindedness? When you receive the word of God, receive it as the word of God from a man. That is, if it's a ministry that has fruit, that has the credentials -- preaches the gospel, believes in the death, burial, resurrection, ascension...the second coming ... the new birth ... believes that you must believe in the word-of God, all of it, and walk In the Spirit, believes in worldwide evangelism and has love and has changed lives in its ministry. That's the test of whether or not the ministry is from God. Once you find out that the ministry is of God according to the test of the word of God,
Page 11
by its fruit, then you should listen to the man speak not as a man, but as God. (He then quotes I Thess. 2:1.3] "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Then when you receive it, friends, as the word of God, it starts to work in you effectually. When you stop trying to challenge it, to test it in terms of your Adam's evaluation, then it begins to become effective working in you... .The mark of a person that has true meekness and is a real Christian -- he gladly receives the word of God [i.e., the message that the man of God preaches]. He doesn't set back and cipher out what's what and what isn't and what is, so that he can still live and have his rights. But he transfers his rights in Adam with meekness and receives the word of God.
Thus the messages preached by God's man are identified with what Paul was speaking of in I Thess. 2:13 (the word of God, not the word of man), and any critical evaluation of such messages becomes equated with the workings of "Adam" or the fallen nature.

Stevens goes on to say that he's not taking away people's ability to think and test things, but it must be done "...in faith, in love, and in God, not in Adam which divides, separates, intimidates, and condemns." This sounds nice, but experience has borne out that in practice anything that disagrees with the "Apostles doctrine" (which he associates with his teaching) is "in Adam."

In God's Blessing of Delegated Authority Stevens again did much to reinforce the psychological conditioning which has resulted in distressing apprehensions of divine retribution for many who have left the group (see pp. 43-4a):

By not receiving the man that is sent and delegated, you are rejecting Christ, and no one will admit that is true. But that's what the Bible says. This is not written in Genesis, it's written in Matthew. If they receive you,-they receive me. If they receive me,-they receive the one that sent me. The Lord said it's a matter of understanding delegated authority and who is sent. If they're sent, you'd better not criticize their methods; just commit it to God and just receive him. (This passage] means if you bless them, you're blessed, and if you reject them, you're
Page 12
rejected in your experience. It means that the blessing and curse of your life depends on what you do, not just with the Spirit of God, or with the word of God, but with the man of God who's sent. God mocks people who sin and won't get right as He casts them into hell. So you had better think twice before you question anything we say. There's years of Scripture behind our thoughts, even if they appear to be different (emphasis ours).

The parallel between Moses and the New Testament leader is again drawn in He Shall Be for You in God's Stead, and Stevens again acknowledges that this parallel is not commonly recognized by orthodox churches. "I think so many people have been reared up because of their ecclesiastical fears and they have missed the point of God's true government in the order of love. Did you ever realize that a man comes instead of God and takes literally God's place as far as what he says...?" (emphasis ours) Later in this message, using Exodus 4:16 as a base, Stevens goes out of his way to expound upon the power that the man of God has with God as well as with men, and makes certain that no one assumes that Moses alone wielded such authority.

[In this portion of his sermon Stevens is relating what God might have said to Moseshttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif "...(Aaron) shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to rim instead of God. Moses, you will take My place over Miriam. She has no right to ever criticize you one single time. And if she does, she will have leprosy. If I want to give you permission to marry a black lady, that's My business. It's none of Miriam's. And if I want to say it, that's my privilege. And Moses, I am going to put you ahead of an entire nation, and you are going to take My literal place. And when you ask Me something, I'll do it, and if you ask Me to change My mind, I'll do it. I'm investing heaven in your mouth." ["God" is now finished speaking, and Carl Stevens resumes). And you better believe it that the Christian church hasn't faced that. And they say, "That's Moses." Is that right? Well, that's from the pit of hell. You say, "Is anyone supposed to take God's-place?" You just bet God has ordained His servant to be in His place using his mouth because He works through men revealing Himself. What if they get off? ... [i.e., deviate from sound doctrine and practice). You can be sure as long as they are around ti.e., God hasn't judged them with death) God likes them" (emphasis ours).
Page 13
It would be easy to infer what this kind of teaching could lead to, but Stevens saves us the trouble by spelling it out himself: "For example, if I said tonight that the ministry here in South Berwick needs S30,000, I want six of you to raise it, that 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 Jesus Christ's place" (emphasis ours).

How did Stevens reply to the believer who had difficulties with such a radical view of church leadership? Our last quote from He Shall Be for You in God's Stead gives us some indication. "[You say] 'Well, I question that kind of a ministry....' I question if you are saved. I question if you are saved. That is as clear as salvation is."

Stevens and other Bible Speaks" representatives have often stated that the above messages, when considered in isolation, appear extreme, but when viewed in the larger context of the overall teaching that was delivered during the mid-seventies a balance is achieved. However, it seems clear to us that such radical claims and intimidating warnings as those quoted above would inevitably have a pronounced psychological impact upon impressionable young believers, regardless of how different the content and tone of other messages may have been. And, in contrast to claims that relatively-few references to authority were actually made during that period, we must point. out that the concepts of "delegated authority" were presented on 72 distinct occasions in the monthly devotional The Bible Speaks From the Throne (the content of which was taken from Stevens' sermons) between September, 1975 and December, 1978.

We must emphasize that we do not mean to imply that such messages as those represented above (with their heavy emphasis on "delegated authority") continue to be delivered by Carl Stevens today. Our purpose for citing them is rather to demonstrate the extent to which Stevens' teaching on authority was developed in the 1970s, so that the reader can appreciate the far-reaching impact that they had within the ministry. Once one grasps the reality of how deeply these teachings affected a large proportion of TBS membership, it should be easier for him to understand why we believe sufficient action has not been taken to counter the unhealthy psychospiritual situation that they helped to estab­lish.

Leon Libby recalls:

The experience of liquid waves of love and promise of anointing upon every message was one of the beginning things that caused a major problem. He believed that everything he said was anointed. People around the campus would say: "Did you go
Page 14
to service last night?" If you said "No," it was understood that you missed what God had for the hour. "Did you go to rap session?" "No." "Whoa, you missed what God had!"
Because they believed every message he preached was anointed, Stevens' followers uncritically accepted these "delegated authority" teachings. By instilling these concepts of leadership into the ministry, Stevens strongly reinforced the blind devotion that the supposed promise of anointing on every message had already procured for him.
Accompanying (and perhaps giving rise to) Stevens' authority teachings was an acute insistence upon absolute loyalty, and an obsessive concern over whether various people within the ministry would remain faithful to him. Former leaders Bob Olivadoti and Ed Mosher recall: "Three or four times while we were in The Bible Speaks, Stevens had services where you would go up to the back of the church and speak into a tape recorder or sign some­thing that said 'I will never go against Pastor Carl Stevens and The Bible Speaks.' At least once it was notarized."

Jim Heinz, pastor of Grace Bible Church in Lake Elsinore, California (which, until mid-1982, was a Bible Speaks branch ministry), participated in the same procedure.

I remember when they had these tape recorders lined up in the back of the church. And because the commitment Stevens wanted everybody to make was so long, you didn't say what it was you were committing yourself to. You just said: "I agree with what was said on Oct. 27, 1979, and I support it totally," and you'd give your name and address.

This was done to show your loyalty to The Bible Speaks, and to say that you wouldn't be deceived by the devil. You were making a pact with God that you would go all the way with Him, and the way to go all the way with God is to go all the way with The Bible Speaks ministry. That's what Carl Stevens said. But then he also says, "I didn't want all this devotion. What can you expect when a guy makes such an investment in people's lives? Naturally, they're going to love him."

Carl Stevens demanded unreserved dedication from TBS mem­bership, and hundreds of them complied. Some acted out their devotion so zealously that an increasing number within the evangelical community began to view The Bible Speaks as an aberrant group.
Page 15
When the leadership of a ministry is depicted as taking "literally God's place as far as what he says," and the people are warned that they had "better not criticize their methods," lest they be rejected by God in their "experience," the possi­bilities for abuses of power to occur are maximized. Some of these possibilities, unfortunately, have been realized in the case of The Bible Speaks.

To cite the names and stories of a long list of people who claim that certain TBS leaders manipulated or took advantage of them would be too painful for everyone concerned (except for those with vindictive feelings, and they must release such feelings to God). Perhaps the most discreet means by which we can impart some understanding of the questionable manner in which TBS authority has often been wielded is to refer to the ordeal of one conscientious pastor in the late 1970s.

Mark Bell was one of the Bible Speaks leaders who gave us hope for the ministry. We were made aware of one occasion in which he rebuked a member of his congregation who was proclaiming what a blessing it is to receive the flow of Stevens' anointing through the authorities he delegates. At another time, George Mather pointedly asked Bell and an intern pastor: "If you found out that what Stevens is teaching contradicts Jesus Christ and the Bible, would you still follow it?" The intern, answering first, replied: "I would still. follow Pastor Stevens because he has helped me." Then Bell, hesitating for a moment, responded: "No, I couldn't follow him if he contradicted Jesus and the Bible." (In August, 1981, after concluding that Stevens was in conflict with Scripture, Bell did in fact resign from the organization). He recalls:

In the early days of the Brockton church we were meeting in a basement with about 40 or 50 people. There were some families in the church who gave money so we could build a church. One man gave $5,000. So Lenox (where TBS headquarters was by that time located heard about that, and John Palmer (who was in charge of finances] called us and asked us to give the $5,000 to Lenox. And Bobby [Olivadoti] and Leon [Libby] came asking us to give to Lenox. About a year later another man wanted to give S1,000 to Brockton, and John Palmer said: "No, Lenox needs it." The, branch minis­tries were becoming just another way to get money into home base. There was no consideration for the branch ministries. Jeannie Monahan, a widow in our church, gave all her money and others in that area gave money. I felt like I was forced to stay there to maintain a little Bible study in a superficial way just so the ministry could save
Page 16
face -- so we would not be accused of going into an area, taking money from people, and then leaving. That's the way I felt for a long time there, and I couldn't get out of it. It came to the point where we were just defending The Bible Speaks. We were trying to protect and cover The Bible Speaks by maintaining good testimonies in the branch ministries. But the headquarters continued to be irresponsible. After a while you felt betrayed.

Once the concepts of "delegated authority" and "the end justifies the means" were planted in a number of minds, it was only a matter of time before they would blossom into full-blown controversy. The Bible Speaks became a subject for media exposes in New England and elsewhere, especially after the mass suicide by Peoples Temple members in Jonestown, Guyana. Evangelical churches and organizations often shunned TBS, because they'd had bad experiences with TBS members, received reports of question­able doctrines or activities, or heard that Christian radio personalities and counter-cult groups were investigating TBS and classifying them a "Christian cult."

In the late 1970s, membership was still growing, but so was the controversy, and The Bible Speaks found themselves at a turning point -- an identity crisis of sorts. The leadership of the ministry would have to determine the answer to questions that many Christians outside of the organization were also asking. Would the new sect persist in its unorthodox ways, become increasingly alienated from evangelical Christianity, and take its place among the many cults and aberrations groups who have their roots in orthodox Christianity? Or would it identify the areas of its teaching and practice that were creating hindrances for its ministry, re-evaluate them from a biblical standpoint, and take the necessary steps to firmly realign itself with historic Christianity?

There were other issues besides doctrine and image at stake in this crisis. Leon Libby related to this writer: "At a dinner table four or five years ago with Pastor Stevens, a few other people, and myself, Alan Emery* warned Pastor Stevens that one of the things the devil would try to do was take away his character. These were seasoned men. They'd been with Billy Graham for 30 years, and they knew what they were talking about." Similar exhortations were given to Stevens and other representatives of TBS by Walter Martin and CRI, after they invited us to dialogue


*Emery is Chairman of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's Board of Directors, and has served as a member of the Board for over 20 years.
Page 17
with them. It was obvious that at least some of them were really listening to us, and desired to plant the ministry more firmly on biblical ground.


The Bible Speaks in the Early 1980s

The dialogue, though arduous for both sides, appeared to be fruitful. At least partly as a result of our input, the teach­ings on Stevens' apostleship and anointing were suspended, and on at least a few occasions Stevens encouraged the congregation to test everything, including his own teaching, by Scripture. The Bible Speaks Goes on Record was written and sent to branch pastors, and some positive structural changes were made (an advisory committee was formed for The Bible Speaks World Outreach, Carl Stevens resigned from the presidency of the Bible school, and steps were taken toward making the school independent of the church -- though the process was never completed). In the interest of a fair and accurate report, we include the following
statements, made by Gene Hollick:

When Donn Norton and I came to Lenox we formed with Stevens' consent -- for the ministry, not the school, -- a management committee, and I must say that the committee made the decisions, many times in direct opposition to his opinion. He would argue his position, but he never overruled them. And he was in a position to, because they really didn't have any authority other than what he gave them after he appointed them. Some of the decisions we made were very difficult for him. He opposed our decisions, but he submitted to them. The board made administrative decisions, and did not dictate the content of the ministry's teaching or preaching.

He appointed me president of the college and at no time in the entire time I was there did he ever tell me what to do or how to run the school. The only time that he and I ever had any kind of disagreement on a school matter was over whether we should continue to support Steve Quinlan on a leave of absence. Steve worked for both The Bible Speaks and the school. The separation of the school and church had not taken place legally, and he overruled me in order to discontinue Steve's salary.
Page 18
In the wake of these positive steps, CRI asked other cult research ministries to refrain from drawing essentially negative conclusions, and making such conclusions public, until we all had time to see if the changes in TBS were sufficiently consistent and deep.

The Bible Speaks Goes on Record was written by Bob Olivadoti (who was the head of TBS' Public Relations Department) and Steve Quinlan (pastor and prominent teacher in the Bible school), with some help from Ed Mosher (pastor and assistant to Olivadoti in public relations work). They reviewed the important points of the statement with Carl Stevens, and he approved it for distri­bution. After CRI's two reports were published, Olivadoti, Quinlan, and others who had been involved in dialogue with us were excited about the positive effect they felt both our commendations and criticisms could have for the ministry. When they discussed the reports with Stevens they were surprised by his reaction. He seemed to perceive our analysis in the worst possible light, only seeing the negatives, and resenting the criticism. At that point it became apparent to those who were working for change that Stevens was not as supportive of their position as they had hoped; they began to suspect that the primary reason he agreed to the doctrinal statement and the changes was merely to improve TBS' public image and relations.

In the meantime, there were other leaders in the ministry who left no question about their position on the changes. As Gene Hollick relates it: "John Palmer (pastor of the Wilmington, Massachusetts Bible Speaks) was adamant that he was a very strong supporter of the "delegated authority" position. He worked very diligently to convince Dr. Stevens that he was making a serious error to make any change in that position. And Mike Graves [TBS pastor who at that time was in charge of the Johnston, Rhode Island branch ministry] was, too." Mark Bell recalls: "Before I left, Graves was talking about 'the old Bible Speaks' and 'the new Bible Speaks,' and never the two shall meet. The 'old Bible Speaks' are the hard-core people who believe in Stevens' apostleship, and the 'new Bible Speaks' are the people who are trying to modify things and make the ministry more professional."

While the old ideas were clearly entrenched in some corners, it so happened that The Bible Speaks leaders who represented the ministry to us had been personally struggling with the issue of "delegated authority" before CRI came into the picture. Because we did not take an antagonistic position toward TBS, they were able to listen to our constructive criticisms, which furthered their own understanding of biblical concepts of leadership. The dialogue also confirmed to them that certain things they'd been feeling were correct. Bob Olivadoti and Ed Mosher commented:
Page 19

We were thinking about these, kinds of things before we bumped into CRI. That's why I thought it was a godsend when you guys came on the scene, because we needed an objective opinion of The Bible Speaks that we couldn't get. We'd be going to God and repenting for these kinds of ideas and saying, to Pastor: "Please forgive us for having these bad thoughts about you and the ministry," when all the time it was God the Holy Spirit trying to set us free.
These were the "new Bible Speaks" people that Graves spoke of. They were not simply striving to make the ministry more "professional," they were striving to make it more biblical.

One of the major challenges that Walter Martin and CRI brought to TBS in our dialogue was: "Do you want the gospel to be advanced in your ministry without hindrance? If you do, then these are the things you'll have to change...." That challenge was accepted by everyone with whom we dialogued, except, perhaps, Carl Stevens. All of them have left the ministry now but him.

Leon Libby told us: "Bobby and I, Marty and Steve thought, 'These are some of the things that will help the ministry to grow.' But they were looked upon as an infringement upon authority." After a while it became-known that the people with whom we were primarily dealing were being criticized behind their backs because they were in agreement with our analysis of the ministry. Though good has definitely come out of it, the negotiation failed to accomplish the purpose for which it was initiated. The reason for this becomes apparent when we realize that the ones appointed to represent the organization were not really of one mind with the one who controls it (though he appointed them).

Leon Libby observes:

Everything was OK as long as you didn't oppose Stevens in any decision-making process that he wanted. I felt like, "What am I doing here?" We come up with ideas that maybe will help the ministry grow, give it a better image (in the image of Christ). We find men that are willing to help. (Alan Emery said, "I'll come up and really help you with your finances" -- that is, not with donations, but administratively. And we said: "Let him have it. Turn it over to him. He has done a good job for Billy Graham." But the response was negative.) And finally it reached a point where you say: "Then what am I here for? If nobody is listening to my ideas, and yet I'm
Page 20
supposed to he bringing in ideas for the develop­ment of the ministry, then my being here is a farce."

Bob Olivadoti explains why he resigned: "I felt that the Lord had brought Dr. Martin and Christian Research Institute into our pathway to help us reform some of our theology, especially in the areas of the exaltation of Carl Stevens and the principles of 'delegated authority.' When I found that Carl Stevens was in disagreement with what I and many other believers felt was a biblical approach to authority in the church, then I felt that it was time for me to leave."

Seven months after The Bible Speaks Goes on Record was published, we received a letter from Terry Josselyn, who identified himself as a Stevens School of the Bible graduate and TBS staff employee in Lenox (we'd had no previous contact with him). He wrote: "The same tendencies appear now as were spoken of in your report, and have continued after the publication of The Bible Speaks Goes on Record and the repentance tape A New Beginning (see p. 57]. The changes are there, but it seems to me to be just another layer of covering instead of a humble and contrite heart of repentance. Surely it suggests error in the past, but because I am close to the people I see it as no change at all." In Steve Quinlan's view: "He rubber-stamped the doctrinal statement and was willing to have it published, I believe, because he recognized that it would have a positive effect as far as CRI was concerned. But I don't believe that his attitude toward himself and his peculiar calling from God was changed in the least."

Since "delegated authority" is no longer taught from the pulpit, a natural question is whether the old ideas are still being communicated through a different means. Mark Bell makes this observation, based upon his-experience in Massachusetts up to August, 1981:

From the pulpit he would say, "I don't believe in delegated authority." Then he would have a group around him at a coffee shop and he would stress his importance as a unique and exceptional leader. He would try to bolster our faith in him as a great prophet by arguing that seemingly unful­filled prophecies that he had given in the 1970s were in fact coming to pass.

He personally disciples people, and if you really want to be with it in The Bible Speaks, you have to be around him. He will go out for coffee and maybe 50 people will follow him. They'll have a rap session and he will do almost all of the
Page 21
talking. He also has rap sessions after services. In these sessions he is able to get his ideas across.

Even though he changed outwardly, the control that he exerted over people was still present. I remember once before a meeting a few of us went out with Stevens and he began talking about how the people close to him were "off." He mentioned how Steve Quinlan was off, and how Mike Graves was off, and how Bobby Olivadoti was thinking this way. It was an example, I think, of a control that he felt that he had as God's man over these people. In other words, he could think anything that he wanted about them in the name of discern­ing their spirits, to try to manipulate them back, or to have people side with him against them.

Olivadoti, and particularly Quinlan, were challenging him a lot the past year before I left. Rap sessions would he centered around gaining people on his side against them. He would ask "Who has an intellectual spirit? Intellectual spirits are like this: they challenge authority, they don't submit to God or God's man." People there would immediately think, "He must be talking about Quinlan,' or so-and-so." The rap sessions and messages would be geared around the games he was playing with people. People that didn't understand that would come and maybe be blessed by it, or not see anything wrong with it, but there was a whole other level to what he was referring to.

Jim Heinz observes: "Stevens doesn't have to preach it to the new people that are coming in, because now those ideas can be passed on by the teachings and attitudes of those to whom he preached it before, who now have positions in the ministry." Mario Maston, who served as Dean of Students at the Stevens School of the Bible in Lenox until as recently as the summer of 1982, relates: "There are people that still hold the old views very strongly. It's quite evident. Where it tends to come out is in conversations around coffee where certain people in the leadership of the organization are together. That's where it tends to become more apparent than from the pulpit these days."

Leon Libby had this encounter with Stevens during one of these informal gatherings: "The last confirmation to me that I was supposed to leave happened when my wife and I were sitting in the restaurant in Lenox, and Pastor Stevens came in with a bunch of people. I had told him I was moving to Maine at the time. He

Page 22

gave me this rousing, 20-minute sermon on how people who move to Maine are going back to Egypt, and there will be earthquakes there and all these kinds of things."

Mark Bower, assistant pastor to Jim Heinz in Lake Elsinore, pinpoints what we consider to be one of the most serious shortcomings in The Bible Speaks' efforts to change:

What I have found is that there has been a definite outward change in many of the aspects of the ministry. But when it comes down to really dealing with problems, it's no different. Instead of Stevens saying: "Yes, I was wrong, and this and this is true," he won't admit that anything was wrong.

A sister told me: "He's repented. How can you question his heart?" I said: "I question it because I never, as a pastor, nor any other pastor, got a letter saying: 'This is what I've repented of. These are the teachings that were wrong. This is what we're doing to change them and make things right.' We never got anything."

I always felt it was the kind of thing where you couldn't just say nothing and then start teaching what you thought was right. You would have to come before the people and say: "This was wrong. Not only was there misunderstanding of what we meant; what we meant was not right."

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.

While some important steps were taken toward correcting problem areas in the ministry's teaching and operation, these steps were not adequate to resolve the internal turmoil and public relations problems that The Bible Speaks had been suffering from for some time. A major reason for this was because the previous emphasis upon Stevens' unique anointing and "delegated authority" was never openly repented of and repudiated as unbiblical. Thus, this made it inevitable that many of those

Page 23
who had been heavily indoctrinated with these concepts (including some of the pastors) would continue to believe and act according to them, which in turn could only result in further abuses and controversy. Additionally, though Stevens toned down his teach­ing and appointed an advisory committee, he often continued to wield his authority as though he was still operating from the principles of "delegated authority" and an unchallengeable anointing (specific instances of this will be cited later). The result of all this was that we received nearly as many complaints about TBS from people around the country after the release of The Bible Speaks Goes on Record as we did prior to its publication.

After becoming besieged with calls accusing TBS of infidel­ity to their doctrinal statement, we withheld our reports from distribution, compiled a list of the charges (with supporting testimony) that people were making against TBS, and forwarded the list to TBS for their response. By this time Bob Olivadoti had resigned from his position, and Chuck Carter, who had formerly been editor of the ministry's magazine, Crossroads, was now representing TBS as Director of Public Relations. We were pleased to discover that Carter was candid and conscientious in his dealings with us. He recognized the problems in TBS' past authority, emphasis, and he wanted the ministry to be worthy of the better public image he was working to secure for it.

Throughout 1981 Chuck Carter, Steve Quinlan, and a number of others in Lenox were working hard to establish more biblical concepts of leadership as official positions within The Bible Speaks. Steve Quinlan in particular was teaching concepts of church leadership from the pulpit and in the Bible school which were similar to those presented by Larry Richards and Clyde Hodke in A Theology of Church Leadership. To such teaching certain people around Stevens reportedly responded: "No, pastor, that's not true. You're God's man." Unfortunately, two camps began to take clear form in Lenox, with those who supported the efforts of Quinlan and Carter in the minority. At CRI we determined that we would refrain from taking a position on TBS until it was clear which doctrine of leadership would prevail.

For a while it appeared uncertain which side of the fence Stevens was on. Then we began to receive reports that "There has been much preaching from the pulpit against those who 'challenge authority.'"

One of the charges included in the list that we forwarded to Lenox was "The doctrine of 'delegated authority' as expressed in the message What it Means to Be Baptized Unto a man is still in force, though it is not taught from the pulpit." In Carter's original reply to this charge (which Stevens changed before it was sent to us -- Carter later sent us the original) he wrote:

Page 24
I had been prepared to answer this charge with the observation that change is taking place which supports our position taken in TBS Goes on Record. However, on August 5, 1981 Pastor Stevens preached a very forceful message which seemed to reinstate the basic delegated authority position. In the message he stated that the branch ministry pastors are united behind him and want a return to the old ways and old teachings. He stressed the impor­tance of oneness and loyalty, saying (seemingly) that only faculty members who were "one" with him, loyal to him and in accord with his views and teachings would be allowed to teach in the fall.*
A hard-line position such as this tends to substantiate the charge. Furthermore, it renders useless (or seems to) the labors of CRI and the internal efforts for change by Olivadoti, Libby, Lemaster, Huff, Mosher, puinlan, Hollick, and Carter. It seems consistent with the trend in the
messages of late to be hard-line, and to stead­fastly resist change.
Chuck Carter related to this writer an experience he had during this period:

One Saturday morning I got a call into the office from Bruce Stevens (Carl Stevens' oldest son). He and Mario Maston and Carl Stevens wanted to talk to me. This was maybe a month after I had done my version of the report to you, which Stevens changed. Stevens called me into the office and said: "Well, I guess this had to happen sooner or later. I'd like you to write a letter to Walter
Martin telling him that we have changed on delegated authority. I have no problem with you differing with what I preached in the past, but it's obvious that there is no problem with delegated authority now. Will you write a letter?" I said, "Well, I'll write a letter, but you won't like what it says, because I'll have to tell him that there are still problems, and that delegated authority is still being preached." At this he launched into a session of yelling at me
*In fact, no such action was taken that fall. However, all of the faculty members who opposed the old views had left on their own accord by the following spring semester.

Page 25
and saying "You've got to repent. Jim Hoppe* said 'There's got to be repentance' and by God there will be," and he just ripped into me. He didn't seem to understand that two weeks before or so, Bob White, a branch pastor from Vermont, got up in the service and said, "I don't know why these people have problems with delegated authority. I love delegated authority. I love the power that it gives me," and the whole place went nuts. Everybody was clapping. And Carl Stevens just smiles and shakes the guy's hand. To me that was a blatant acceptance of the "delegated authority" position, and admission of his belief in it. Two weeks later he says, "There are no problems with delegated authority," and he specifically told me I was deceived for believing there were. These kinds of things characterized what was going on then.

Steve Quinlan relates some of his experiences in the fall of the last semester that I was in Lenox I taught hermeneutics at the Bible school there, and I used Bernard Ramm's Principles of Biblical Interpreta­tion as a text, and I taught a very conservative approach to interpretation, the grammatical-­historical approach.

In the course of teaching that, we came across all kinds of examples of bad interpretation that Ramm pointed out in his text that we could clearly see were going on in the ministry. This put me in a rather difficult position, because the class would say, "Well, Carl Stevens says this, and why is it that the text says that?" And I would have to answer them honestly and say, "Well, in this area I believe Carl Stevens is mistaken."

Then we had a barrage from the pulpit of innuendoes and indirect accusations (there were never any names singled out, that's not his style). But it was clear that it was directed my way. Stevens went on week after week about "intellectualism," and how there is such a dearth of spirituality in intellectual circles, and how it's intellectual pride to talk about these things.
*A Bible Speaks pastor and International Field Secretary.

Page 26

I confronted him directly on this privately in his office and said: "Are you talking about me when you talk about intellectual pride?" And of course he denied that and said he was talking about principles. This is the out that he always uses, but I know that he was referring to me and so did everybody on campus. People's attitudes toward me changed. I could see that where before they had been responsive to my teaching, now they were skeptical. It was clear that camps were being formed. People who were responding positively to my teaching felt they were being divided from the main fellowship. That was another reason why I left. I didn't want to be the cause of a church split.

Quinlan recalls an event which signaled the defeat of those who were striving to establish a radically new concept of leadership within the organization.

One of my primary concerns was that Carl Stevens needed to make a public statement to the effect that the doctrines on authority that had been taught were wrong, and now, not only did we need to acknowledge that they were wrong, we needed to unteach them, to re-educate our people in right doctrine. But he refused to make any effort to do that.

At one point we reached an agreement in which on a date that we had set we would meet on the platform in Lenox during a service, and we would both make a public statement. I was going to say that in certain areas I had been extreme in my criticism, not in the content of my criticism, but in the attitude that I had. (I didn't feel that that was altogether true, but I did feel that I could have been more charitable in certain instances, so I was willing to make that concession.) In return for that statement, he was going to make a statement that he had been wrong in these areas, that we needed to be re-educated in these areas, and that he was willing for that re-education to begin. We also planned to announce that he was going to take a year's leave of absence, and I was going to take a sabbatical to pursue my education.

I went to the pulpit and met him on the platform expecting to do that thing, and he leaned over to me and said: "I'm not going to do it tonight. I've talked with a lawyer who told me I'd be

Page 27
liable to lawsuit if I did such a thing, and so I'm not going to do it."
These were the last words that Carl Stevens ever said to me. I was there for two more weeks and he never spoke to me again. When I left he never said goodbye; not a note or anything.

In Gene Hollick's view, Stevens' decision against a clearcut change of position on the authority issue was influenced by branch pastors who favored the old views. After the agreement to make a joint statement with Quinlan was made (in Hollick's presence), Stevens decided to leave for a few days.
He told me that he was going to try to determine exactly how he was going to proceed and how he was going to initiate that thing. He was concerned about what effect it was going to have.

Now, when Walter Martin was there, he told Dr. Stevens the difficulty in making the changes would not primarily be with his congregation or with newcomers, but with his branch pastors. And that's exactly where it was. He was fine until they got together with him. I was not privileged to those meetings, but I am positive that his change of mind happened as a result of their influence.

After Dr. Stevens decided against making his announcement John Palmer and Mike Graves were present in a meeting with Dr. Stevens and me in which they were declaring that the faculty was teaching false doctrine, etc., etc. It was obvious to me at that point-that these two, and possibly certain others, had influenced Carl in his direction. The things they said at that meeting, by innuendo, made this clear. They came off as though I was trying to drive Carl off (which, incidentally, was not the case), and they were there to let me know that there had been no false doctrine taught in the past; there was nothing wrong with the teaching of "delegated authority." John Palmer made a statement about the "extreme value" of this teaching, and on and on he went.

Concerned about the consequences the ministry would suffer from Stevens' decision, Rollick sought to reason with him directly.

Page 28
Because it was such a sensitive issue, I took a typewriter home and did the typing and so forth so that it would not be something exposed to anybody, and wrote the letter privately to Dr. Stevens. Instead of treating it that way, before discussing it with me, he had one of the branch pastors read it in his apartment to some 30 people, some of whom were students and a couple of whom were elders in the church.
Then I got a call saying the elders wanted to talk to me, and I said, "Fine." (There wasn't anything unusual about that.) So I asked Dr. Stevens what they wanted, and he said: "Oh, they just want to talk to you." And in the process of talking to me he said something about getting the letter, and I said: "You don't mean they want to talk to me about that," and he said "No, they just want to talk to you." The fact is, it was just a couple of the elders and several other people who were there to ask me about my letter -- they had already seen it. I had just given it to him that morning.
Our support of those who were working to thoroughly reform The Bible Speaks' theology of church leadership is not meant to imply that in every confrontation and debate these people exhibited perfect, attitudes or perfect argumentation. When strong feelings are involved, one side of a dispute will rarely be above reproach in every conceivable way (even among Chris­tians). Nonetheless, we believe that Quinlan, Carter, Hollick, and the others correctly identified the underlying cause of TBS' problems and were pressing for no more change than would be absolutely essential for the situation to be rectified. To reject what these men were attempting to accomplish on the basis of whatever human failings one may be able to detect in them is to commit the ad hominem logical fallacy -- to sidestep the real issues by shifting the focus to the personalities involved. This, unfortunately, has been a consistent tactic of many within TBS.
Steve Quinlan perceptively identifies what may he the fundamental issue at stake in this controversy:
It always has been said from the pulpit that we have to respect the word of God. But when it came right down to it, it wasn't a matter of respecting the word of God as much as it was a matter of respecting Carl Stevens' interpretation of the word of God, which often was not founded in any kind of accepted principles of interpretation.

Page 29
My primary area of concern was this unwillingness of Carl Stevens in particular to submit himself to accepted standards of scriptural interpretation. I was greatly concerned about how he handled the word of God from the pulpit, and privately in conversations. What I believe is the most dangerous and destructive aspect of The Bible Speaks (and this is why I left) is that his concept of hermeneutics [scriptural interpreta­tion] is based largely on his own subjective feelings. It appears to me that he has this idea of an anointing of the Holy Spirit, and though this idea is now verbally and officially denied, in practice he interprets Scripture from some sort of a supernatural, personal, direct revelation.

Publicly and officially this will be denied, because he's very clever and knows how to say the things that will make points with people and avoid problems by saying the accepted thing. Neverthe­less, he's not subject to the authority of the word of God; that is, he's not subject to any kind of natural, normal interpretation of the Scriptures. He's not subject to any kind of grammatical and historical interpretation of the Scriptures. He feels free to allegorize at will, apply passage's out of context, based solely upon what he feels the Holy Spirit has told him that a particular verse of Scripture means. This was the area that I felt was the most serious error in The Bible Speaks. I believe that the teaching on authority stemmed primarily from this.

He's convinced himself that he is under the authority of the word of God, but often it is his interpretation of the, word of God that he's under, not the orthodox, widely accepted, conservative interpretation of the Scriptures. He feels that he has this divine authority that is directly from God. This goes back to his Wiscasset experience in which he thought he was told that every message would be anointed. Though in recent years this idea of his personal authority and personal anointing and what for a long period amounted to a virtual infallibility for his opinions (even touching areas of sports and music) has been downplayed, the underlying conviction of his authority is still there.

He is a gifted teacher, but that gift has never been developed and cultivated other than through

Page 30
his own personal study. To my knowledge he's never been directly trained by a teacher himself. He either has very little knowledge of the principles of biblical interpretation or he has chosen not to apply those principles. From this I believe that the error flows. This is the area that Chuck Carter and I zeroed in on in the last few months that we were with The Bible Speaks. And, when I personally, along with Chuck, asked to speak with Carl Stevens (having a list of Scrip­tures I felt had been wrongly interpreted and applied from the pulpit), and he refused to see me, that was the direct event that precipitated my leaving.

When Walter Martin was in Lenox in June of 1981, Steve Quinlan and Chuck Carter sought counsel from him on how to handle the difficult situation they faced. Professor Martin advised Carter to present Carl Stevens with an internal analysis which would clearly identify the problem areas and advise specific action to correct them. If Carter's analysis and recommendations were rejected, then it would be necessary to take a new approach and bring the truth of what was going on within the organization before the concerned public.

In the analysis which he submitted to Carl Stevens, Carter did an excellent job of putting his finger right on the heart of The Bible Speaks'. problems. Before demonstrating the unbiblical
nature of the mid-seventies authority teaching, Carter wrote:
This report was made necessary because while we have taken some steps to correct the problems, we have never admitted areas in which we were wrong .... We must admit our error -- however painful this will be -- and express our intention to re-teach the ministry... I do not believe that it is enough to explain why certain things happened, as we did in the message "A New Beginning." Instead, we must face the issues, address them, and admit them as error. If we do this, I believe we will he strengthened as a ministry. I further believe that most of the problems we have had with other ministries will cease. The kind of statement I suggest in this letter is what Dr. Martin spoke about in one of our luncheons with him. It can only help us.

At the conclusion of his analysis Carter wrote: "This report was meant to consider whether or not there is any truth in the criticisms of those we have considered our adversaries. We have concluded that in many cases there were real problems, and

Page 31
that they ought to be corrected ` "trough a public statement of our error. This statement must be specific and admit error -- it cannot be general and vague."

If TBS had responded affirmatively to Carter's recommenda­tions, this report would have been written from a markedly different viewpoint. Instead, Stevens commissioned Mario Maston and Gary Labbe to write An Apologetic on the Bible Speaks' Position on Pastoral Authority, which largely sought to refute Carter's criticisms. Stevens, who stated publicly that Maston and Labbe's forthcoming report would invoke repentance from those who had been critical of his position on authority, forwarded a copy to CRI when it was completed.

At this point we will consider some excerpts from Maston and Labbe's apologetic which are representative of the argumentation the paper employs. Maston and Labbe contend:

In isolated cases, where extreme circumstances prevailed in the local church setting, the significance of rule and submission was emphasized in an attempt to correct the problems at hand.
The urgency of the situations necessitated equally urgent approaches from the pulpit which were never intended to be taken as exhaustive doctrinal statements. When removed from the surrounding circumstances; these sermons do indeed appear excessive. However, when analyzed in their proper context and their proper application, they are seen to be no more than corrective exhortations (p. 14).

In response we must first of all remind the reader that Stevens' messages on authority which we examined earlier in this report were not merely "corrective exhortations." They set forth a systematic theology of church leadership based on the assump­tion that Moses is a type for the New Testament church leader.
Jim Heinz comments:
It's said that Baptized Unto a Man was part of a series of messages to a certain group of people in Framingham, Massachusetts, who were coming out of Catholicism and rebelling, and so forth. It's not told that this was the number one message at the time; everyone was supposed to get that tape and listen to it, and if you didn't you were living in sin. So everybody got that tape. The bookstore sold out, and people got together in groups to listen to it. If they were gust dealing with one situation in Framingham, why was it the message of
Page 32
The week that every branch minister had to hear? Besides that, parts of that message were often preached in other messages.

Also, we must point out that if these messages were justified by the circumstances that surrounded them, then such "exhortations" could be delivered again, should circumstances demand it. We don't believe that even Carl Stevens would want to go on record as saying that he may one day preach these "dele­gated authority" messages again. Thus, it should be clear that the messages present faulty doctrine, and not merely exhortations precipitated by circumstances.

Maston and Labbe continue:

It has been charged that Dr. Stevens was wrong to suggest that the New Testament believer should be "baptized" unto a particular servant of God in the same sense the Israelites were baptized unto Moses. This criticism has been reinforced by references to hermeneutical rules of interpreta­tion and typology as applied to I Corinthians 10:2. The conclusion being that Moses is a type of Christ and not the New Testament leader.

Indeed this is correct exegesis and would be appropriate if the message was of an expositional nature. However, as we pointed out earlier, the message was one of a series on "baptisms" and clearly of a topical nature. There is a definite distinction between an expositional and a topical sermon. Expositional preaching is setting forth the truth of a given text. It requires the requisite exegesis of that text. A topical sermon does not concern itself primarily with exposition of a certain text but rather concerns itself with a given topic. Therefore, it does not require the same rigid exegesis of a particular passage but rather a comprehensive overview of the topic drawing from several passages. What it Means to be Baptized Unto a Man was definitely a topical message on leadership and the individual believer's need to be positively affected by God's leadership in a local assembly (p. 15).

An obvious question that arises from the above distinction is: if "Expositional preaching is setting forth the truth of a text," does that mean that the same text can be treated less truthfully in a topical sermon? As long as Stevens is preaching a "topical sermon," is he free to give a false interpretation of a scriptural passage as a proof for a doctrine on pastoral

Page 33
authority? That is precisely what he was doing, and it is precisely what Steve Quinlan was referring to on pp. 28-30. When Scripture is interpreted without proper exegesis it is stripped of its authority, for the interpreter becomes the ultimate authority. When doctrines are developed out of this method of interpretation (as the "delegated authority" doctrine was) they are almost bound to be unbiblical.

Maston and Labbe proceed to quote from an assortment of books, and state: "There are considerable numbers of Christian scholars and authors who substantiate the necessity for authority in the local church. This principle is not the result of mis­interpretation of Scripture. Rather, it is a truth clearly taught in the Word and recognized and practiced by virtually every dynamic growing church in America" (p. 17). The issue, however, is not whether there should or shouldn't be pastoral authority in the local church. Thus, it proves nothing to quote scholars and pastors who affirm the need for authority. The issue is that there have been numerous charges of abuse of authority (which has not been the case with most of the men quoted) resulting from a scripturally unsound concept of pastoral authority -- one with which almost all of the men in question would heartily disagree. (Perhaps Robert Thieme, one of those cited, would agree, but he is a more controversial teacher than Stevens himself.)

Maston and Labbe then state: "In summary, our analysis has shown that any seeming excess on the subject of authority in Dr. Stevens' teaching was in actuality, an attempt to address and rectify specific and isolated problems in the local church. when viewed in the context of these grave situations and in the bal­ance of the entirety of the respective teaching, these messages pose no real problems in terms of Scriptural accuracy and sound biblical application" (p. 18).

We find the above statement incredible. Biblically unsound teaching is never justifiable, and TBS leadership consistently refuses to own up to this fact. The messages do pose problems, because they have served as the philosophical justification for a long and widespread series of abuses which have injured scores of people -- abuses which the paper (and apparently the leadership) never acknowledges. In their defense of the old authority teachings, the writers evince a lack of ability to even recognize what the real offense is. It is not an excessive emphasis on 'authority that is the deepest problem,-but an unbiblical teaching -- a false doctrine. Rather than repudiating the old teachings as being grossly unbiblical, they instead attempt to justify them by appealing to circumstance. We hope that the reader can, by now, appreciate why we've been less than elated with Stevens'
Page 34
professed repentance; if he has repented, his repentance has not included in its scope what we consider to be a foundational problem.

We must also note that by saying contradictory things about the issues of controversy at different times to different people, Stevens has made it very difficult to pin him down. Thus he has created much confusion and many different viewpoints, depending on what an individual heard him say or has experienced with him. At the time he co-wrote the apologetic, Mario Maston was con­vinced that Stevens executed his authority in a conscientious, responsible manner. After further experience with Stevens, however, he told this writer: "A host of things I've seen over a period of 12 months forced me to come to the conclusion. that the right thing for me to do was to get out." After leaving TBS this past summer, Maston issued this statement:

I no longer endorse the organization of The Bible Speaks World Outreach nor subscribe to the defense of the aforementioned organization advanced in the paper An Apologetic on The Bible Speaks' Position On Pastoral Authority. Furthermore, I reject the assertion made in the introduction to the same paper that both the teaching and implementation of ecclesiastical authority at The Bible Speaks' headquarters in Lenox, Massachusetts is orthodox. Subsequent observations and experience in Lenox compel me to retract this statement.

Chuck Carter and Steve Quinlan represented our last effort to deal with The Bible Speaks in a dialogue framework. When their efforts broke down it became apparent to us that Stevens was not willing to respond positively to our suggestions. This conclusion was reinforced by many instances of what we consider to be breaches of good faith, some already referred to in this report (see page two) and others to he mentioned later.

With just a few exceptions the entire administration that was at Lenox during our dialogue` has left the organization over problems with the practices of the leadership. Even Carl Stevens' son Bruce, who was the likely successor to the presidency of TBS, has completely withdrawn from the ministry. One of his friends told this writer: "Bruce Stevens is highly principled. Some of the things he has seen violated what his father had taught him." Furthermore,. four branch ministries (Colchester, Essex, England; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lyman, Maine; and Lake Elsinore, California) have seceded from the organization because of the persistence of controversial ideas and practices, and others that we know of are likely to follow. Ron Kelly, pastor of the Lyman, Maine church, after seeing leadership abuses continue right into mid-1982, took the

Page 34
following action: "I wrote Pastor a letter and I told him in the letter that I really loved him, and I had for nine years, and I had never betrayed him once. But I just couldn't support him any longer with some of the things that were going on."

Mark Bell comments: "All of us that were in the organiza­tion were there because we wanted to see it be successful, we wanted to make it right if there was anything wrong in it. But he just wouldn't allow it. And so, most of those that wanted to see it become healthy left, because we felt it was hopeless. The guy wouldn't change."

How have Stevens and the remaining leaders responded to this mass exodus? Leon Libby observes:

One telltale sign that the authority trip still exists is that every time someone disagrees with the ministry people will tell him: "You've been listening to bad birds." In other words, the minute I disagree, I've been listening to had people.. That might be true of some people, but of everybody that's left? The first thing that one pastor told Ron Kelly when he decided to leave was:, "You've been listening to bad birds." Ron Kelly said: "I've been walking with the Lord for 25 years, and t feel I have some discernment. I can go to God and the word and get an answer. I don't think I've been listening to bad birds."

After resigning from The Bible Speaks, Mario Maston was subjected to an all-too-familiar phenomenon:

When people leave for conscience' sake, like my wife and I, or Bruce Stevens and his family, we have heard some of the rumors that are being floated around Lenox and elsewhere in order to rationalize the fact that we've left (which is exactly the kind of thing that was done with Bobby Olivadoti, Steve Quinlan, and a multiplicity of other people who've left). I've suddenly heard that my wife threatened to divorce me if I didn't leave, and that our marriage is on the rocks, and this kind of thing, which is completely ludicrous. It's even being said that Bruce Stevens was on the point of a physical breakdown and that's why he had to leave, and he's actually never been in better health. There's this incredible insecurity that causes Carl and certain others there to promote totally false ideas in order to ration­alize why the ministry has suffered so many setbacks.

Page 36
One of the traits that has characterized many who have remained faithful to The Bible Speaks has been a capacity to disregard an overwhelming weight of empirical evidence when it conflicts with something that Carl Stevens has told them. This in itself indicates that the old attitude of absolute loyalty to him as "God's anointed" is still heavily entrenched within the ministry. At first, Mark Bower was one such person, but even­tually he determined to find out for himself what the truth was.

I had been told (mostly by Carl Stevens himself) that every single person that I've talked to who has left The Bible Speaks is either a whoremonger, has a drinking problem, or is selling hot dogs, and so forth. I accepted it at first, because I assumed he wouldn't lie to me. Then I decided that if I'm going to make a judgment about them based on what he said, then I'd better find out what their side of the story is. And when I called them and said: "This is what Stevens said. I want you to tell me why you left The Bible Speaks," I found that a lot of the stories fit together, and made a lot of sense in light of things I had experienced.

It sometimes requires a very rude awakening to break the influence that Stevens exerts over his followers to procure absolute allegiance from them. Ron Kelly relates:

He has a knack of conducting his conversation and his conduct according to the people that he's with. There were a lot of things that some of the other fellows heard in private conversations that I never did. If I had, I would have been quite offended a long time ago.

You're conditioned to shut off your mind an awful lot by teachings to not judge by sight, to receive through God's man, and to "not touch God's anointed." You're so conditioned to receive things from the pulpit it helps you to put into a closet somewhere in your mind warning signals and things you've seen that aren't right. You just ignore it. But when our people were refused the opportunity of being counselors for Billy Graham it was used by the Lord to get me to start thinking.

There were some other things that lingered in my mind and spirit, that really hurt me, that I couldn't justify -- attacks on some of the men
Page 37
that had left. Pastor made statements like: "I have files of information on different indi­viduals." I couldn't understand how he could hold that kind of philosophy, because he'd never taught me that. But those were things that were said in personal conversations. I'd never heard anything like that from the pulpit. I knew what God did with our sin and I couldn't understand why he wanted to retain the information himself. I do now, but I didn't then.

The Lord began to speak to my heart and I just couldn't stand it. I knew how Jack Daley had been manipulated to get his money, and some of the things that had happened with some of the widows, and it just began to bother me. I couldn't support it. I had to get out.

Although Stevens has modified his public position on church leadership, the manner in which he conducts himself as a leader has changed little. As Mark Bell observes: "There has been a consistent mentality through all these years. People that challenge him on anything are depicted as conspiratorial against his authority, and no one's supposed to listen to them it sometimes reached the point where if you just questioned things he said, or if you just treated him like a normal person, then you were not honoring the anointed of God."

In spite of Stevens' insistence that he is not authoritar­ian, when the claim is put to the test by someone who is in a position to do so, an unyieldingly authoritarian attitude is often encountered. Consider the efforts of Steve Quinlan, who, as a gifted Bible teacher and budding theologian, was certainly capable of offering Stevens useful information and constructive criticism.

My experience has been that there has never been an opportunity to sit down with Carl Stevens and have a frank, mature discussion of any theological issues, including church leadership. It's always: you present your case, he smiles and nods, and then afterwards he reacts against you to others. There is never any kind of simple exchange of ideas. I tried on numerous occasions and *it just didn't happen. There's no reasoning, or talking, or even debating with the man.

If you had anything to say that disagreed with his position, then you were always perceived as attacking him, and you weren't "one" with his spirit, or his anointing, or the body, or some

Page 38

such nonsense as that. There was never any opportunity for a free exchange of ideas, so there was really nothing that could be done.
The bottom line, as we see it, is that the only ones who can permanently carry on a successful relationship with Carl Stevens are those who would follow him no matter what he does and no matter where he leads them (and there are many who profess exactly that commitment). Stevens' underlying conviction of his unique anointing will ultimately defile his relationships with those who are striving to be governed first and foremost by biblical authority.
Quinlan identifies what we surmise is likely the case: "I can't get inside the guy's head, but in my opinion he's never changed his attitude toward leadership. He believes that he is anointed of God with a special ministry, a special vision, a special purpose in life, and anybody who doesn't see that is deluded, and therefore suspect. If they ever publicly say anything about not understanding him or agreeing with him, then they are his enemies."
To what extent is excessive devotion to Carl Stevens present in The Bible Speaks of the 1980s? In Mark Bell's estimation:
I think that maybe 20% of the people in Lenox and in the rest of the organization are the die-hards who would submit 100% to what Stevens says.
Probably another 50% would agree with the general idea that he's a prophet of God, getting things from God, and we should submit to what he says.
Then there's another group on the fringes who are sincere Christians who haven't been exposed to some of the things that he's taught, and they're just there because of the Bible school, disciple­ship, or evangelism. That's why it's so difficult to distinguish what is right and what is wrong, because there's a lot of soul-winning and sincere effort to win the lost. But there's all these unhealthy elements at the same time.
The Bible Speaks has established close to 30 branch ministries, the biggest of which are the churches in Finland; South Berwick, Maine; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Springfield, Massachusetts. Are the old ideas of pastoral authority present in the branch ministries? According to Mark Bower:

The tendency of the people in the New England branch ministries is to exalt Carl Stevens and believe in "delegated authority." If you went to every little branch church of The Bible Speaks in
Page 39
Maine (and there are about 10 of them there), you'll find that the majority of those people were there in South Berwick, or Scarborough, or when it was in the Ramada Inn in Portland, or even the Wiscasset church. Generally, they have not changed their thinking. They remember what they were taught before, and their pastors, when they came, just built on that foundation. So, if you go back to Maine where the ministry started, the percentage of people believing in the old author­ity ideas will be much higher than if you go to, say, Seattle, Washington, where only a minority will feel that way about Carl Stevens, and the rest will hardly know who he is. The truth of the matter is that the strength of the "delegated authority" teaching in The Bible Speaks is Carl Stevens himself. The further away you get from Carl Stevens' personality, and his hold on people, the less "delegated authority" is likely to go over. Also, when people get geographically away from Carl Stevens they have a tendency to start thinking for themselves, and that kills "delegated authority."

Our research has indicated that often, though not always, pastors who were trained with the "delegated authority" concepts will assert them when uprisings, or even legitimate concerns, cause them to feel threatened in their ministries. Many branch pastors, to varying degrees, have repeated a pattern for dealing with problems that they observed at the ministry's headquarters. Pastors will sometimes pull rank and use Scripture to manipulate dissenters into line, while the problems that prompted the dissent are often. not dealt with. When problems are dealt with, it is frequently done from the pulpit, where people are humiliated, intimidated, or made to feel guilty.

Former members Richard and Marge Wallis characterize the attitude they believe some of the leaders hold as follows: "When there is something being done wrong in the government [i.e. church leadership], either in teaching, practice, in financial matters, don't repent! Don't confess before the body. Don't deal with these things openly; just mark the people, slander them. Get everyone to believe they are deceived, then we can go on with business as usual."

The following report from Steve and Nella Bailey, former branch church members of five years' standing, is characteristic of many we've received:

After a while we felt God was telling us that if we don't agree with the ministry, we should go to

Page 40

the pastors and talk about it. Well, my husband did and Pastor Scott Robinson agreed with him that these things were handled wrongly and should be corrected. But then, in the next messages, we would be preached at as though we were wrong in questioning them. We felt 1ed to remove ourselves from the fellowship of the ministry, so we don't attend services there any more. However, the pastors are spreading more lies about us trying to discredit our testimony so people will not listen or fellowship with us. They say we are a part of a falling away from the "Body" When we talked it over with them they agreed with us, but behind our backs they say we are off "It's like they make claims that they all live in love, but in reality they don't give love if you don't agree. They make up lies against you. They talk about soul-winning and putting out tracts, but the people who are leaving the church are not loved. They are talked about and lied about.

One thing that one must always bear in mind when considering The Bible Speaks is the lack of uniformity that exists in their teaching and practice. There are some branch ministries in which the problems discussed in this respect are largely nonexistent, and where "delegated authority" an unknown concept to many of the members. However, the abuse noted in Lenox have been duplicated frequently enough in branch ministries to constitute a loose pattern, and thus make it possible for us to clear the innocent branch ministries with statement to the effect that things are different in the branch ministries than they are in Lenox. Those branch ministries which do not practice "delegated authority" must make the unpleasant choice to either sever from Lenox or bear the stigma that many people have come to associate with the name "Bible Speaks."
The influence that Carl Stevens exerts over the branch ministries is also irregular. In some it is almost non-existent; in others it is decisive. Mario Maston says: "He argues that he doesn't have exclusive control over the other churches and it's certainly true that he really doesn't have any control over a lot of them in the day-to-day administration. But there are others where he does, and there are others where the pastor is very much the authority figure in control, such as John Palmer, and he would very much look to Carl for direction."

A recurring experience has been that people will go to Carl Stevens about a particular pastor's teaching and/or practice, and Stevens will tell them that they are right, the pastor needs to be corrected. Soon thereafter, sometimes publicly, Stevens will back up that pastor and his authority, and criticize people who
Page 41
do not support him. This is the problem that we run into; it's not that Stevens will never say the right thing, it's that he may turn around and say the opposite thing the next day.

Consider the experience of Marty O'Brien:

In Maine, Bruce Brown and Peter Inchombe were very heavy "delegated authority" people. I even called Carl Stevens once and told him that it was too much, because they called him their apostle and prophet and that sort of stuff. One day I heard it on the radio and called Carl Stevens and said: "Pastor, this is too heavy. Even if you are these things," it doesn't have to be. broadcast to every­body all over the place." At the time he agreed with me, but I know now that he then talked to people behind my back and told them that I didn't really know what I was talking about. We thought policy change could happen, but I didn't realize he wasn't being honest with me. It's almost inbred now. The end justifies the means.

Steve Quinlan ran into a similar frustration:
The pastors in the branch ministries give the clearest indication that the old attitude toward authority continues. The example that I'm most familiar with is John Palmer, who is pastor of the Wilmington, Massachusetts church that I pioneered and pastored for 'five years. He took over after me. Palmer comes across in no uncertain terms about what he believes. People have actually been asked to leave the fellowship simply because they would not submit to the "delegated authority" concept.

I approached Carl Stevens about John Palmer, directly using his name, and said he was excessive in the area of "delegated authority," he's hurting the people in his church by lording it over them, he's appointed a whole group of young men as assistant pastors who for the most part are untrained and have no background. (John Palmer himself has no theological training, not even Stevens School of the Bible. But he's got this authority strictly because it's been delegated to him by Carl Stevens, and his assistants have authority because Palmer delegated it to them.) I told Carl Stevens: "It's a serious problem." He said to me: "I'm going to do something about that. I agree that John Palmer is excessive in
Page 42
authority, and I'm going to speak to him." But then absolutely nothing was ever done to bridle John Palmer's abuse of authority, and he has been publicly praised as one of the real stalwart branch pastors.

With reference to the fact that this kind of response by Stevens to "delegated authority" in the branch ministries has been repeated on several occasions, Quinlan says: "Either Carl Stevens is a coward and refuses to face anybody on issues because he's afraid they won't like him anymore, and he's just a victim of the branch pastors (which is hard to believe, because I've been in situations where he has ranted and raved and called people names; in private situations he does not hesitate to lay people out if he doesn't like what "they're doing), or, the only other alternative is that he secretly, in his heart of hearts, condones and agrees with these people."

Perhaps Stevens' failure to effectively deal with the continuance of "delegated authority" in some branch ministries is due to the fact that these same branch pastors strongly advocate an exalted view of Stevens' own authority and ministry. Bob Olivadoti says that he was present on several occasions when John Palmer stated from the pulpit (while pointing at Stevens), "I am because he is."

John Palmer is not the only branch pastor who still conducts his ministry according to the "delegated authority" philosophy. Michael Graves has been a strong supporter of the old model of authority. Mark Bell "tells us: "Just before I left the ministry Mike Graves was telling me that 'God's people have to have a king.'"

Daniel Lewis, International Field Director, branch pastor, and former Dean of Students at Stevens School of the Bible, has for years exhibited the kind of absolute loyalty that Stevens had demanded in his old "delegated authority" teachings. In April, 1981, when Mark Bell was wavering in his commitment to TBS, Lewis met with Bell in order to quiz him as to his loyalty to Stevens, and also to inquire concerning the loyalty of some of Bell's close friends. Lewis told him that one of these friends had disagreed with Stevens concerning his teaching on women. Said Lewis: "When something is said under an anointing you don't challenge it that way."

A number of branch pastors, in addition to the three cited above, have demonstrated their continuing belief in the princi­ples of "delegated authority." Although we do not wish to delve into the ugly details of some serious abuses perpetrated by

Page 43
certain branch pastors, we should note that misuse of power, not surprisingly, is almost always accompanied by advocacy of the old ideas of authority.


The Consequences of "Delegated Authority"

So that the reader will understand that it is not merely theoretical differences with The Bible Speaks that have prompted us to write this report, it is necessary that we consider now some of the effects that the "delegated authority" style of leadership has had upon people's lives. Gene Hollick told us: "My concern is what happens to people. I've counseled a good many students while I was there who were seriously affected by that teaching. I know that that teaching isn't good; it isn't right. It is in error."

We know of dozens of former committed members of TBS who have gone (and in many cases continue to go) through severe emotional problems because of the influence of the old teachings. These problems include disorientation, confusion, anger, bitter­ness, doubt about their relationships with God, and terrible guilt and fears of divine retribution for having left the ministry,' or for criticizing Stevens.

One suffering such trauma cogently observed that the emotional difficulties many go through after leaving stem from having surrendered' their individual identities to take on a group identity. Not all go through such severe psychological alter­ations, but for those who entered the ministry without sufficient psychological strength, or strength in Scripture, it was natural for them to respond to the emphasis upon authority and the "corporate body" in such a manner.

Ed Mosher declared: "I know Rom. 8:28, however the overall result of my having been in TBS [10 years] has been really bad. It's been almost two years since we left and my wife still has nightmares about the way Stevens uses his authority." While every former member does not fully share this sentiment, enough people have left TBS with a predominantly negative experience to warrant legitimate concern from the rest of the body of Christ. Patricia Saunders of Bryant Pond, Maine writes:

My family has suffered deeply from our involvement with The Bible Speaks. I'm still confused a little as to where I stand with the Lord, or if I can ever stand with Him again. Because of the fear tactics they used, I would come home from a service terrified, afraid that if I questioned the local Bible Speaks pastor's teachings God would

Page 44
know my thoughts and surely punish me for them.
My mind was kept in such a state of confusion that I couldn't think clearly. It took me a long time to get up the courage to question anything, I was so confused and wanted so much to do the right thing.

When I decided to quietly leave the ministry, I received a visit from Pastor Mark Glidden and his right-hand man, Ralph Paine. I had said nothing about the ministry -- I just prayed about it, and was led to leave. They came barnstorming into my house and proceeded to try to convince me that I was wrong and that I had been deceived. They accused me of sinning against' the Holy Spirit -­which was going to put me in Hell. As if that wasn't enough for my already confused state of mind to contend with -- if I said anything negative to anyone about the ministry, something terrible would happen to me for sure. The pastor left saying, "My Bible tells me not to even pray for people like you." My children were present in the house through all of this. Needless to say, they weren't very impressed with "God's people." Some of them haven't felt the same since, and neither have I.

A former member observes: "There has been some honest effort to correct things, but if you have been indoctrinated for 10 years you need to have what you were previously taught specifically denounced" (emphasis ours]. Had TBS taken full responsibility for the devastation created by their past mistakes, we would not have found it necessary to bring all of this information to light in this report.

Leon Libby comments on the havoc that has been wreaked in people's lives, and, the guilt that he has suffered for having played a part in it:

I know people who've given money, have nothing left, can't get a home any more because of inter­est rates, were promised a place to live in Lenox forever, and the next thing they know they're paying room and board. You can understand after a while why they're upset.

One of the things that bothers me now more than anything is the money I helped raise; to know that there was no control on it, and that people in leadership abused it; not just Carl Stevens, but Dan Lewis, who was one of the biggest abusers of

Page 45
money. At the time that I convinced my mother to give $30,000, Dan Lewis as Treasurer used the general fund to buy himself a new Bronco with a souped up engine, and then replaced that engine with another new engine, and so forth. That's why the ministry was always broke.

We feel that the core moral problem responsible for so much devastation is correctly identified by Ron Kelly as being:

...the prevalent and permeating philosophy of the end justifying the means, without that being said in so many words, but it's demonstrated in actions so much. If anyone tries to deal with Pastor, that's the way it comes out. It will always be brought out about the souls that are being won, and the growth of the ministry, and all the rest of this stuff. But that doesn't justify taking a widow's money and not providing for her, and then she has to wash bedpans in order to take care of herself.

I was even sent by Pastor Stevens to talk to a retired jeweler some time ago down in Portsmouth along the same line of getting him to sell his house and give his money to the ministry, and that the ministry would take care of him. But he never went along with it, thank God.

It's incredible how many people have given a great deal of money, and have now left: Peter and Martha Kraft, Don Prescott, the list goes on and on. Some are so devastated that they haven't even had the heart to get back into church.

Perhaps The Bible Speaks has led a number of people into church, but the organization has also driven quite a few people away from church. Patricia Saunders told this writer: "Here in the South Paris-Norway area of Maine there are a lot of good, decent people who wanted to do the right thing, and their experience with The Bible Speaks has scared them away from any type of church whatsoever. They're just going it on their own." Bob Olivadoti describes how he managed to maintain a personal relationship with the Lord in spite of the "delegated authority" teachings.

I maintained a spiritual life of some vitality because of my personal relationship with God, but you had to fight to keep it. You had to almost get rebellious. [Some friends] told me Pastor Stevens used to always come to them and say I was

Page 46
"off" because I would challenge his trip. I was "off" in his eyes when in reality I was just fighting to keep my own mind, my own opinion, and my own relationship with the Lord, which was one thing I had before I came into The Bible Speaks, and I maintained it when I left.

The people that are wasted when they come out of TBS are most often the people who didn't have a walk with the Lord when they came in. They might have been saved in there, or been a backslidden Christian and been revived in The Bible Speaks, but that's all they had, and then they come out. And they're not coming out into something they've had and maintained through it. What do they have? And let's face it, without a relationship with the Lord, if you look back over a few years and realize you were duped in something, you're going to be pretty bitter and upset, especially if you sold your house and gave $30,000, $50,000, or $100,000. There's literally dozens of people out there who've sold their homes and everything they owned.

Then, when they're broke and having a hard time making ends meet, no apologies are given. Instead they'll say: "Look, God's judging him. He's off. Look at the bad things that are happening to him." One classic example, preached from the pulpit, was that a guy said something had about The Bible Speaks and then his kid got run over by a tractor. Another guy was said to have gotten cancer of the tongue. Those were preached to 1,000 people, and he used the Scripture "Judge not lest you be judged."11
Because the kind of spirituality that has been bred at The Bible Speaks has so often tended to make people dependent on Stevens, other pastors, and the ministry, many people who leave find it extremely difficult to live the Christian life, outside of the organization. One such individual commented: "The one thing The Bible Speaks never taught me is how to live without The Bible Speaks."

Without what is termed "the preaching of the cross" (i.e. the dictating of exactly what God's will is "or body members) former members sometimes fall out of Christian fellowship, unable to function as Christians. Consequently, some people have moved across the country solely to be put back into the old framework of "discipline." As Stevens would put it, these people have not

Page 47
developed their own "verticals" (individual relationships with God) strongly enough. Although Stevens and others make statements to the effect that believers should have strong "verticals," other things they've taught have inhibited this process from occurring for many people. Mark Bower comments on the claim that there is sufficient emphasis on the "vertical" to check the emphasis on the "horizontal":

A lot of people say, "Well, that's the balance." It's the weirdest balance I've ever heard of. At one point he says to not agree with everything the pastor says is to call God's government a liar (that is, if I don't agree with everything Stevens says, it's equivalent to calling God and His program a lie). I'm supposed to believe every­thing he says, and yet I'm supposed to have my own relationship with Christ. The outcome of this was shown to me recently when this woman told me that every single person who ever came into The Bible Speaks and had a problem with The Bible Speaks was at fault, not Stevens.

If blind devotion to Stevens can reach the extent that Bower describes-above, what does it take to snap a dyed-in-the-wool follower into an objective state of mind? According to Steve
Quinlan:

What sometimes does it is they get burned. They say or do something, it gets to Carl, and it wasn't the right thing, so they either get castigated for it directly, or he runs them down to others and they hear about it. Then they realize: "Wait a minute, this is not altogether right," and that starts the ball rolling.

Ed Mosher recalls the events that produced a change in his thinking:

Carl called me up and said some things against Steve Quinlan. I let him know that I didn't agree with him, and so he became upset with me. He called Bobby Olivadoti up and said that I was untrustworthy, and he told Bobby that my secretary had written him and told him that I didn't preach the Word, and all this stuff. This conversation gave Bobby further incentive to resign, because he knew how hard I was working. Then I went to Carl and I asked him personally, "Do you trust me?", and he said, "You are my most trusted friend on the whole earth. Furthermore, I swear by the angels in heaven and God above, with my hand on

Page 48
the Bible, that I have never said one evil thing about you in my whole life." When he said that I knew he wasn't being honest with me, and it kind of popped my whole Bible Speaks bubble, and that was it for me.
Then Bobby told Steve what Carl had said about him, and Steve brought it up in conversation to Carl. And Carl called me up and said to me on the phone that he'd repented. He said "I never said that. But if I did, I repent. So now when Steve Quinlan calls you, you can tell him that I didn't say it, because I've repented from it."
The Bible Speaks has had the potential to become a significant force for evangelical Christianity in the eastern United States and throughout the world. However, because of the aberrant authority emphasis of the seventies, as well as their refusal to fully own up to past errors and correct their effects, much of the ministry's strength has been sapped; in some locali­ties, completely nullified. In the words of Leon Libby: "I see from all this how the devil gets into someone that God raises up, that has gifts and can be used, and how the devil works so hard to destroy it. It's caused a big schism in New England, there's no question about it."
A dedicated Bible Speaks member might reply to CRI: "With this report aren't you adding to the difficulties that we are already having in fulfilling our ministry?" However, in our view this report is a necessary incident in a chain of events that TBS has propelled into motion by persisting in the direction that has been chronicled in this report. The mere fact that a group preaches the Gospel does not relieve it from accountability to the rest of the body of Christ. This report is not being directed to the attention of the lost, but to those members of the body of Christ who have been directly or indirectly affected by TBS. Bible Speaks leaders have frequently misrepresented CRI as having given an unqualified endorsement of their ministry. In the meantime, the old ideas of church leadership have never been adequately denounced (and thus many members continue to believe them), certain branch pastors in good standing have been out­spoken in their advocacy of "delegated authority," and Stevens, though silent from the pulpit, has continued on several occasions to conduct his ministry as though he has a unique anointing that makes him unchallengeable.

It is our conviction that Christians who have been adversely affected by abusive leadership in TBS, as well as those who could be so affected in the future, deserve to know the truth about the extent to which change has actually taken place in the organiza­tion, and where CRI really stands on the issue. Because the

Page 49

activities of TBS leadership have an impact on the body of Christ (both within and outside of the organization), when abuses are not adequately addressed from within it becomes necessary for believers outside to become involved. This report represents the third step Jesus lays out in Matthew 18:15-17 for dealing with brethren who sin. We do not believe that one can legitimately contend that CRI failed to take the first two steps that Jesus outlines before we determined to "tell it to the church." If The Bible Speaks is unhappy with the effect that this report will have upon their ministry, then they should correct the aberra­tions that have necessitated it.


Is CRI "Outside of the Family"?

Jim Heinz told this writer: "What is now being said to discredit the report that you're going to come out with is that people went outside of the ministry, or 'outside of the family.' They brought their grievances outside of the family, and they had no business doing that. Stevens never really asked CRI to come in. It was these people who were trying to cause trouble."

First of all, we are not "outside of the family" of Christ, which is the only "family" that counts in this matter. There is nothing wrong with seeking help or arbitration from Christians outside of a particular ministry. What is blatantly unbiblical is to go outside of the body of Christ (i.e., to a court of law) to settle a dispute among Christians (I Cor. 6:1-8), which is precisely the action which Stevens and other pastors have discussed using as a threat to intimidate us from publishing this report. (TBS has warned other Christians who have been publicly critical of their ministry that they will be sued if the criticisms persist.)

Second, Stevens cannot legitimately disassociate himself from the actions of men he delegated to serve as public relations representatives for his ministry. We were contacted by his appointed spokesmen, who asked this writer to come to Lenox at their expense in order to analyze their ministry and make recommendations concerning areas that needed change. (Contrary to what is now being said by TBS representatives, TBS was not coerced by CRI into submitting to an investigation. Bob Olivadoti and Leon Libby, who initiated the dialogue, are willing to testify publicly to this effect.) During that visit I sat in Stevens' office and reviewed with him a list of problem areas I had observed, and he never said anything to indicate that he was surprised at, or did not approve of, the transaction we were engaged in. On the contrary, he responded to everything I said by either defending TBS, trying to explain why certain things had taken place in the ministry, or affirming that corrective action was being or would be taken.

Page 50
Throughout the long period of dialogue, Stevens cooperated with our requests, and often told Carter, Olivadoti, and the others what to tell us or send us. He came to San Juan Capistrano specifically to meet with Walter Martin, Howard Pepper, and me, and we tape recorded the conversation in which he agreed to go along with suggestions made by Professor Martin.

Leon Libby, who initially invited this writer to come to Lenox, told me recently: "When you were in Lenox we never told you the truth completely. Carl Stevens had me prepare tapes of carefully selected excerpts so you would hear just what we wanted you to hear. After you left, we changed nothing." Former branch pastor Rick Pietlicki was among a group of pastors who were preparing to meet with Walter Martin in Lenox during June of 1981. Pietlicki reports that as they sat around a table at the Bible Speaks' restaurant, Carl Stevens told them: "I'm not going to have this [derogatory term] coming into my ministry and telling me what to do. I'm going to preach the gospel, go into the world, and I'm going to do it my way."

On the other hand, Stevens had no qualms about using Walter Martin's name when he thought it could bolster his own position. On one occasion he told the congregation in Lenox: "You'll see what delegated authority is when Walter Martin comes out and speaks on it." (Walter Martin did come to Lenox to speak on the cults, but the reader can rest assured he was not promoting "delegated authority.")

The value of an outsider making an evaluation of a ministry is that it is much easier for him to be objective. As I told Steve Quinlan: "For me to do the report is good because I don't have any resentment or strong feelings toward Carl Stevens one way or the other. I never have. And if he would have responded positively to the things that you and Chuck were seeking to accomplish, along with Bobby and others before you, we would have been happy to serve as a real ally of The Bible Speaks, clearing things up for them." Quinlan responded: "Right. We know that. Bobby Olivadoti, Chuck Carter, and myself knew that you would have been an ally. And we could make honest statements as far as we were concerned, but we couldn't change Stevens' attitude."


Biblical Principles for Church Leadership

Before we conclude this report it is important that some consideration be given to an alternative view of pastoral author­ity to that embodied in the "delegated authority" teachings. What qualities should characterize a biblical exercise of leadership in the local church? Before we begin to answer that question we must first address a basic New Testament truth.

Page 51
In I Tim. 2:5 Paul declares: "There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." The writer to the Hebrews develops this theme at some depth. He sets forth plainly the inestimable privilege made available to the believer through the new covenant: direct access into the fellowship of God with need of no other mediator than Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:19). Under the old covenant, only one man (the high priest) could enter the holiest of holy places but one day each year, and the faithful were restricted by a sacrificial system, laws and ordinances, a temple, and the Aaronic priest­hood. The new covenant on the other hand, allows every believer confident access to the throne of grace (at any time or place), to find strength, guidance, and whatever provision he needs (Heb. 4:14-16).

Because through the new covenant the Lord puts His laws into the hearts and minds of all of His people, no one is uniquely privileged to the counsel of God (Heb. 8:10). Under the new covenant there is no need for special "anointed" individuals (like Moses) who, because of their privileged access to God, are able to express God's "thoughts" and "heartbeat" to the people. "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow-citizen, and everyone-his brother, saying 'know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest of them" (Heb. R:11).

With this important truth in view, it should be clear that successful New Testament leadership serves the important purpose of directing the people of God to the "throne of grace" where they can learn for themselves how to "receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." An effective pastor leads the flock to an increasing dependence upon the Lord, and a decreasing dependence upon himself.

An important dynamic in spiritual growth is the development of the believer's ability (through study of Scripture and prayer) to determine what the will of God is for his life in areas of conduct and guidance (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 5:R-10, 17). Scripture makes such determinations a matter of individual conscience: "Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5). If the believer is not convinced that he has the freedom to "(examine) the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things [are] so" (Acts 17:11), and, when there is a conflict of inter­ests, "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), he has not yet appropriated a direct relationship to Jesus as his high priest and spiritual head.


Intrinsic to maintaining a vital relationship to Christ as head is the believer's prerogative to follow Christ's will as it is revealed to him personally in Scripture. Though there is an important place for teachers in the body of Christ, the ultimate teacher of the Scriptures for each individual is the Holy Spirit,

Page 52

lest the role of Christ as mediator be usurped by another man. "And as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him" (I John 2:27). For this reason, authority in the local church should never come between a believer and Christ. It should never infringe upon a believer's right to follow Christ as his conscience dictates.

The Protestant Reformation began with Martin Luther testifying at the Diet at Worms: "Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments ...I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me and my conscience is bound in the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience"13(emphasis ours).

The Catholic church insisted that to question or challenge the Pope is rebellion against God, since the Pope is supposedly the Vicar of Christ, His "delegated authority." Luther saw that to accept the Pope in such a role would be to bind his conscience to the Pope, rather than Scripture. Any leader who demands unquestioning obedience on the basis of his supposed unique rela­tionship with God is reconstructing the error of Rome, and violating the foundational principle of the Protestant Reformation.

We might also point out that one of the most characteristic features of the cults is that their leaders typically assume the role of mediators between God and men, and demand unquestioning acceptance of their teachings and decisions. This absolute power (which, as the saying goes, "corrupts absolutely") has been directly responsible for the notorious trails of devastation that the cults so often leave behind them. Such systems represent the antithesis of what New Testament Christianity is all about.

Scripture certainly teaches that there is a place and need for authority in the local church. The difference between bib­lical church authority and abusive authority is that a biblical authority recognizes that the believer's first authority is Scripture, and does not seek to intimidate him from evaluating the leadership's teachings and decisions in the light of Scrip­ture. In fact, the biblical leader encourages his congregation to "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (I Thess. 5:21).

The believer, for his part (if he is truly submitted to Christ's authority through Scripture), is going to recognize from Scripture that God has appointed authorities for the local church. Out of submission to God he will also be submissive to

Page 53
those authorities that have been delegated by God, and he will not be promoting insubordination in the local assembly. However, he does not view his leaders as having absolute authority, but conditional authority, and thus he feels free to question them if they appear to be in conflict with the absolute authority that is in Scripture. (When we speak of "questioning" church authorities we are not condoning a contentious attitude, but a conscientious desire to make certain that what one is participating in is not in conflict with the will of God.)

The difficulty many TBS members have had with correctly distinguishing between the absolute authority of Scripture and the conditional authority of their leadership is due in large measure to Stevens' frequent identification of the New Testament leader with Moses. As the author of the first five books of Scripture and the giver of the law, Moses was invested with an authority over Israel that was comparable to the authority the Bible has for us today.

In the passage Stevens used as his text for What it Means to Be Baptized unto a Man (I Cor. 10:2), every scholar we have consulted takes it for granted that Paul uses Moses as a type of Christ. R.C.H. Lenski writes: "This symbolical baptism united the Israelites to Moses as God's representative to them, the Old Testament mediator in whom was foreshadowed Christ, the New Testament eternal Mediator, Deut. 18:18. The deliverance from the Egyptian bondage through Moses by this symbolical baptism through the cloud' and the sea likewise typifies our deliverance from the bondage of sin and of death through Christ by means of Christian baptism."14

Because he felt a need to substantiate that his concept of leadership ("God had different people he wants to line up with different men") is applicable in the New Testament era, Stevens has also made much of the declaration of Paul in I Cor. 11:1. In his internal analysis Chuck Carter puts Paul's imperative in proper perspective:

What about the passages in which Paul says, "Be followers of me as I follow Christ"? Careful study of the Greek shows that the word translated as "follow" means follow my example, not follow me exclusively as a leader. If this were his intent, he would have been contradicting his own dictates against divisiveness earlier in the book where he says, "Some of you say, I am of Paul, I am of Peter, I am of Apollos, and I am of Christ." Could we not say the same thing in our case -­that we have been divisive by saying "we are of Stevens"? This passage cannot be interpreted as
supporting the delegated authority teaching -- or

Page 54
to ridicule people who say "I'll follow Christ, not a person or a man." But Pastor Stevens con­sistently interprets it in this way, and did so as recently as late May, 1981. [Carter concludes]... to say "I am of this man"...is to cause division.

Michael Graves' affirmation that "God's people have to have a king" (which was stated in defense of the "old Bible Speaks" view of authority) reveals a sentiment which is in direct conflict with the attitude the New Testament requires of all who would lead. "But Jesus called (His disciples) to Himself, and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall he your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many'" (Matt. 20:25-28). To this we can add the words of Peter: "Therefore, I exhort the elders among you...shepherd the flock of God among you, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock" (I Pet. 5:1-3; see also II Cor. 1:24).

There is no question that Scripture grants the New Testament leader authority in terms of directing church affairs, maintain­ing sound doctrine, correcting those who sin, and taking disciplinary action if these refuse to repent (Heb. 13:17; Rom. 16:17; Tit. 2:15; II Thess. 3:6,14,15). However, the keynote of Jesus and the Apostles' teaching on New Testament leadership is clear: the pastoral ministry is to be marked by a servant's attitude and exemplary character, not by an emphasis on authority and submission. An emphasis on the latter will tend to diminish the fruition of the former, for it will intimidate those under the leader's charge and make him unaccountable.

Where there is no accountability, a leader can rationalize that some questionable thing he is becoming involved in can be justified, and he may never be called on it. As a result, compromise and sin can become fixed in his life, which would seriously stifle his spiritual growth and relationship with God. A person in such a position may continue to engage in a fruitful evangelistic ministry, but that does not mean he has God's sanction upon his life and ministry (God blesses the preaching of the Gospel even when His blessings are not upon the person who is preaching it -- Phil. 1:15-18). When one does not repent of little sins, they are not prone to remain little, thus the unaccountable leader stands a much greater chance of gradually going into a gross deception, and, in the process, leading his

Page 55
most devoted followers astray with him (the most classic example of this has been David "Moses" Berg and his Children of God/Family of Love).

We do not feel it is CRI's place to advocate a particular form of church government (different traditions within orthodoxy have interpreted the Scriptures in a variety of ways on this subject). However, regardless of what church structure a body of believers finally settles on, it is crucial that a provision be made to keep leaders answerable for their actions (in fact, and not just in appearance).

Paul instructed Timothy (who apparently had taken on the responsibility of setting in order; the structure and affairs of the church at Ephesus): "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality." Such Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and Kenneth Wuest confirm that Paul is referring specifically to elders (pastors) who continue to sin.

One thing that has always amazed this writer concerning The Bible Speaks is the partiality with which discipline is executed in the organization. In one case an insignificant TBS pastor or member may confess to a particular sin, and in response he or she will be removed from any position of responsibility, and, though the individual may have repented, he or she may continue to be shunned by the rest of the fellowship. In another case, a leader who has been close to Carl Stevens may he caught in gross sin and never be openly rebuked, or lose his good standing in the minis­try. I know of cases where leaders have been found in adultery, or misuse of ministry funds, and if they were dealt with at all, they were transferred from one area of responsibility (where the heat was on) to another responsibility (in a location where the scandal was not known).

The explanation that is usually given for such treatment of scandalous situations is that the individual has repented, and thus, since God has forgiven him, the body also "covers" his sin. Why, TBS members have asked, should leaders not receive the same forgiveness that other believers receive when they repent?

In truth, it is not a matter of treating repentant leaders differently, as far as receiving them into Christian fellowship is concerned. God receives the repentant, and so should we (Luke 17:3-4). However, if someone is in a position of responsibility and has been caught in a serious sin, he needs to he relieved of his responsibility until he has had sufficient time to work
Page 56

through the necessary restoration in his spiritual life, and in his relationships (e.g., if the sin was adultery, much time and effort will be required for sufficient healing to take place in his marriage).

How many of us have had a besetting sin that we have sincerely (as far as we were concerned) repented of one day, only to fall back into it the next? An individual who has succumbed to serious sin needs a period of time to bring forth consistent "deeds appropriate to repentance" (Acts 26:20).

The space of time in which the leader works out all of the implications of his professed repentance is necessary also for the congregation's sake. An effective pastoral ministry is impossible if the flock is unable to trust their shepherd.


A Call to Repentance

In this report we have chosen not to delve into a lot of the details of scandal and controversy surrounding The Bible Speaks that have been brought to our attention. This is because it is not our desire to destroy the organization or disgrace its leadership. However, to bring things into what we consider to be the proper perspective, we must point out that after having approached The Bible Speaks' problems in the past from a doctrinal standpoint, our conclusion is that the reason past negotiations did not reach a satisfactory conclusion is that the real issue is less doctrinal than it is one of personality.

The root problem with TBS is that Carl Stevens (in spite of whatever good he has accomplished in other respects) has been guilty of serious error (in both teaching and conduct), and though he has made some effort to change, it has not been decisive enough to effectively clear the air. Instead, the theological and social situation that was established in the 1970s continues in a less pronounced form, and is subtly used to perpetuate irresponsible patterns of leadership. Thus, it would be misleading for this report to imply that the entire problem with The Bible Speaks is the "delegated authority" doctrine. The ultimate problem is more an attitude in Carl Stevens, which he has passed on in varying degrees to many of his associates. This attitude has been directly responsible for abuses of power which, in turn, have contributed significantly to TBS' internal turmoil and controversial public image. What is needed now is repen­tance, accountability, and the structural and practical changes that these would produce.

Leon Libby commented to this writer: "My heart's wish is that Pastor Stevens could say: 'I've done some wrong here and I've made some mistakes, and I want to make it right and get on

Page 57
with serving the Lord.' I wish that could happen because it would do a lot for Christianity in New England." Mark Bower adds this thought:

I know that if Carl Stevens got up and said, "This is the truth about where I've been," the people out there love him so much that they'd probably love him more for getting up and saying, "Hey, I'm sorry. This is what I did wrong." I don't know anybody in The Bible Speaks that has left or that is still in there that doesn't want to serve God. I know people that are hurt, people that are mad, people that aren't living right with God right now, but I don't know anyone, of those I am close to, who, when it comes right down to it, wouldn't forgive you if you came to them and said, "I blew it." I've had to do it myself, as a pastor, for not being sensitive, not coming over, and so forth, and it's always created a closer bond.

There have been occasions in which Carl Stevens acknowledged some of his more serious failings to a few people, and professed a desire to repent, but, for whatever reason, he has not been able to follow through with the actions that a true repentance would require. On one occasion Stevens was approached concerning his need to publicly repent of his past authority abuses, and for allowing people to exalt him as they have. In response, Stevens presented the message "A New Beginning," in which he admitted that he had been excessive in authority in the South Berwick days (although circumstance was appealed to as an explanation in this case also), and apologized to anyone who had been hurt through this authority emphasis.

Afterward, many of Stevens' more dedicated followers were upset that "God's man" had confessed to some sort of error. Then, in Framingham, Massachusetts, Stevens preached about how some people "become sin" for others. This message indicated to those who knew of the circumstances that Stevens was agreeing to being wrong with sort of a "savior's complex" -- i.e., he hadn't really been wrong, but if he had to look guilty in order to make some other people happy, he was so like Christ that he would do it.

King Saul expressed deep sorrow for his abuses of his authority, but the abuses continued until his death (I Sam. 2_4:16-22). The apostle Paul makes it clear that a sorrow that does not result in true repentance has no merit with God: "I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, in order that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to

Page 58
the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation; but the sorrow of the world produces death" (II Cor. 7:9-10).

Carl Stevens is not the only one from whom repentance must come. One who was closely involved for some time with Stevens in Lenox observed that at times when Stevens seemed on the verge of recognizing his failings and doing something about them, "People there who want to maintain their positions keep pumping him back up."

In our observation, the Bible Speaks members whose predominant motivation is to serve God will sooner or later experience a conflict which will force them to either work for change from within or leave the organization (many have first attempted the former only to end up doing the latter). On the other hand, the ones who "love the power" that their positions give them will remain loyal to "God's man" through thick and thin, until such a time as God may grant them repentance, and they put Him first. Then they will go through the process of the first group.

These processes could cause The Bible Speaks to go continu­ally downhill morally. The people with integrity, who are seeking to be governed first by Scripture, will eventually be
forced to leave, whereas the people who are seeking power will continue to say what Carl Stevens wants them to say, and wind up in all the positions of power.

It is important to recognize that there is a variety of strains within The Bible Speaks. The individuals and ministries that compose The Bible Speaks World Outreach do not represent one, homogeneous whole. Many people (even within the organi­zation) fail to see this clearly, and thus they assume that their particular experience of The Bible Speaks is representative of what the entire ministry is about. In actuality, there are currents within the organization that are quite orthodox and evangelical, and there are other currents that have definite cultic tendencies. The decisive question has always been -- ­which element within the organization will ultimately prevail?
This dichotomy within the ministry is represented and focused in the person of Carl Stevens himself. Stevens has seemingly always desired that TBS be a strong, evangelical ministry, and that it be recognized as such by other evangelical and fundamentalist leaders and groups. At the same time, he has had this excessive, exaggerated view of his own importance, mission, and authority which has bordered, in some respects, upon the attitude that is typically found in cult leaders.

Page 59
It's possible that Carl Stevens will respond to increasing pressure from the evangelical community by dropping all concern for his image as an evangelical, relapsing into the emphasis on authority and his anointing, and promoting an internalization in which the ministry focuses upon itself as "the body" to the omission or rejection of believers outside. If he did this, the organization would be strengthened and unified in terms of its support of the leadership, for those who are not absolutely loyal to Stevens would be likely to leave if such a turn of events occurred. However, the more exclusive The Bible Speaks becomes, the less appeal they will have among evangelicals, and Stevens will end up with a small Christian "cult" of hard-core followers, not unlike dozens of obscure sects that CRI receives inquiries about every month. Stevens will have absolute power, but not the large, successful evangelical ministry he has worked for, and the movement will likely degenerate further still from biblical doctrine and practice.

If, on the other hand, Stevens continues to maintain both his concern for his image before conservative Christianity and his insistence upon his own unquestionable authority, he will continue to draw new members by the evangelical image only to ultimately drive them away by the authoritarianism. The tension created by internal turmoil and bad relations with other churches and ministries will continue until Stevens and the organization crumble under the strain of it.

By now it should seem obvious to all reading this (hope­fully, even TBS leadership) that the-only option open which offers any hope for peace of mind and restoration of the ministry is a genuine, heartfelt repentance. This repentance must be for the benefit of God, and not men. (Previous "repentances," under­taken to please certain people, failed to satisfy those people -­how much less could they have satisfied God?) Rationalizations, appeals to circumstance, appeals to the ministry's soul-winning efforts ("the end justifies the means") , and efforts to dodge the real issues by challenging the right of CRI and others to "judge" the ministry -- all. of these must cease.

If The Bible Speaks World Outreach is to continue, the following actions would be necessary for us to change our posi­tion concerning the ministry (we believe these changes would follow from a serious repentance). 1) The fact that the "delegated authority" and "anointing" teachings were biblically false must he declared in the hearing of every TBS member, and each of these members much be educated in a biblical theology of church leadership. 2) The "end justifies the means" ethic must also be thoroughly purged out of the ministry through teaching and corrective discipline. 1) Structural changes must be made to ensure that all leaders within the organization (including Stevens) will be held accountable for their conduct and teaching.

Page 60
4) Churches outside of Lenox that desire to bear the name "Bible Speaks" must be strictly forbidden to teach or practice "dele­gated authority." 5) All leaders who have abused their positions of authority must be relieved of those positions until such a time as their repentance and recovery have been amply demonstrated.

In the event that Lenox refuses to take the actions recommended above, the individual members of The Bible Speaks will have to determine if they agree with the direction the leadership is taking the ministry. If not, they will also have to determine if they can continue to participate in the organi­zation in good conscience. They will certainly not be the first people to come to this crossroads. Ron Kelly recounts his experience: "With me it wasn't a matter of mental choice, it was a matter of God convicting my spirit. When I obeyed, it was such an emotional thing, and I feel God was doing a real purging in my affections -- getting them centered back on Christ, instead of on Pastor."

We do not mean to imply that God would lead every individual to take the same action that Ron Kelly did, for we do not presume to know the counsels of God for so many lives. We do mean to suggest, however, that no matter how much emotional energy, money, social life, and future one, has invested in a particular organization or cause, if obedience to God is the individual's reason for withdrawing from it, he or she can be assured of being
honored and blessed by God in the long run.

As an outside organization, our relationship with The Bible Speaks has been historically unique. For us, the compilation of this report has, in itself, been a matter of obedience to God; we would much prefer to spend our time researching and evangelizing non-Christian cults. And, if we were determined to expend our energies investigating a Christian group, we could have found worse cases of aberrant theology and practice than that which we have encountered in The Bible Speaks. However, it seems clear to us that we have been invited and_placed in the center of the TBS controversy for a purpose, and through this report we pray that that purpose is being effectively served. Perhaps it is because so many within the organization truly do care about pleasing God that He has gone to the extent of raising people up to tell them "the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).

Notes
1. Copies of The Bible Speaks compilation of quotes from our report, entitled Excerpts from "An Assessment of The Bible Speaks World Outreach" may he obtained from CRT, along with the entire report itself, upon request.

2. See Howard Snyder's A Problem of Wineskins, InterVarsity Press.

3. The Bible Speaks Book of Miracles, The Bible Speaks World Outreach, p. 35.

4. Ibid., p. 4.

5. Ibid., p. 3.

F. Meditations From the Throne, Pastor Carl Stevens, The Bible Speaks World Outreach. (From "About the Author," by Dean Gard Baril).

7. Trusting in the Truth, Pastor Carl Stevens, The Bible Speaks World Outreach. (From "About the Author," by Pastor Scott Robinson.

8. A brief outline of some of the problem areas in Dr. Thieme's teaching, and some additional information on his church, may be obtained upon request from CRI.

9. 1 Kings 3:22.

10. Stevens frequently contrasted himself with Moses, intimating that those who criticize him might suffer a similar judgment to that which Miriam suffered for criticizing Moses. How­ever, the analogy breaks down when we contrast the response of Moses to his critics with that of Stevens to his. When Miriam was inflicted with leprosy we read that Moses (who was "very humble") "cried out to the LORD, saying, 'Oh God, heal her, I pray'" (Num. 12:3,13). On the other hand, former leaders Bob Olivadoti, Steve Quinlan, and Ed Mosher all testify that they were present in Stevens' office at South Berwick in 1975 when Stevens led a group of about twenty people in solemn prayer to commit a man named Ed Chute to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. Chute had been guilty of none of the offenses listed by Paul in I Cor. 5 as grounds for such a drastic action. He had simply been outspokenly critical of Stevens' teaching and ministry.
11. In the taped message Presumption Vs. Speaking to the Rock Carl Stevens said: "If you have a close friend that evaluates anybody in delegated authority I'll guarantee you that if it's done with any consistency you'll be weak and sick and die in the future months ... don't you say a sentence, not a sentence, not a line, don't presume or you'll die in the future months."

12. Humility of Submission (tape), Carl Stevens, The Bible Speaks World Outreach.

13. History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3. Phillip Schaff, Kregel, p. 139.

14. The Interpretation of I and If Corinthians, Augsburg Publishing House, p. 391.

[RJ (141.154.186.91)]

Thank you so much Louise!

Roberta

[Cara (205.188.117.20)]

A very important document. It needed to be here.

Thank you Louise!

Cara

[margo (152.163.253.102)]

thank you louise

[Anonymous (62.121.45.91)]

Thank you Louise!

[Anonymous (24.88.43.233)]

Here is a link to the very first work on the site.

I will start posting more as the days go on.

http://207.36.199.61/index.html

The domain will most likely be graceways.org.

Take Care

[Anonymous (24.88.43.233)]

Three articles there. How many to go.

I will make the site look nicer later.

Please do me a favor and post stories without edits. I really like to have older news stories. Especially the Globe.

Does anybody have a transcript of the 60 minutes piece.

Take Care

[Just Reading (68.162.251.245)]

Praise her! Thank you Louise! I am truly grateful to you for posting this important part of the GGWO/TBS history. God Bless You Louise.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.186.144)]

Louise, You are a treasure. I won't be able to get to it for a while; but I'm drooling in anticipation. Bob

[Isabella (207.7.199.208)]

Louise!!! I am limiting myself on this board tonight because I have so much to do and I've gotta go when the timer rings. I just want to say thank you for the CRI Report. Thanks Louise. I am so happy to see it up there. <FONT COLOR="ff0000">YES!</FONT>

[Anonymous (207.7.199.208)]

Let's put this thread on top again.

[Anonymous (4.139.27.218)]

Dear Louise et. al,

Just want to say thanks once again to Louise for the informative and pertinent information!

Also, don't you find it peculiar that no one on this board has had a "catestrophic accident or illness" for posting the truth on this board?

...just a thought!

[rj (141.154.186.91)]

No one on the board has had any medical problems, but I kinda think we have caused a few cases of high blood pressure in Baltimore...

Roberta

[Anonymous (141.154.186.91)]

"it should seem obvious to all reading this (hope­fully, even TBS leadership) that the-only option open which offers any hope for peace of mind and restoration of the ministry is a genuine, heartfelt repentance. This repentance must be for the benefit of God, and not men. (Previous "repentances," under­taken to please certain people, failed to satisfy those people -­how much less could they have satisfied God?) Rationalizations, appeals to circumstance, appeals to the ministry's soul-winning efforts ("the end justifies the means") , and efforts to dodge the real issues by challenging the right of CRI and others to "judge" the ministry -- all. of these must cease."

[Anonymous (151.121.50.1)]

bump

[Anonymous (141.154.186.91)]

Carl Stevens is not the only one from whom repentance must come. One who was closely involved for some time with Stevens in Lenox observed that at times when Stevens seemed on the verge of recognizing his failings and doing something about them, "People there who want to maintain their positions keep pumping him back up."

[Anonymous (207.7.198.219)]

That's how it works, 141.154.186.91, they pump him, he pumps them, they pump him again, he pumps them, they pump him...and now, we get to pump this thread back to the top of the board. A very important document for everyone to read. Thanks.

[Steve Quinlan (168.103.207.103)]

Friends,
I ran across this message board quite by accident today (although some may argue that in the providence of God there are no accidents). I have spent a few hours reading through some of the postings - many from old friends, many from people unknown to me. Setting aside the silliness (which, of course, also has its place), I must say that I am deeply moved by the heartbreaking struggles of so many precious souls who very obviously love God and one another, and who also obviously wish to be joyful, free and fruitful human beings.

I re-read tonight the lengthy CRI report so helpfully posted by Louise. I have had no direct (or indirect, for that matter) contact with anyone at GGWO (always just TBS to me) for twenty years or more, so I am very hesitant and most certainly unqualified to comment on any aspect of the current situation. Still, from reading the posts here, it seems to me that the analysis offered in Elliot Miller's CRI report may quite likely still apply.

Having said that, I want to say as well, that after twenty years I still grieve the loss of the church family that I knew at TBS from 1972 to 1981. I am willing to share what little insight I may have or offer what little comfort I may give to those that may be similarly grieving, or are perhaps trying to break free or recover the joy and wonder of Jesus Christ that drew them to TBS/GGWO in the first place.

From reading through some of the threads here, I just want to add a quick caveat. I will not rise to the bait of any insult (I have heard them all aready) nor will I engage in defending myself or my theological perspectives. I'm 51 years old and have been a pastor of Christian congregations all my adult life (you do the math!)and I am very much assured that I am on the path that is right for me. Since this message board has come my way (I definitely did not seek it out) I feel an obligation to engage in the conversation, so long as I think I may offer or enjoy any contribution toward wholeness and healing in Christ - mine or others'.

I'm sorry to sound so pompous in this posting, its not how I wish to be perceived.

By the way, I am currently the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Fort Morgan, Colorado.
Steve

[Anonymous (207.7.206.227)]

Let's put this on top again.

[Deb (207.69.137.207)]

Louise,
Thank you SO VERY MUCH! I read this report many years ago, but reading it again, and realizing how many out there were reading it for the first time, I foud myself rejoicing, and cheerig the exodus on!!!!

Steve Quinlan, so good to "hear" your voice after so many years! God is faithful, and VERY good indeed!

Love to all,
Deb

[lee (65.96.56.161)]

I think I just realized who you are Deb!!
Did we once have a chance meeting at a restaurant in the Berkshire's? You asked if we had a copy of the court transcript?
I think I'm right. Nice to hear from you. Your story broke my heart. God is faithful and very good! MANY blessings on you!

[Anonymous (4.139.15.118)]

Dear Former The Bible Speaks victims,

How you must have cried out to God in pryaer about this corrupt organization. And how heartened you all must be to be able to reunite on this board and try to rectify a great injustice!

God speed and His wisdom as you go forward with the truth!

[Anonymous (216.183.184.253)]

SO BE IT ! 4.139.15.118

[Anonymous (24.172.44.98)]

Please check http://www.graceways.org to see if the domain is working where you live.

I will start putting up all of these other documents there soon.

It is a lot.

Take Care

[Anonymous (205.188.117.20)]

Peerhaps someone still has the Boston Phoenix
article from 1976. It was the grandpa of all
the investigative things that have been done
since. I'd love to see it posted.

[Cordell (66.90.181.249)]

There was an article in the Maine Times in August of 1972. That is the granddaddy.

[Bob Brinton (141.154.146.79)]

Hey Sammy Shovel, Have you read this thing?

[Bob Brinton (141.154.146.79)]

Sorry Sam. I just figured if you play with your name, it's open season for the rest of us. But I'll try to be nice. Bob

[Louise Connolly (151.121.50.1)]

For new readers, here is something of importance to bump up for you. Read it and get free!

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

thats old news ..what is happening NOW

[Roberta (141.154.144.33)]

Old news? Hardly.

The amazing thing about the CRI Report is that it applies to what is happening now, just like it applied then.

And for new people either in or out of GGWO it is an eye opener, and it's value must not be diminished.

Roberta

[Anonymous (209.6.151.215)]

Verse of the Day
I am about to pour out my wrath on you and spend my anger against you; I will judge you according to your conduct and repay you for all your detestable practices.

Ezekiel 7:8/NIV

From the CRI Website. Thought it appropriate

[Anonymous (65.96.153.178)]

Why does the report cover letter say "Walter Marlin" director - was this retyped for posting with the name of the director spelled wrong?

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

What difference does it make?

[Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)]

Answer to 65.96.153.178

I probably missed the name when I was using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. I didn't even notice it until you just mentioned it. Please try to get past my error and read it if you haven't already.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

.

[Anonymous (141.154.144.33)]

,

[Anonymous (68.82.183.197)]

pray

[Pekka Lähteenoja (80.222.58.34)]

Hello,

I also happened to land on this site by "accident". I listened to your apologetics classes, Steve,in Lenox Chapel in 1979 and was very impressed and excited. Your mail now made me actually shed a tear as it brought back the wonderful fellowships I had while in Lenox. Nostalgia, perhaps, but also, I think, part of it is what CRI report was referring to as lost potential to become REALLY big, (inter)national christian influence. In my spirit I really feel loss of something precious that could have grown larger AND healthier.

Reading the CRI report now for the first time I must say that it rings so true. The superior mentality&amp;seclusiveness, sensitiveness to criticism, confusing exegesis (private interpetation!) on the negative side, great enthusiasm, sincerety and love on the positive side. Also in Finland the GGWO has typically not been much involved with the rest of evangelical community.

I was involved with the Helsinki church from 1977 to about 1995. I had heard about the Martin report but never saw it. Instead I heard some heavy criticism of him. As I read the report now I pondered on the dynamics which Stevens' inability to face and discuss difficult issues (as mentioned by CRI) created downstream in branch ministries. It was manifested at least in my case in that when I raised a doctrinal issue, it was soon interpreted by a leading brother to be conspiracy. Probably also related to this avoidant attitude toward difficult personal issues is the peculiar reluctance in the GGWO (I speak of time 7-8 yrs ago) to accept the need of psychotherapy and many forms of counseling. I'm sure some were badly hurt because they did not have the freedom to seek psychological/psychiatrical help but were just advised to "receive the word" from the pulpet.

I felt I wanted to say something on these pages, perhaps only for the sake of clearing my own impressions on TBS/GGWO. 18yrs in a ministry is a long time, most of it was good for me, some bad. May God bless all who read this, especially those I learned to know in the TBS/GGWO.

Pekka L&auml;hteenoja
psychiatrist
Espoo, Finland
Member of Majakka seurakunta (Lighthouse church) in Espoo

[Anonymous (152.163.253.102)]

Thank you for posting.

[Anonymous (209.6.151.215)]

.

[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.

[kbneedspeace (kbneedspeace)]

just saw this thread with the Walter Martin report ... very interesting and seemingly unbiased. When and where was this report originally published? Pastor Quinlan also commented here. Has he been on FACTNet lately?

[whitehorses (whitehorses)]

no kb he came on very briefly, saw all the dissension here (at the time) and decided he didnt want to be part of it and made like a shepherd and got the flock oiutta here.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Margo, I don't think you can say flock on Factnet...lol

Reading the CRI report was the last step in some of my family members exiting GGWO. Twenty years of hearing how evil the report and when finally reading it and seeing how biblically based report and almost prophetic it was became the final step out the door. The present and the past are connected.

[deb (deb)]

Hello all,

I've been a sporadic factnet poster (life has a way of keeping me very busy these days) but I always love it when I get a chance to read the posts, and many familiar names, new folks, and even some aliases, have become very dear to me over these past months.

Lee, I didn't mean to ignore your question, way back in June. I'm not sure if I'm the person you're wondering about, but I certainly could be. I was desperately (yet discretely) trying to get a copy of the CRI report, b/c I knew things were very sick in TBS, but being married to one of the pastors at the time made it a bit difficult to get my hands on the "countraband." I always respected you and Jack, however, and I know I would have trusted you guys enough to ask if you had a copy of the report, so perhaps it was me that you ran into. (I still live in the beautiful Berkshires, by the way.)

I did eventually get a hold or the report, (did you give it to me?? I have many memory gaps from my TBS days)and it confirmed everything my gut and spirit had been telling me for a long time.

I'm glad the report has been "bumped up" again (thanks Louise!!!). It's as relevent today as it was back when it was first published, no doubt, and I'll ALWAYS be grateful to those who helped CRI back then (Steve Q., Bobby O., Marty O., etc....)

Thanks to all who take the time to post here: those who left TBS/GGWO years ago, those who are still in , and everyone in between. We are breaking down that wall of silence that was erected, years ago, by men who had such high stakes in keeping us all quiet and submissive. Maybe the factnet message board will prove to be the "lever and place to stand" (Archimedes) that will move the earth for many whose minds are still in bondage to this insanity.

Deb

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Steve Quinlan posted here briefly. Jim Faucett started a thread with Steve's name on it and during the course of it defended slavery as being Biblical. Steve didn't appreciate that and left. Thank you Jim, for defending us from a spiritually rational thinker. And Steve, if you're reading here; we miss your presence.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Bob, I miss Steve Quinlan being here too, and I never knew him. But he seems like just the kind of preacher and thinker I would have enjoyed.

[kbneedspeace (kbneedspeace)]

Pastor Quinlan is one of those few in Lenox who preached in a way I could understand AND apply the doctrine. His teaching had quite an influence on me -- even to this day. Would like to contact him, if possible.
KB

[anon_brief (anon_brief)]

KB

This post tells how to contact Steve Quinlan:

http://www.factnet.org/factnetcgi/discus/show.cgi?tpc=3&amp;post=51593#POST51593

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

Steve Quinlan was an amazing teacher... Many things I heard in his preaching and teaching have stayed with me to this day. A message he preached on election and predestination brought peace to my soul which has not left. I too would love to hear from him on this forum.

[kbneedspeace (kbneedspeace)]

Thanks for the link to try and reach Pastor Quinlan. CLV, I would like to believe he still IS an amazing teacher.
KB

[anova (anova)]

Pekka,

Thanks so much for your prayerful post! I was very moved.

I knew a number of the Finns and really loved them.

Do you know of Risto and Paive Kyro? Could you tell me something about them?

I know Jorme is still pastoring a GG.

Blessings to you.

[itsahokes (itsahokes)]

kb: he is

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

It was said by someone at some point that Steve intends to come to Freeport in August. It would be very fitting to put a microphone in his hands. I'd be very interested in whatever he has to say.

[anon_for_ever (anon_for_ever)]

Anova,

Risto and Paivi Kyro lived a very long time in Malmö Sweden but moved back to Finland a couple of years ago, still traveling to Malmö to pastor the GG church there and at the same time they help out p Brian W in Helsinki. They are very sweet and clever people and have beautiful children (the children study economics and architecture and one is in high school). Please pray for this wonderful family that God could use their social skills and clear sightedness these days.

[kbneedspeace (kbneedspeace)]

The CRI report is very heavy reading ... I, for one, had great respect for the pastors who are quoted and whose comments are referenced in this document. Has anyone come up with a condensed version? What's the general concensus "in a nutshell"?
KB

[isabella (isabella)]

Dear KB Needs Peace,

In a nutshell, the CRI report is the condensed version.

Read it again.

Isabella

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

<font color="0000ff">Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:46 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Steve Quinlan posted here briefly. Jim Faucett started a thread with Steve's name on it and during the course of it defended slavery as being Biblical. Steve didn't appreciate that and left. Thank you Jim, for defending us from a spiritually rational thinker. And Steve, if you're reading here; we miss your presence."</font>

We were discussing a doctrine that IS, in fact, discussed in Scripture. Not realizing that I was addressing a PCUSA tabboo--Mr. Q. got huffy as he used to do in the old days. Some of you have carried over your TBS/GGWO tendency to give folks a free pass without critical thinking onto FN ala "OOH pastah Q you're soooo amazing." Gimme a break. I roomed with the guy. He puts on his pants and goes through divorces just like the rest of us. He went to Princeton and is a minister in an ultraliberal mainline denomination. You wanna hear from him, go back to his thread, click on his name, utter the magic TBS word "AWESOME" and email him. For crying out loud, "We miss your presence"--- sing bloody kumbahyah, maybe he'll come back. Big weenie didn't want to defend his doctrinal positions in the first place. Sorry, I saw the emperor nekkid and wasn't firkin impressed.

[lee (lee)]

Jim, Jim ,Jim..........I think you need a canoli.

We all love you just as much.......you just have different portions!! sorry, that was too easy.

I told Jack today, that I'd love to see a good debate here with someone taking the opposite view as you.....anyone up for a debate on the gifts? How about someone as erudite as Jim is, but with the 'other' side. Honestly, I'm not trying to start a fight, just a vigorous conversation. We've been attending a Vineyard for awhile now, read all the books, even heard John Wimber speak.....we grew to respect his 'portion' but I'd love to have it proven to me that what he's given to the body of Christ is either hogwash or for real.

[karen (karen)]

Lee, Lee, Lee... let's all have a canoli and reconsider whether we really want to go there http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[lee (lee)]

Oh Karen, you're right! No one wants anymore nasty stuff. I wonder about some things and I'm afraid I'm doomed to a life of having to shut my mouth!! If I had a canoli right now I'd shove it right in my mouth!

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

kum bah yah steve kum bah yah... oh steeeeve kum bah yah...

[jeannie (jeannie)]

I don't get you Jim. I have conversed on the phone with you and you are not like how you post. I remember you why back when and my lasting impression of you was of a happy smiley face. Why all the bloody angst and anger here? Why the put downs? Why can't you expound your doctrinal views and be human too? Do you not know that you post with the venom of a jilted lover? What's up with that? So people on the forum miss Steve Quinlan. If Boddah stopped posting I think I would lay down and cry for three days and she sure as heck is not a pastor. And if everyone wants to pat each other on the back, join hands and sing Kumbuya in Latin while doing the Irish jig why does that bother you so much?

[karen (karen)]

I knew you should have had a cookie today...Food for thought.

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

could be a dominion problem...

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Pishtosh, Jeannie. Angst shmangst. If you'll read with a little more clarity what I am saying is that if Stevie Quinlan left it is because he took his little toys and left because HE wanted to, not because I made him. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/crazy.gif I am responding to the likes of CLV and Bobby(please beat me Wonder Woman) Brinton who still display vestiges of the idolworship that Ol' Jack (yes I get a pass too because I used to be Prez) decried just the other day. I am not jilted, and if the humor here escapes you I am hardly surprised. Post doctrinal views here? It has in the past proved to be a huge waste of time because so many folks are just happy in the fog. And onward through it I say!

Tell you what, Lee, I'll take the cannoli and Jack can defend the laughing chicken Toronto Vineyard Blessing and I'll do an impression of R.W. Shambaugh (sp).

Of course Karen, doctrine (shudder) is to you and FN as toothbrushing is to the British.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

<font color="0000ff">"And if everyone wants to pat each other on the back, join hands and sing Kumbuya in Latin while doing the Irish jig why does that bother you so much?"</font>

Since we are desiring to be scions of tolerance, my dear, if I want to get on here and rant and rave and post like a 'jilted lover' why does that bother you? Aren't we all just trying to heal and recover from our poor pasts? Couldn't it be that this is just my own special little way of saying along with Tom Smothers "Mom always loved you best?" Isn't this just my own cathartic therapy wide open on the internet, my way of saying "I'm a victim of GGWO, please have pity on me?" Isn't it????


Nah.

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

i'm just nostaligic to hear steve quinlan preach... he did impact my life in the short time i heard him back in lenox... no heavy idol worship... maybe i would even be disappointed if i did... there are lots of people i would like to hear again... including stan ashby...

do the british have a problem with brushing their teeth... i thought that was a french thing ???

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Well Jim, anyone that used the term "Pishtosh" is well on their way to a Mary Poppins type healing and there is no need to vent. Didn't Mary wisely say "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.. in the most delightful way?"

[karen (karen)]

Jim,

You take refuge in the idea that we reject your posts because we don't have the stomach for polemic argument (is that redundant?). When in fact, it is your contempt, that's right, contempt for anyone who differs from your perspective that makes the blood boil. For example, your subtle use of quotation marks--as in "Christians"--is effective in cutting through the fog and communicating ever so clearly. It may surprise you to learn that I read the blog of a Presbyterian Calvinist; his beliefs are quite similar to yours. But guess what? He is respectful and fair-minded. I read what he has to say and am not distracted--no, enraged--by his arrogance so that his ideas are buried in the debris. You might want to check out his "Journey into Grace" posts in Jan. and Feb.: http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/

[lee (lee)]

just thought I'd remind everyone that the Toronto group is no longer a Vineyard. Church discipline took care of that.

[lee (lee)]

yes, Doris....amongst other things.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

You're right Jim. Think I'll go down to the local market and buy some slaves. They sell white guys now.

[lee (lee)]

Jack tells me that its been 7-8 yrs since they were asked to leave......or I should say, given the option to change or leave. I don't know anything more. Anyone out there know?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Karen, you just plain don't get it do you? Maybe this will help:

A) Jack Leonard puts up a thread about cutting down the idols.

B) FNrs respond with typical noncritical GGWO/TBS OOH Jack "you're so amazing" type crap that goes against the very principle that he argued against.

C)People are NOT over their GG conditioning on how they respond to certain personalities.

D) Do you think for one minute that I don't understand that I **** you off? YOU BLOODY NEED TO BE ****ED OFF!!! The fellow on the jollyblogger is addressing all and sundry--a wide audience. I am not. I am addressing people who have a history of running from one damn guru to the next. I am addressing people who spent years in a ministry with a speaking Bible, and can't relate to basic Christian essentials.

i.e. One fellow I wrote about in my story used to have one of those 'amazing' testimonies about how he was converted in Boston just before he went to a teenaged Indian guru to take the secret nectar of knowledge--which would have deceived him for-e-ver according to the story. This fellow escaped the Indian guru to become CHS's early little golden boy. In the 80s debacle he fell from grace. I spoke to this fellow in 2002 and he told me that he no longer considered himself a Christian but was a devotee of Steven Hawking's philosophy...One damn guru to another.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Bob, you know very well you'd rather be a slave to Wonder Woman than buy one.

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

pick one up for me too bob...

jim... you go on posting just as you are...jilted lover or whatever... i am becoming quite fond of you... you remind me of my grandfather holding court after sunday morning service upholding the sanctity of reformed doctrine in between tokes on his cigar...

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Oh PishPosh Jim...lol

I have read a whole lot of critical thinkers on FACTNet...

Trust me, most of us are not looking for another guru.. been there, done that. But it would certainly be an interesting thread...

Hummmm.. if I was looking for a guru... I would pick Bruder5!

[jack_leonard (jack_leonard)]

Just for the record.
I agree with Jim that the Factnet audience is far too easy on me. One reason I prefer working in public education (rather than the clergy) is that they take the gloves off. (Remember Roberta's first question to me? She didn't mince words). So idolatry is unacceptable under any circumstances.
So is abuse, Jim.
Jack

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

jim_faucett (jim_faucett)
Intermediate Member
Username: jim_faucett

Post Number: 274
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 66.90.181.249
Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:33 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:46 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Steve Quinlan posted here briefly. Jim Faucett started a thread with Steve's name on it and during the course of it defended slavery as being Biblical. Steve didn't appreciate that and left. Thank you Jim, for defending us from a spiritually rational thinker. And Steve, if you're reading here; we miss your presence."

We were discussing a doctrine that IS, in fact, discussed in Scripture. Not realizing that I was addressing a PCUSA tabboo--Mr. Q. got huffy as he used to do in the old days. Some of you have carried over your TBS/GGWO tendency to give folks a free pass without critical thinking onto FN ala "OOH pastah Q you're soooo amazing." Gimme a break. I roomed with the guy. He puts on his pants and goes through divorces just like the rest of us. He went to Princeton and is a minister in an ultraliberal mainline denomination. You wanna hear from him, go back to his thread, click on his name, utter the magic TBS word "AWESOME" and email him. For crying out loud, "We miss your presence"--- sing bloody kumbahyah, maybe he'll come back. Big weenie didn't want to defend his doctrinal positions in the first place. Sorry, I saw the emperor nekkid and wasn't firkin impressed.



Hmmm...sounds like good old fashioned jealousy to me...so does this:

" Do you think for one minute that I don't understand that I **** you off? YOU BLOODY NEED TO BE ****ED OFF!!! The fellow on the jollyblogger is addressing all and sundry--a wide audience. I am not. I am addressing people who have a history of running from one damn guru to the next. I am addressing people who spent years in a ministry with a speaking Bible, and can't relate to basic Christian essentials.

i.e. One fellow I wrote about in my story used to have one of those 'amazing' testimonies about how he was converted in Boston just before he went to a teenaged Indian guru to take the secret nectar of knowledge--which would have deceived him for-e-ver according to the story. This fellow escaped the Indian guru to become CHS's early little golden boy. In the 80s debacle he fell from grace. I spoke to this fellow in 2002 and he told me that he no longer considered himself a Christian but was a devotee of Steven Hawking's philosophy...One damn guru to another."



Yup...one you call "golden boy" the other you say people really liked.

What happened Jim...did they replace you in big daddy Carl's heart? Did they take your place?

You gotta let go of all this Jim...it isn't sin to come back down off your self erected pedestal and live with the rest of us.

Just because we don't marvel at your ability to quote scripture is no reason to despise us...we just don't consider you better than us is all.

We like you, we just refuse to guru-ize you, my friend.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Aw Jim; Wonderwoman was a brunette with blue eyes. I go for blondes with brown eyes. Or green are even better. Why are you so obsessed with Lynda Carter?

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Hey Bob, I have blonde hair and green eyes. No Wonderwoman.. but I could be a guru if you need one.. or gurette as Doris wrote on the other thread. I must warn you though I will insist you use your critical thinking skills and your own spiritual discernment skills if you intend to follow me...lol

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Wouldn't it be nice just once to hear someone very spiritual say to people

"Don't follow me...don't write down and try to find any hidden meanings in what I say...don't stare at my phone, social secutiry numbers and try to find any hidden message.

Enjoy your own journey. Follow your own path wherever God creates it...tell us about your experiences for they may enhance everyones personal journey.

Don't follow me"

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

RJ - Interesting enough...Buddah said that! Not to follow him...people still did.
Also I agree "follow your own path..." Guess I can go to sleep with that thought. thanks

[louise_connolly (louise_connolly)]

Although, I am happy for Jack’s success for his calling in life, I like him not as a leader or x-cult leader but because he is a person. He is a regular ham and egger as my husband would say. I feel that way toward many of you but being that Jack is being falsely raised as an idol right now I thought I would direct my post toward him. I actually find it quite liberating to consider all of you peers not above me not below me but with me.

Factnet is not a place I come to find a person to lead me or a person to teach me about my Bible. It has been a place where I have been able to reconnect with old and new friends as Jeanne said earlier on another thread. It has been a place to share with folks who have been involved with the same cult. I felt good about being able to scan and post so many documents that members and x-members needed to read. Once you start reading them you realize the reason Carl (eluia) didn’t want us listening to an evil report is because we would have found out long ago that Carl Stevens is a phony and his so called ‘ministry’ is a sham.

We have all had so many similar things happen. I am not that interested in going to church and Bible studies with all of you but I am interested in knowing how life is treating you. It is wonderful that we went through what we did and got to the other side of it. Dear folks who have newly left find hope in knowing that there is lots of living after leaving the cult called GGWO/TBS.

One thing God has been impressing to me lately by reading posts on factnet has been that one big reason I chose to go to the cult was because I wanted to be ‘spiritually superior’. My ego was attracted to a place that proclaimed they knew Jesus better than everyone else. It is appalling to acknowledge but it is true.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Amen Louise. Amen.

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

Again...take a pat on the back from one lazy, obtuse, poster.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Well Jack...if you say anything I can't deal with I am not adverse to nailing you down about it, but you just haven't said anything I can argue with...so far. *s*

But I will say I think that appreciating your statements doesn't add up to idol worship, not for me at least. I enjoy your persepective, much as I do Karen's, Dave Carson's and others. I don't always agree with everyone, but it is good to hear the other side of things, to explore each subject from a variety of angles so as to get a full and more representative view. You often write on that level and as I do the others here, appreciate your input.

I'd be harder on you...but, well, you just have to stop being so reasonable...*LOL*

[jeannie (jeannie)]

I think it is time for another chorus of Kumbaya because I just want you to know Berta I appreciate your passion. And HRH, your humor and Joni you have always been my Grand Puba. And Boddah? Well she has entwined herself into all our hearts and I am so thankful to know her.

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

Smiling...night Jeannie! Nothing...just what I wanted!!!!!!

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

"Factnet is not a place I come to find a person to lead me or a person to teach me about my Bible. It has been a place where I have been able to reconnect with old and new friends as Jeanne said earlier on another thread."

right on louise... learning to appreciate the differences and see how much we are the same even if we are not in the same place...

i think one of the reasons someone like buddah contributes so much here is because of her willingness or ability to expose so much of herself

maybe a chorus of kumbahyah would be good right now... this time dedicated to jim... http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

What a great exchange here!

I think what Jim is saying is that some are embraced too quickly while others are placed under a lens.

Maybe some do overly respect Quinn (never knew him - no comment until the end of this post) and Jack (know him and respect him and have shared free pass, etc with him) because of their noteriety in TBS/GG .

I wonder how John Lloyd, Rick Knapp,Phil Strout, Kent Suturois, Ed Lutz, Shaun Redgate, etc...ad naseum would be treated if they posted here.

Perhaps, Jim is just saying make sure we use our critical thinking skills.

Could he have said it nicer? Does my answer matter? Jim is going to be Jim, that's why I like him. I have seen much worse posted on here against Roberta, etc. by many who she has flamed. I like Robeta because she is going to be Roberta. Like I said before Factnet's Hannity and Colms... they really need a show! I would listen faithfully!

Louise said it so well:

"I actually find it quite liberating to consider all of you peers not above me not below me but with me."

I also enjoy the stories, the process of exiting and how a person moved forward.

I also enjoy the biblical banter and the ability to challenge things doctrinally without being yelled at as "off, carnal, pseudo-intelectual, Absolom spirit, novice, or even dare I say a lust for certitude, etc." It is refreshing. I say stand up for what you believe in - engage your culture and be relevant...don't run away like a little nancy boy when you don't like what you are hearing!

Louise also said it so well:
"One thing God has been impressing to me lately by reading posts on factnet has been that one big reason I chose to go to the cult was because I wanted to be ‘spiritually superior’. My ego was attracted to a place that proclaimed they knew Jesus better than everyone else. It is appalling to acknowledge but it is true."

Wow! thank you for your transparency. It is much to ponder. ...for me it was just a desire to know HIM. What a shame it became a trap to know him (small h, big CHS). It is appalling to acknowledge but it is true.

Regarding Quinn: If he does not want to post that is fine. But do not blame Jim if he isn't posting here...Quinn is a big boy and he can do as he pleases...what did he say again?

Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:50 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim, You started this thread with my name on it. As a Christian and a human being, I am embarrassed by your post here addressing the issue of slavery and the bible. This will be the very last item I post on this message board, since I choose not to be a part of a discussion of this sort. I have left my email address on all my posts and will be happy to correspond with anyone in that way. Blessings to you all.



(Message edited by dave drago on February 27, 2005)

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

Now another of Dave's top ten FN comments from the home office in Festus, MO:

10. Bob, get over it...

9. CLV, do you have a crush on Quinn or soemthing?...let it go!

8. Steve Quinn, grow up and debate that which you are passionate about, do not run from it...

7. Jim, be nice...I am glad that the abolitionalists held their ground.

6. Jeannie, keep singing...please refrain from describing yourself-if Bob gets worked up there is just no telling what he is capable of posting! His self-description of 'being geared to women'frankly frightens and amuses me. Show me a man who claims he understands women and I will show you a woman.

5. Roberta, let go of your p---- (or HRH is it p.4?)envy. You really don't need one- it will just get you in trouble. God made you perfect and I know Scott agrees!

4. Lee, can I have a canoli?

3. Jack, I appreciate your humility but you don't get a free pass from me!

2. Louise, thank you for your last post it was aaawesome...but I am not going to gurette-ize you.

1. I love you all even when I think your nuts! Pass the Planters please from another nut!

For Him,
Dave

(Message edited by dave drago on February 27, 2005)

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

Interesting post Dave...But I can't help but asking...with seriousness here - no sarcasim or bitterness...do you truly think (feel?) that if a person chooses not to enter into debates on doctrinal points that they are less than, or cowards, or obtuse, or "off" (that had a bit of sarcasim aimed at mutual past-life experiences!!!) or whatever? I have to say it has sounded that way on more than one occasion...of course, I understand that the written word on a computer screen cannot deliever tone or indications of intent and the reader adds what they believe to be the tone/intention.

Your post above seems to say that it's okay to disagree and that posters are free to express themselves (unless of course they say nice things about the mighty Quinn - smiling sarcasim here)...I imagine that you don't consider it appropriate for people to be hurtful to other posters with words (doesn't mean one cannot be challenged). If all of this is true, I can't imagine who wouldn't agree with you.

BTW - P.4 has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's body parts!! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif It's a 4-part piece of aliteration...just for the record.

(Message edited by herroyalhighness on February 27, 2005)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

My respect for Steve Quinlan has nothing to do with his status at TBS, or the fact that he's blonde (sheesh). I always liked him because he had a clear thinking mind and he used it. I appreciate those who can get at the truth and can get beyond the boxes they've been handed. Alana fits here. Karen does. Boddah does. There's nothing wrong with liking someone's personality. I love Jack's gentleness; especially because that's a quality so many lack. I respond to it. Sorry. That's the way I am. If someone tries to beat me over the head or force me; then I resist. Why? It doesn't taste like the Spirit I am of. I'm not going to de-emphasize someone's words just because they used to be some sort of celebrity. Faucett was a name guy too. He seems a bit leaky now.

The only reason I brought the slavery thing up is because someone asked about Steve Quinlan; and that is why he himself said he left. There wasn't anything for me to get over, Dave. I have Steve's email address if I want to contact him. It's interesting what a tag team you and Jim are. Thanksgiving must've really been something. Sorry I don't have numbered lists for you. Those who want hard taskmasters can have them. Paint the kind of God you want.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Jeannie, I'd love you even if you weren't blonde.

[karen (karen)]

Jim,

You do **** me off, but it's a lot more complicated than your take on it. I wish we could have a real conversation (i.e., exchange of ideas) that didn't culminate in a judgment. The irony is that even though you drive me crazy, I have grown fond of your curmudgeon-liness. So the question is are you permitted to open your heart--yes, open your heart--to someone as deceived as I am?

[karen (karen)]

Bob,

It is so interesting that you have a preference for a "physical type." You're kind of the last guy I would have expected to be that way. Can't say that's ever been true for me. From my perspective, it's not the color of the eyes that matters, but the presence they communicate.

[bruder5 (bruder5)]

Lee- Wimbers thoughts on his involvement and his decision to leave:


In relation to his acceptance of the Kansas City prophets, John Wimber said:
"However, their entrance into the Vineyard was entirely my fault, and I take full responsibility for that . I turned my brain off for a couple of years. My son Sean went through years of alcohol and drug addiction. Some prophetic people came and said, "God is offering you a grace package. If you'll do thus and so, God will retrieve your son." This man prophesied when and how. And it came to pass exactly as he said.

Since then, Sean has been free of any kind of addictive behavior. I was so grateful. He got married. He had his first baby during that era. I was just preoccupied. And my leadership model failed me. I was too directive. I didn't listen to my lieutenants.

I loved the gifts the prophets exercised; I didn't like the package. The package involved the presupposition that a gift in itself authenticates you. I don't care if your the finest communicator around, the finest expositor, the most brilliant theologue - if you can't come under the church, if you can't commit yourself to a board, if you can't commit yourself to the leadership of others, if you can't commit yourself to collegiality and relationships, if you can't be inspected as well as teach, I don't want to play."
Christianity Today, July 14, 1997, pp. 46-47.

As a father I get this...I wasn't around in those days and don't get prophets, revivals or outpourings...I do get some lessons of pain and grace.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Penis envy? You've got to be kidding...If you don't get the sarcasm here on FactNet Dave old boy you'd best not play.

If you think that I would give up true spiritual communion with God that doesn't depend on an outdated mysoginist Pauline mandate for power you are crazier than any ton of Planters.

Too bad we could have a contest. I gather that even without the required male appendage I could preach you or anyone else under the table. I have done it...no ego here, simply the truth.

by the way, Dave, about your numbered lists?..."let go", "get over it", "move on","grow up" "His self-description of 'being geared to women'frankly frightens and amuses me. Show me a man who claims he understands women and I will show you a woman."...for that you owe Bob an apology....

"I wonder how John Lloyd, Rick Knapp,Phil Strout, Kent Suturois, Ed Lutz, Shaun Redgate, etc...ad naseum would be treated if they posted here. Perhaps, Jim is just saying make sure we use our critical thinking skills."

Perhaps the assumption that we don't have any critical thinking skills is just because we think Jim is often over the top and boorish?

Settle down Beavis and if you and Jim stop insisting on telling us how we're all supposed to think your words (ad naseum) might be better recieved.

Have another chat with Marr, maybe you'll feel better.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Dave Drago, Are you and Jim playing goodcop/bad cop?..lol

Bad cop from Texas comes riding in, both guns barreling.. no one is safe and then you come in and say "now, now.. what Jim really meant while he was gunning you all down was this..."


We don't need policing, we don't need to be told what to do or how to think. But I must say, last night was very amusing.. "we fought the law and the girls won...

I love you both Jim and Dave and I refuse to stereotype you. I would rather accept you just as you are.. the good, the bad and the ulgy(another gun blazing movie)


Go ahead and continue to stereotype us.. it just doesn't work in this forum. Roberta has guts and passion but that does not make her desire a penis. I have blonde hair and green eyes and I will not refrain from saying so. That is ole TBS/GG bull****. Strong women do not grow male body parts and women do not cause to fall. Men do that all on their own.. ask Carl...

And now I am off to Calvary...lol

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

"I actually find it quite liberating to consider all of you peers not above me not below me but with me."

dave drago...
i'm not sure everyone is comfortable with what louise said... we may think we are but in reality still have a need to either have others look up to us or to look up to others for our answers... i think i would be interested to hear from any of the other men you mentioned but not necessarily more impressed or touched by what they would have to say than some of the men AND WOMEN already posting on this forum... obviously one can be predisposed to receive more readily from someone based on past relationships, shared experience, style, personality etc...etc... but the main thing is communication... taking the time to hear what someone is really saying... and if we write someone off because of a predisposed idea we may miss understanding something really important... i know that i do that sometimes... there are people on this board who really bugged me at times... now i see them differently... have they changed... or have i changed... maybe both... in any case the fact that you identify or agree with certain people more emphatically than with others does not indicate that you are not using your critical thinking skill or are idolizing someone... some people are more gifted at communicating verbally and express exactly what i may be feeling or thinking but could never express as clearly... so why not tell them thank you... for using the gift that God gave them...

most of us are like bob..."If someone tries to beat me over the head or force me; I resist."

as far as the big discussions on doctrine etc... i don't feel very inclined to get involved for a number of reasons but that doesn't mean i don't enjoy reading them or thinking about them from time to time... for me one of my biggest needs right now is just to laugh...

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

RJ,
I got your humor, I think you missed mine! My top ten list was pure humor...I suppose because many of my posts are not humorous (except the occasional quip)but at least in my estimation reflective..my humor was missed.

please read again reason number 1:

1. I love you all even when I think your nuts! Pass the Planters please from another nut!

If I offended any please forgive me, that was not my intention...just a little levity to weigh in on a very lively dsicussion...no one can accuse it as borish.

Arguendo, thanks for the treatise I will read it tomorrow! I still respect you!

For Him,
Dave

[arguendo (arguendo)]

You do not love these people. You dismiss them and condescend to them.

Yeah, you have right to your opinions. And then you have to suck up the repercussions of your opinions. More insignificant comments have knocked leaders on their asses. I don't blame you feeling this way, you get to be human, but I blame you for writing it down. The moment you did, you stopped being a leader, stopped being worthy of respect, and just became another intolerant jerk. Why did you even bother with the dozens of edifying, thoughtful posts? They're all crap now. What a huge waste of time.

Dave's top ten FN comments from the home office in Festus, MO:

10. Bob, get over it...

9. CLV, do you have a crush on Quinn or soemthing?...let it go!

8. Steve Quinn, grow up and debate that which you are passionate about, do not run from it...

7. Jim, be nice...I am glad that the abolitionalists held their ground.

6. Jeannie, keep singing...please refrain from describing yourself-if Bob gets worked up there is just no telling what he is capable of posting! His self-description of 'being geared to women'frankly frightens and amuses me. Show me a man who claims he understands women and I will show you a woman.

5. Roberta, let go of your p---- (or HRH is it p.4?)envy. You really don't need one- it will just get you in trouble. God made you perfect and I know Scott agrees!

4. Lee, can I have a canoli?

3. Jack, I appreciate your humility but you don't get a free pass from me!

2. Louise, thank you for your last post it was aaawesome...but I am not going to gurette-ize you.

1. I love you all even when I think your nuts! Pass the Planters please from another nut!"

[minutus (minutus)]

insert fart joke here ...

[arguendo (arguendo)]

"I still respect you!"

I couldn't care less. That's the point.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

"insert fart joke here ..."

Why, because I am not worthy of a more intelleigent response? Thanks.

[minutus (minutus)]

But seriously folks http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif, we all come here with strengths and weaknesses, passions and baggage, good, bad AND ugly. The only thing we have in common is the TBS/GGWO experience, which highly resembles that of a dysfunctional family. The rules were the same:
1) Don't Talk
2) Don't Trust
3) Don't Feel
We are learning to do all three here and it sometimes gets messy. I read a story this morning that made me think of how to handle life on FACTNet:

An Illustration Of The Strength Of Grace

In Dr. Seamand's book Healing Grace (Victor Books, 1988, pp. 115 ff) there is the story of Stypulkowski, the brave Polish resistance fighter.

When the war ended, Stypulkowski found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. He and fifteen other Poles were captured by the Russian army. They were taken to Russia to stand trial before a war crimes court. Since some Western observers were at the trials, it was necessary to get full confessions from the men in order to convict them of their alleged treason against the state. Actually, they had helped defeat the enemy, but now they were accused of helping the Nazis.

Prior to their trial, the men were put under rigorous interrogation to break them mentally, emotionally and spiritually, to destroy their integrity so they would confess to anything demanded of them. Fifteen of them broke under the pressure. Only Stypulkowski did not. And this is in spite of the fact that for 69 of 70 nights he was brutally questioned in a series of 141 interrogations. Not only did he endure them, but at one point one of his interrogators broke down and had to be replaced.

His tormentors relentlessly examined everything be had ever done, or hadn't done-- examined it for its fear and guilt content. His work, his marriage, family, children, sex life, his church and community life, even his concept of God. This followed weeks of a starvation diet, sleepless nights, and calculated terror. most insidious of all were the signed confessions of his best friends, all of whom blamed him.

His torturers told him his case was hopeless and as good as closed. They advised him to plead guilty so they could lessen his sentence; otherwise, it was certain death. But Stypulkowski refused. He said he had not been a traitor and could not confess to something which was not true. He went on to plead not guilty at his trial; largely because of the foreign observers there, he was freed. Most impressive was the completely natural way he witnessed to his Christian faith. He kept that faith alive by regular prayer, and every other loyalty was subordinated to his loyalty to Christ.

Oh, it was evident that he was not free from weaknesses--his accusers pointed them out to him time after time--but he was never shattered by them. The reason for his endurance was that he daily presented himself to God and to his accusers in complete honesty. He knew he was accepted, loved, forgiven and cleansed. So whenever they accused him of some personal wrong, he freely admitted it, even welcomed it. Again and again he said,

"I have felt it unnecessary to justify myself with excuses. When they showed me I was a coward, I already knew it. When they shook their finger at me with accusation of filthy, lewd feelings, I also knew that. When they showed me a reflection of myself with all my inadequacies, I said to them, But Gentlemen, I am much worse than that. For you see, I had learned it was unnecessary for me to justify myself--one had already done that for me--Jesus Christ!"

Because Stypulkowski could be totally honest about himself before God, he was able to be totally honest about himself before his accusers. He could freely admit his personal failures because he knew they had all been taken care of on the Cross.

I read this at: http://ministryhealth.net/mh_articles/027_wd_pastor
_as_adult_child.html

Have a great day!

Dave

[minutus (minutus)]

Arguendo, the fart joke was for CLV:

"... for me one of my biggest needs right now is just to laugh..."

Asynchronous communication can backfire somtimeshttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/sad.gif.

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

Again,
Point taken. You are entitled to your opinion of me. I am all of what you said and much more you failed to mention. There is alot more that you left out. I can be obnoxious, pessimistic, egocentric, and down right mean at times. I could go on but I will stop. I find it ironic that you repost my thread...do not worry I am not in the habit of removing something as you are when you get testy. What is written is written. I can live with it.

Please forgive me. It is easy to go from the big house to the outhouse isn't it? My post was intended as humor. I guess you are saying keep your day job?

Arguendo, (I do not know your name or who you are)It is easy for you to say that about me as you stay anonymous (I respect that) because I have revealed my identity. By that act I have made myself vunerable and accountable. Perhaps, a tactical error in your view?

Whilst you are busy removing the dust from my eye could you please stop hitting me with that log? It is very painful. Again, if I have offended any I apologize.

And, now to echo the words of the mighty Quinn:
This will be the very last item I post on this message board, since I realize that my usefulness is overextended. I hope I have edified some and challlenged others. Thank all for helping me on my journey. You have strengthened and challenged me. I have really made peace with my past through this forum. I stil have much growing to do.

My email address is daviddrago@sbcglobal.net, my office # is 636-479-9961, I will be happy to correspond with anyone in that way. Blessings to you all. And, will all my heart I ask any I have offended to please forgive me.

For Him,
Dave

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

thanx minutus for thinking of me... i hardly "dare" make "fartnet" jokes anymore...i saw how offended anovus maximus was over on another thread... sheesh... so many uptight people

[buggin (buggin)]

I read and enjoy your postings Drago.
I do NOT find you condescending. Opinionated- yes. Condescending no.
Arguendo is cranky today for some reason. Don't let that dissuade you from expressing your opinion here.

[karen (karen)]

Dave,

"vulnerable and accountable"--I can respect that.

Some of your comments were offensive--not only to me, but others I care about. However, I believe your apology is real and I receive it.

[karen (karen)]

Buggin-

Disagree with Arguendo--but do it honestly. Calling her cranky is condescending.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

"Arguendo is cranky today for some reason. Don't let that dissuade you from expressing your opinion here."

Arguendo is not cranky. Arguendo doesn't want to see Dave waste an obvious gift from God to engender the trust and respect of others on petty BS.

And if Dave realizes that at one point or another, being called a sanctimonious hypocrite is worth it.

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

come on dave... are you too picking up your toys and leaving the playground... just because you got shot down... ok, ok, i know it hurts... but no one is saying your "usefulness is overextended"... arguendo is a VERY challenging personality (very valuable but sometimes intimidating)... but you don't have to leave...

(Message edited by C_la_verite on February 27, 2005)

[arguendo (arguendo)]

"Arguendo, the fart joke was for CLV"

Ah. Sorry, I growled at you.

[itsahokes (itsahokes)]

Well you sure are an interesting bunch of people. I'm drawn and driven away at once by this type of discussion. My body is staying but my spirit says go. Right now by body is winning the argument.

One thing that really surprises me here is that while so many SAY that they believe everyone has their own spiritual birthright and can follow their own spiritual inclinations, there is a great deal of putting other people down. I think I'm competent at detecting humour vs. insult and there's plenty of both here.

I'm feeling rather superficial today and admit that there is scarcely ever a time when doctrine is hugely interesting to me but I do like to think about the historical orgins of the Bible and that sort of thing. But isn't it enough to love people? Do I love people? Sometimes, and sometimes I hate them. In reading these posts I am happily reminded that I'm just like all of you. Sometimes nice, sometimes not. Human. (don't read too much into my use of the word hate; after all, God hated Esau - but did he? In our understanding of the word?) That is not a question seeking an answer, I'm just afraid that someone will jump on that word and think that I'm not a good Christian because I hate.

I hope everyone on here will have something pleasant and inspiring occur in their lives today. Best wishes to all.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Karen, The blonde thing doesn't really mean anything. It's just physical attraction; and actually one of the actresses I find most attractive among the current 'crop' is Catherine Zeta-Jones. And my wife is not blonde, so blonde ideas don't really go anywhere for me. It's more about tease material than anything else. Spiritual sensitivity and loving and accepting others is much more central to the things I really care about. I'm not looking for dates.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Dave, You don't have to go away on my account. I was not concerned about how your words make me look. My own words and posts speak for themselves. I was concerned that people not dismiss the words of others merely because they used to be celebrities or part of the machinery. I have varying degrees of respect for others. I've tried to explain what some of my 'criteria' are for why. I believe you and Jim both have a lot to offer here; but sometimes you make it impossible to receive because of the way you mock or attack people. And it draws others of us who don't like to do that into aiming it at you both. I'm sorry also if I have offended you or Jim. My intention is to defend others' right to think individually. I actually do want your contributions here.

[dominic1725 (dominic1725)]

I just caught up on all the fun.

With all the doctrinal debates that have raged, these hard feelings and reactions were inevitable. I too endorse the idea that we should be able to defend our faith. I too believe that we must be diligent and technical in our pursuit of the Scriptures. I too love the debate … it’s in my genetics. I have relatives that if you ask them directions, they’ll tell you how to build a bridge. In all our family debates, (with rare exception), we were never insulted, condescended or bullied into agreement. They were designed to make you think. (You can all relate to the family debate around hustling off to Bible School to live in a semi-communal atmosphere with a religious organization they never heard of). Unless you are secure in your positions, you will surely lash out against those who disagree.

Somehow, I have put myself in a position to defend Steve Quinlan, Jack Leonard and others, even though I know they do not need my defense.

Jack – although it is true that in public education, or academia in general, the gloves come off in debate, as a believer, you can more easily separate yourself emotionally from secular viewpoint than divine viewpoint, as it does not challenge your foundational belief system in that … well, it could be chalked-up to "gray areas" or secular relativism, rather than foundational dogma. I for one can appreciate your trademark approach of being a gentleman in debate.

Jim F – your words; “Some of you have carried over your TBS/GGWO tendency to give folks a free pass without critical thinking onto FN ala "OOH pastah Q you're soooo amazing." Although you cleverly used the word “some” to appear objective, your indictment paints with a wide brush “ALL” that compliments another. And further implies, that those who disagree, or do not pay homage to your insights, somehow AREN"T critical thinkers. I happen to enjoy the way you frame an issue, from a debating standpoint, … and, I can appreciate that you have do your homework and do a good job of regurgitating that homework here on FN. But that does not mean that I don’t think your viewpoint is completely full of ****.

For me to exercise my viewpoint, I would be forced to engage in the same bully techniques. At a cursory glance, I believe the Armenian and Dominion position are flawed for the same reason that this debate forum is flawed ... legalism. It seems the same premise that permeates the doctrines that you espouse, is front and center in the defense of those doctrinal viewpoints. I happen to believe the Armenian premise does not withstand the scrutiny of the whole counsel of God, particularly with respect to establishment of theological premise. The policy of grace-orientation, to which I hold, is replaced by literalism, another form of legalism. As I understand it, Armenians want to bully free will, and take the arrogant position that I AM CHOSEN, and to hell with the rest. Here, God's justice is impuned. With the Dominion-ites, they want to re-align with the Crusades of old and bully any one who disagree, into submission to their way of thinking by dominating the world-system. The Crusaders also thought they were doing God’s work. Even though I am a promoter of any believer who maximizes his talents inside of the world-system, I do not promote it for the same reason as Dominionists. Now .. did I just change anyone's mind here on FactNet? Did my opinion help anybody? Or, did I just jam my opinion, from whoever I study from, down your throats?

Why should anyone be surprised that my opinions and others’ opinions as expressed here on FN, would result in a sort of emotional revolt? Many perceive these “debates” as nothing more than another tool of the bullying modus operandi? In lieu of my disagreements, I choose to allow the debates to rage on, absent my participation, not because I do not think critically, but because I do. Just because I may view my positions valid, whose belief system am I destroying and at what cost? Can I be there to pick up the pieces if I shatter someone’s belief system? And as some of you may already be thinking … am I even qualified to engage some of you here on FN, who are clearly studious believers (and unbelievers alike)?

If you have ever debated an entrenched JW, you will know that the there is no pulling back the curtain. In fact, there is no curtain at all; there is a carefully and meticulously built brick wall that encompasses their dogma. This is why it takes more than just good debating technique and critical thinking … it takes wisdom and respect for others. Can these rules of engagement be added into the FN mix? If so, I think you will see many more participants.

Back to Quinlan for a moment: Any one, who has endured or excelled in the academic environment that he has, deserves respect. In addition, whether we agree or disagree, whether he is right or wrong in any given subject, most of us, who have not exercised such academic discipline, are not qualified to critique him … at least I am not. I would prefer to leave that to those who are similarly qualified, who he can trust and respect.

After reviewing some of Quinlan’s posts, it was apparent that he was not bullying anyone, not proselytizing, and more than that, not demanding anyone’s respect. He did however, attempt to get you thinking about the issues. In my opinion, he took the humble approach, despite academic portfolio. This may explain why he is endeared to many here, even if they “critically” disagree. Keep in mind, I am not Steve’s good friend, nor have I had a single conversation with him, ever! But I fully understand why he would not subject himself to this forum under these conditions.

[dominic1725 (dominic1725)]

Correction on my post above: Replace Arminianisn with Reformed!

Apologies to Arminianism!

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Bravo...well stated doctrinal position and opinion about the overall subject.

Excellent Dom. And much appreciated.

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

"This is why it takes more than just good debating technique and critical thinking … it takes wisdom and respect for others."

YES!!!

somewhere on another thread buddah, i think, asked someone the question..."what is the reason or purpose of life?" that has been rolling around in my mind since and i decided my answer would be to have understanding (wisdom)... the heart knowledge of who He is and how He thinks... that will make all the difference... how i see myself, others, the circumstances of my life, how i react when i see Him face to face and finally my capacity in eternity... if this forum is not bring us to more understanding of Him and of eachother... then it is good for nothing... unfortunately in order to really learn it seems we have to get hurt and maybe hurt others along the way... but it would be good if we tried to do it as little as possible...

[cape_cod (cape_cod)]

Dominic,

You stated your case brilliantly!!!

Mutual R-E-S-P-E-C-T for one and ALL is what is desperately needed here on FACTNet. LOVE demands no less.

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

Our doctrinal differences aside, your thoughts are well crafted and ring true. Again, denegrating others - especially when we simply have a difference of opinion - is so far from the example Jesus gave us while he walked this earth and frankly doesn't point anyone to God. I am Steve's friend and have spent a lot of time with him for over 30 years. I don't agree with him on all of his doctinal beliefs either, but I still believe him to be as sincere and honest as anyone and with more intelligence than many. His way is not to enter into useless debate trying to force people to think as he does, his way is to discuss issues and to encourage critical thinking. I'm disappointed to have missed out on his input on this board.

thanks, Dom.

[bjerwin (bjerwin)]

Simply, there is alot of meanness in here. Many have left because of it. Same reason many of us left TBS/GGWO. I choose to spend my time with loving folks. There are many in here, but there is much meanness.

Dave, I will miss you. I wouldn't let the meanies drive you away... however, I understand it cuz I'm about over it myself.

Dom and Alana, well said as always.

Minutus, loved the story.

Dave, your sense of humor and writing is great. I don't always agree with it all (many times it is over my head)... some in here HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR AT ALL... wouldn't know it if it ran into them. Ignore the hate and viciousness.

We put up with in at TBS/GGWO much longer than this!!!

Off to work I go.. the law office is a kinder, gentler place to be most days than on FN. Thank God for men attorneys and women that leave their PMS at home.

(Message edited by bjerwin on February 28, 2005)

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Dave Drago, my respect for you just sky-rocketed. EVERYBODY messes up, including pastors. But ANY DAY you can give me someone like yourself who has the character to apologize and try to mend fences. You have been human, accessible, and entreatable. What you wrote about healthy pastor-people relationships was particularly helpful. I thank you. Your many edifying posts are "money in the bank" for when you need a "withdrawal", as you did after yesterday's post. You get high marks from me for not fighting back afterwards. Sometimes strength is shown in exercising restraint. I disagree with you on reformed theology, and question your decision to defend Jim Faucett, but c'est la vie.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

BJ, I just read yours and could not agree more.

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

Dave Drago - I don't agree with you on many points of doctrine...so what?! Don't want to argue or debate the points either...so what?! You have said some unkind words, made negative inferences about various people...many of us have also done so...human factor again. It isn't the way any of us should behave (Christian or not!)...but many of us have and most likely will do so again, unfortunately.

It is healthy to have honest disagreements/discussions because it causes people to think! So, you can obviously leave FN if you choose, but hope that you don't feel "forced" to do so because of disagreements.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

Yeah, mean people suck.

Just think, what would have happened if someone had been really, really mean to CHS years ago and really cut him to the bone by saying "God gave you a gift and you're ****ing it away by treating badly those who love you and trust you." Yeah, that really would have sucked.

[lee (lee)]

Bruder- Thanks for the excerpt. I knew I'd heard that. I think a letter by Wimber was read in church explaining that stuff. It seemed a good way to handle it. I remember thinking that by just bringing the incident to the light (telling us) it dispelled the energy of the wrong. It left us feeling that whatever happened, it was made right, and we were okay. Too bad we didn't have that experience in TBS.

Dom- Thank you for your input. I'm generally leery of wanting to know what others think doctrinally, because it usually leads to namecalling and too much provocation, on the other hand, I still have a desire to hear the word expounded on. My interests aren't always what the speaker at church is speaking about. Somethings talked about here are more relevant to our experience at TBS, so it has more significance for me. I hope we can get to a better place.

Dave- please don't go! I know, you have a church to care for, I understand. I also know how hard it is to leave the FN family! I enjoy your lists! I have no canolis in my house........if I did, I'd have way too much weight to loose for the reunion! BTW, will you join us?

To everyone- I'm sorry all this namecalling has happened once again. I wish we could get to a place where doctrine could be discussed without it. Perhaps I'm asking for too much. Maybe these arguements will never be answered because God intends they not be. Others have fought for years over them, right?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Dear Jack,

Abuse is what happens when someone comes round your house and gives you a bitch-slapping. This is an internet chat board. If you can be 'abused' here you really have an altered consciousness. See those little arrows to the left of each post? Don't like what someone is saying? Clickety-click, kinda like watching tv you get to use your 'free will' not to read what someone is posting. Of course if you can't resist reading then you've become a glutton of sorts haven't you?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

"Penis" envy according to Moses:


Genesis 3:16 (ESV)
To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be <u>for</u> (<font color="0000ff">the word actually would be better translated in modern English to mean against or having the desire to take over his position</font>) your husband,
and he shall rule over you(this is where the envy part comes in)."

This sort of penis envy is rampant on fracturednet.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

There's no law that talking about doctrine needs to deteriorate into name-calling. That happens when a Jim Faucett talks about doctrine, as his posts are often contemptuous and violent. Someone with a head full of doctrine who can't be patient and kind has nothing of value to offer (my take on 1 Cor 13). Jim, by your attitude, you invalidate the doctrine you proclaim. Love is still the all-encompassing command, and God's command to you is not nullified because this is a chat room. You are in violation of that command.

You will no doubt appeal to Jesus casting out the money-changers. I met a man who was jailed for domestic violence. During our first conversation, he sought to justify himself using Jesus cleansing the temple. To adapt a recent vice-presidential debate, I've read about Jesus, I know Jesus, and Jim, you're no Jesus.

Arguendo, of course confrontation is sometimes needed. Stevens was confronted, and held his ground. You made your point to Dave, he apologized, and you kept going. That's where it gets mean.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

And Jim, your understanding of gender relations, slavery etc. is by no means the only Biblically faithful interpretation. In fact, Quinlan may have left out of frustration at your sloppy thinking on the topic.

[anova (anova)]

Should we be putting some of these posts on Jim F. on the "By Popular Demand" thread?


P.S To all those who were BEGGING Jim to come back on FactNet: What on earth were you thinking?!?!

[anova (anova)]

Jim,

"...you get to use your 'free will' not to read what someone is posting..."

Jim, because of what the others have already mentioned, I scroll past your posts 99% of the time!

I hadn't thought of using the edit button. Good advice. Thanks!

Anovus

[arguendo (arguendo)]

John Kranis:

1. You need to read his and my posts again. I have right to tell Dave how his actions affect me. I get to say when he does something that makes me loose respect for him.
2. He did defend himself. I do not consider apologies wrapped in attacks an apology. Plus, I have no need for him to apologize to me. My "feelings" are not the point. Plus, he can't apologize unless he understands how he offended, which I didn't express until the second post.
3. Many of these blanket apologies that have become so popular on FN are worthless. They're mere posturing as a "good Christian." A real apology involves a change in behavior and empathy. Anything else is really just an effort to make your life as easy and as pleasant as possible by getting along and not making waves.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

Plus, if anyone thinks that Dave Drago left FN because of me, you greatly underestimate Dave Drago.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Dom said: <font color="0000ff">"For me to exercise my viewpoint, I would be forced to engage in the same bully techniques. At a cursory glance, I believe the Armenian and Dominion position are flawed for the same reason that this debate forum is flawed ... legalism. It seems the same premise that permeates the doctrines that you espouse, is front and center in the defense of those doctrinal viewpoints. I happen to believe the Armenian premise does not withstand the scrutiny of the whole counsel of God, particularly with respect to establishment of theological premise. The policy of grace-orientation, to which I hold, is replaced by literalism, another form of legalism. As I understand it, Armenians want to bully free will, and take the arrogant position that I AM CHOSEN, and to hell with the rest. Here, God's justice is impuned. With the Dominion-ites, they want to re-align with the Crusades of old and bully any one who disagree, into submission to their way of thinking by dominating the world-system. The Crusaders also thought they were doing God’s work. Even though I am a promoter of any believer who maximizes his talents inside of the world-system, I do not promote it for the same reason as Dominionists. Now .. did I just change anyone's mind here on FactNet? Did my opinion help anybody? Or, did I just jam my opinion, from whoever I study from, down your throats?</font>

Just a few points:

1. Armenians live in or are descended from residents of Armenia and look like Cher before she had too much surgery or Alan Arkin, if you remember him. Arminians are what most folks on fracturednet are--and what CHS is--without even knowing it or having the intellectual honesty to follow it to its full logical end. You were taught Arminianism at TBS. Your 'free will' saves you. God bases his 'election' of you on his foresight on how YOU will decide. Arminianism teaches you that you have to DO THINGS to stay in God's good graces and that when you don't DO THINGS you lose your bema toys. "You're carnal, you're off, you need to repent!---IF you don't go soulwinning at least once a week and attend raps you'll answer for it when I present you at the bema seat..." Real gutsy, truly logical Arminians--which most on here and in American evangelicalism don't hold to--see that if you got in by your 'free will' you can get out by it. They progress to become Pelagians who believe that they have all in their power to do all that God commands them to do. They become 'open' theologians who believe that God does not really know the future because he has 'cloaked' his omniscience and is sitting on the edge of his seat, biting his nails waiting for us powerful humans to give him a break and let him in the door with the knob on the inside.

Most semi-semi-Arminians in America have gotta have their 'eternal security.' This doctrine as understood by most here, and most US evangelicals says that once you've made a 'decision' for Jesus and you let him in your 'door' he turns around and nails it shut and no matter what the hell you do or say or how you live or behave--neither of you are getting out of there. This is neither scriptural or logical thinking, but it sure makes for good rationalization when you're tempted to visit the local whorehouse.

2. Legalism: most folks here are really legalistic and don't even know it. Legalism says this is the stuff that you MUST DO:

Some are legalistic in their postmodernism: You MUST let every one have their "special truth". You must never think that you are right about anything. You must absolutely never say that any truth is absolute (and you must accept the absolute truth of this statement). I am so happy for you that you have a truth of your very own and I must be tolerant because that is what I GOTTA DO TO BE GOOD! That's legalism.

Arminian legalism says you must evangelise, you must go to church, you must pray, you must read your Bible, you must fellowship and tithe.

Reformed legalism says you must keep the sabbath, you must worship only according to the accepted interpretation of the regulative principle, you must not take part in festivals that God did not command in the Bible (like Christmas because it's based on a pagan holiday). You gotta do this stuff.

Human beings are prone to think that the stuff they do brings them into favor with God. That is not grace. Grace is that God, without your help or even your inclination or any preparation of your own heart at all by you--saves you because HE wants to and keeps you because HE wants to and your performance will never bring you into greater or lesser favor with him. Any of the STUFF YOU DO, YOU DO OUT OF GRATITUDE not because you're afraid of losing your bema toys.

3. Don't confuse "dominion" theology which is basically postmillennial with Reformed theology. There are plenty of Reformed Amillennialists who cringe at 'dominion' thinking. You CAN be an Arminian and even a Pelagian and be a postmillennial 'dominion' theologian as well. A good 19th century example of this thinking is Charles Grandison Finney who thought that his methodological evangelistic techniques would help usher in the millennium. (He was also the first to use the phrase 'liquid waves of love.) Finney's systematic theology is full of obedience to the law out of your own ability in order to remain in God's favor.

No reasonable person holding to both Reformed theology and postmillennialism ever thinks they are the ones who bring in the 'golden age.' God's kingdom is not brought in by force but by the Holy Spirit. This is what Dave Carson and I were posting about elsewhere before we were accused of having lust for certitude or not having enough mystery in our faith. We were soundly scolded by persons much more spiritual than we who demand that we MUST DO things like not study the eschatalogical passages too seriously or that we MUST certainly never assert that we're right about any theological point at all, because after all we won't know anything till we're all dead anyway.

3. Like most current politically correct folks, you take the standard view of the Crusades as being white bullies going into the Middle East and killing people. It was these same "Crusaders" who kept Europe from being run over by Muslim hordes who'd just bloodied most of North Africa (which used to be Christian), Spain, Asia Minor, etc. If these nasty bastard "Crusaders" hadn't defeated the Muslim armies at the battle of Tours in 732 AD, you'd probably be praying to Allah right now. As it stands, unless we take a page out the "Crusader" battle book, our grandkids may be looking forward to a heaven where they get 72 virgins instead of eternity with Christ.

4. How in the world could being chosen for no evident good thing in us ever produce arrogance? Arrogant we may be, but not for that reason. No one chosen of God would ever say "to hell with the rest" and I don't think I've ever espoused that particular position. If that is how you understand Reformed theology, then your understanding is either faulty or you made it up as you went along ala Indiana Jones.

[anon_brief (anon_brief)]

Good posts, Arguendo. I agree.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Arguendo,
1. You need to read his and my posts again. <font color="ff0000">I did.</font> I have right to tell Dave how his actions affect me. <font color="ff0000">The way I see it you attacked his motives and character rather than explain how his statements affected you.</font> I get to say when he does something that makes me loose respect for him. <font color="ff0000">Hopefully you can express things you apreciate also. I respect you, but that would make me respect you more (which may be irrelevant to you)</font>
2. He did defend himself. I do not consider apologies wrapped in attacks an apology. <font color="ff0000">The way I see it, he apologized for what he knew, and tried to find common ground. This may carry no currency with you, but I appreciate it.</font> Plus, I have no need for him to apologize to me. My "feelings" are not the point. <font color="ff0000">I can't comment on why you reacted so strongly</font> Plus, he can't apologize unless he understands how he offended, which I didn't express until the second post.
3. Many of these blanket apologies that have become so popular on FN are worthless. <font color="ff0000">I would say they are a good start; something to build on</font> They're mere posturing as a "good Christian." <font color="ff0000">Your judgment of people's motives; there are other possible explanations such as lack of modeling, or feeling too beaten up.</font> A real apology involves a change in behavior and empathy. <font color="ff0000">I completely agree!</font> Anything else is really just an effort to make your life as easy and as pleasant as possible by getting along and not making waves. <font color="ff0000">I would argue there is something to be said for getting along, for being quick to ask forgiveness and grant it, and when in doubt giving the benefit of the doubt.

Arguendo, what would satisfy you?

Dave, please check back in. You can speak for yourself much better than I can.</font>

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

<font color="0000ff">There's no law that talking about doctrine needs to deteriorate into name-calling. That happens when a Jim Faucett talks about doctrine, as his posts are often contemptuous and violent. Someone with a head full of doctrine who can't be patient and kind has nothing of value to offer (my take on 1 Cor 13). Jim, by your attitude, you invalidate the doctrine you proclaim. Love is still the all-encompassing command, and God's command to you is not nullified because this is a chat room. You are in violation of that command.

You will no doubt appeal to Jesus casting out the money-changers. I met a man who was jailed for domestic violence. During our first conversation, he sought to justify himself using Jesus cleansing the temple. To adapt a recent vice-presidential debate, I've read about Jesus, I know Jesus, and Jim, you're no Jesus.</font>

Very cute, John, very cute. I am so cut to the quick. Interestingly, the vice-presidential candidate whom you quote was fellow Texan who debated "I can't spell potato" Dan Quayle. Lloyd Bentsen, running mate to Dukakis, never became vice-president and is now remembered mainly because he got in a good zinger quip against poor Dan. Perhaps you are to be likewise remembered.

You're right John, I am no Jesus. I am a guy with strong opinions who uses strong language to defend them. I make no apologies for that. I have never, however lacked love for people. I would contend that you have some sloppy thinking about 'love.' Love is inextricably connected to the commandments of God in the decalog, care to expound?

Being 'nice' isn't always being loving, nor is being not 'nice' unloving. I may violently oppose ideas, yes. I hold lots of philosphies and ideas in contempt, yes. But you're very wrong if you think I hate people. You anticipate my defense a little too presumptuously. I would tell you that heated debate, yes, even that which bred name-calling, has been fairly common in church history even in the new testament itself. I achieved my end here not by winning any popularity contest, but by provoking the occasional thought. And if you browse through factnet, John, you will find FN a fairly dry place for any meaningful doctrinal discussion. You will finding it a bitching and moaning slough where people come to strain at the gnat of Carl Stevens and swallow camels like liberal theology and 'gay' Christianity which are much bigger dangers to our society.

You never entered into the debate concerning slavery while it was going on and yet you feel fairly confident about bringing it up in retrospect. Since you feel free to accuse me of sloppy thinking in a 'hit and run' style post ala Jack Leonard--let me remind you of the context:

1. Evangelicals claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality--therefore they preach against it.

2. Liberals and 'gay' Christians say that the Bible endorses slavery.

3. Evangelicals respond by saying, yes, that was then but this is now.

4. Liberals clean their clocks and gut their arguments by saying yes, that WAS then and this IS now concerning homosexuality AND slavery in that they are expounded in the same OT passages.

5. The NT nowhere condemns slavery, but it DOES condemn homosexuality.

6. The NT specifically addresses those who are Christians and slaves in their behavior to their masters--they are to obey them and work even harder for the harsh ones.

7. Jesus spent NO time addressing the issue of slavery.

8. The NT letter of Philemon lends out the only practical help for the issue (and I made this point back then as well).

Now, dear John, show me my sloppy thinking, please--since you took the time to mention it.


As to why Steve Q left, that is why I put up the post above in the first place. Little Bobbie decided to snippishly lay the blame at my feet, like a little puppy who poops on your front porch and then skedaddles. Q put up his reason which Dave reposted above. I think he was haughty in the 70s and he is now as well. I still contend that if the issue is addressed in the scriptures it can be discussed. He got his panties in a wad, like many of you do, and he left. When I leave, I leave because FN is bloody boring.

[karen (karen)]

Jim,

You remind me of my father. I know my father loved me, but when I came of age and began to question issues that were settled in his mind, he could no longer open his heart. There was only one way to view every issue and one standard of behavior—his. From adolescence on, we had a terrible relationship. I tried to make peace many times, to get him to understand that our differences did not need to divide us—but it was impossible. Nothing short of surrender would suffice. When he died, we were estranged.

Tolerance is not saying there is no truth or that I have no convictions about what is truth. Tolerance is recognizing that all people must make their own decisions and face the consequences of those decisions individually. I can share my convictions, but I must respect and care for those who come to different conclusions. And what’s wrong with saying, I think I’m on the right track, but I COULD be wrong about some stuff? So maybe, I should listen to what others have to say; I could learn something.

As with my father, I feel I’m speaking an alien language to you. It grieves me.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

John Krainis:

Your assumption that I haven't praised Dave is incorrect.

I resent the condescension in your tone. Anything I do here is a choice. It is not a result of not knowing another or better way. You certainly have a right to disagree with me, but I resent being treated me as though I don't understand the impact of my words. I choose them for their impact.

Dave doesn't owe me a thing. I have heard him and hopefully he has heard me. If I never write or speak another word to Dave, I am satified that those words were my last.

I disagree with your perception of the situation and I've said all I'm going to say on the matter.

(Message edited by arguendo on February 28, 2005)

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Jim,

Factnet isn't just about doctrinal issues. Of course, doctrinal issues are very relevant as it was a lack of knowledge that caused many of us to join TBS/GGWO in the first place. But it is one piece of a bigger picture. The doctrinal issues led to shattered marriages, hurting children and caused some to question their very belief in God. In concern for others who may be in a place of vulnerability, why not couch our words with kindness? I am sure you would do such in your everyday life, why not here? Why limit the effectiveness of your words by ignoring the dynamics of audience you are addressing?

All the written words on this forum were written by people.. all different kinds with all different heartaches and questions. You said "FN is a place of bitching and moaning slough" but one man's bitching could be another man's heartache. There are just too many lives here behind the words to put a quick label on the whole thing.

Please do not come back with a harsh zinging post today. A little boy from Lenox, who lived his whole in TBS/GGWO is dead today at 25. Many of us have children who grew up with Josh. It is a sad day. FN is more than words, it is lives, loved ones. It is people interconnected with a shared history. Many spent years together, loved, married and raised children together. Words and doctrine may be worthy but real lives are more worthy, and days like this make that clearer...

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Arguendo,

I re-read my post and did not see anything condescending; none was intended. You responded to my post, and I to yours. Done deal. I do disagree with you, and am comfortable in leaving it there.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Karen,
I listen to you. I respect you. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. I recognize that you make your decisions and they have consequences and am willing though unhappy when I consider those consequences. I COULD be wrong about A LOT of stuff, but unless reason and scripture are compelling, I am not likely to diverge from my present course, because what scripture says God says.

I am very sorry about your Dad and your relationship with him. I have three older sons who are mostly able to disagree vigorously with me (and with each other) and still laugh and down a pint at the pub. Maybe daughters are different, I will find out.

I have listened to you Karen, not only to the content but to the desire behind what you say. Let's see if I can nail it down and you correct me if I go wrong--forgive my oversimplification and I am not attempting to be mean-spirited or condescending. You have read the scriptures and found parts that offend your own sense of right and wrong. You feel that you can be led by the Spirit to discern God more than just reading the scriptures.

What I sense is that you are trying to imply that 'honest' doubt and unbelief have nobility and even virtue. This is where I disagree the strongest. And here is why:

Romans 1:18-20 (ESV)
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Hebrews 3:12 (ESV)
Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.

The scriptures say, and therefore, God says, that unbelief is evil--that is sin. This is not my particular idea, I didn't decide just to make it up. I can find not an ounce of nobility or virtue in unbelief anywhere in scripture. If it was there, then maybe I could say, yeah that idea has some merit. Not all ideas, philosophies, religions, faiths are equally valid nor are the equally deserving of respect. Some deserve contempt, and yes, some deserve even ridicule. The idea that unbelief is noble was idealized in this 19th century poem by William Ernest Henley:
<center>Invictus</center>

OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Yet Henley's knees will bow and his tongue will confess that Christ is Lord--as will we all. His poem is not noble or virtuous, it is false, blasphemous, full of pride and sin and deserves every ounce of contempt and ridicule that we could pour out on it.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Jim,
Had I been interested in debating slavery, I would have done so when the opportunity presented itself. Suffice it to say that your view is scripturally ignorant and embarassing. If you are interested, I can recommend a scholarly study that would help you. You err, not knowing the scriptures or the character of God.

I am interested in making one point, and one point only: in my opinion, your biting, caustic, know-it-all, scripture-as-jackhammer, spirituality-as-doctrine, everybody-except-Jim-is-fogbound style is as far from Jesus Christ as it gets.

You have the unique ability to make your beliefs (many of which I share) loathsome. As many have stated on this thread, it starts with respect. Even "infidels" and "liberals" deserve to be treated with respect. If you expect to have your views taken seriously, start with this: "Let your conversation be full of grace", "speak the truth in love", "the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone", "love...is kind", "let your gentleness be known to all."

Come back and talk after you've learned the first things of Christianity.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

Ah. Interesting timing of your post and JF's. No doubt you were writing yours and did not see JF's post. Maybe that would have made a difference, but maybe not.

Do you think that happens to anyone else on FACTNet? If it does, I'm sure it only happens to the "nice" people.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Jeannie,
I am sure that whatever I say, you can peg however you like. This is meant not to be harsh or 'zinging' but since you said it, I will address it.

Herein lies the heart of the matter:

<font color="0000ff">Words and doctrine may be worthy but real lives are more worthy, and days like this make that clearer...</font>

Words and doctrine disconnected from and meaningless to real lives. You will not know Christ apart from His words.

I am sorry for the loss of Josh. I am sure this is a sad time. I have buried two people in my family in the past year. Christians used to learn to face death through words and doctrine, taught from the earliest age truths like this:

Question 1. What is thy only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own, but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood, has fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his Holy Spirit, He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready, henceforth, to live unto him.

What do you think will matter to Josh most of all right now?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

How very cowardly of you John. Suffice it to say that my view is scripturally ignorant and embarrassing, indeed. And how so? If you didn’t want to debate slavery and gender roles why bring them up now? You just want to vent? You just want to make an unsubstantiated (yet very loving, I’m sure) statement that I’m wrong in your opinion. Glad you got it off your chest, John. Feel better?

Scripture commands YOU to love your enemies and those who use you despitefully. You have accused me of being in both categories, John. Why not stop prating and be exemplary; start with me, Mr. Krainis? Show me exactly how my view is scripturally deficient. Or are you as huff ‘n puff as Q? Want to stomp out and be offended as a Christian and as a human being? You will no doubt have those who say “that was then, this is now” eating your lunch as well as what is left of the normal roles of male and female go down the toilet in America.

By all means recommend your study, and I will recommend one as well by R.L.Dabney who was a little closer to the issue than either of us.

While the persons (liberals, gays, et al) may deserve respect (and I would happily feed any of them AND have a beer with them) their views certainly do not. As far as kindness goes, John, it is never kind, loving, gracious, truthful not to shout “fire” loudly and even angrily and even to get quite boisterous about it when there is danger.

Scripture as jackhammer? Surely you knew of this:
Jeremiah 23:29 (ESV)
Is not my <u>word</u> like fire, declares the Lord, and like a <u>hammer</u> that breaks the rock in pieces?

Sometimes our heads are like rocks, no?

John, I understand how you feel. We all have different ways we come across in print. Mine IS biting and caustic (and I’m not alone in that here on FN), I DO sound like a know-it-all at times, I DO think that spirituality APART from doctrine is useless. Whether you take me seriously or not is your choice. I think you have a view of the ‘love’ of God that equates to what I’d call ‘sloppy agape’—but you are a ‘nice’ guy aren’t you?

[karen (karen)]

Jim,

How must we be saved? By believing that Jesus died on the Cross in our place and accepting forgiveness for our sins. I do. This is the Gospel—the GOOD news. It is grace plus NOTHING.

But you have added to the Gospel. You say I cannot be saved unless I also believe that every jot and tittle in the 66 books of the Bible is God’s Word. Not only that, but I must also correctly interpret every jot and tittle, because unless I do, I am not believing in the “real” Jesus. So in your estimation, I am committing the unpardonable sin of unbelief that will buy me prime real estate in the fiery pit.

Well, I am not afraid. Because I know Him.

And if love was anything more than a doctrine to you, you’d understand why it is wrong to treat people so abominably. There is something hideous and hateful that comes forth from you—and it seems you are the only one blind to it.

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

Dear Friends,

1. I do not really know where to begin! I have no problem with being knocked on my ass. As a matter of fact, it seems like sometimes I spend days in that position! Thank you Arguendo for commending me on my gifts and also abusing them. You are right. I abused a gift that God has given me. I should not be involved in pettiness. It is wrong. Sometimes I can really be a sanctimonious hypocrite! I am not proud of that trait at all. But, there it is for the entire world to see.

2. I think one reason I was drawn to FN is that I enjoyed not being in the fishbowl that many Southern Baptist pastors &amp; their families live under 24x7. I enjoyed talking about a period of my life that did not have closure. Yet, with the office of pastor comes a higher standard. I preach this and I believe this with all my heart. I stepped out of the fishbowl of the pastorate and let my guard down in my recent top ten list. This was wrong. I was wrong. Not the first or the last time.

3. Truly, my post was intended as humorous! However, with further retrospection, what Arguendo really picked up on was a little passive aggressive behavior wrapped in humor on my part towards Bob and Roberta and Joel. For this I truly apologize and ask Bob and Roberta and Joel to please forgive me.

4. Also, some of my comments were interpreted differently than how I meant them. For instance, regarding the comments about Bob they were 'Airborne Ranger' humor. I was not trying to say Bob suffers from gender confusion, but that no man can really understand a woman...hence, “Show me a man who claims he understands women and I will show you a woman.” Kind of like Men are from Mars women from Venus. Still, the 20-20 hindsight shows some passive aggressive behavior clothed with humor. Of course it would offend Bob and shock others. Bob, please forgive me. I should not have posted it. It is offensive.

5. Regarding Roberta my comments were not appropriate. I have no problem with strong women, some of you think I do, but I do not. She often humorously bemoans the lack of a penis. I should not have lowered my standards by joking inappropriately about an area that she has joked about. As humorous or callous as my comment was it was also unkind and inappropriate. This is something that I should not do - not only as a human being, and a Christian, but a pastor. Roberta, please forgive me.

6. Regarding, CLV, forgive me, I know you are a man and would not have a crush on Quinn! That was unkind and unfair. Joel, please forgive me.

7. If I have offended anyone else please forgive me. My comments were not kind. We have all been slapped around by a Bully-pulpit, so the reaction because of my office is to be expected. I should have known better. I should have sat on the list for 24 hours, I am sure that I would not have posted it! But, what this shows about me is that I can be cruel at times. If I were not in the office of pastor (a higher standard) the comments would be easier to digest for some- consider Yogi’s and Orange Toupee’s blogspot, you all enjoyed their humor and it was at other’s expense. This does not justify my list, two wrongs do not make a right. It was wrong.

8. I appreciate Arguendo challenging me –even if she stays anonymous. I did not attack her, I challenged her back in how she reproves. I felt like she was hitting me with a board while removing dust. I thank you all for your correction; you confirmed what I already knew about myself. I am far from perfect. And, sometimes I should keep my mouth shut! Growing in grace, it never ends!

9. Regarding my departure, I think for conscience sake I should stay away. No one can run me off. I am pretty tough! I can take and give a beating. I do not want to cause myself or others to stumble by my words. And, I mean this with all my heart; I really think I have outlived my usefulness on FN. I do not have much more to say. (I know that seems hard to believe!) There are new voices, and they need to be heard.

10. Arguendo is right; I should not have published my list. PERIOD. The moment I did, I stopped being an effective leader, I divested myself of being worthy of respect, and I just became another intolerant jerk. I hope this will not cast a shadow over my contribution to this board. It is a short trip from the big house to the outhouse.

11. I do not view my dozens of edifying, thoughtful posts as a waste of time. I do not view them as crap. But, you will all have to decide that for yourself. I am still growing in my walk with Jesus. I still need His blood daily to cleanse me.

12. I am reminded of an old hymn that pierces my heart and challenges me to press on:


"Have Thine own way LORD, have Thine own way,
Thou art the Potter and I am the clay.
Wash me and cleanse me, til' all can see,
Christ only always, living in me."

What a humbling hymn! I look forward to being conformed and transformed by HIS grace. I do wish you all to farewell and I pray that you will continue to seek HIS FACE!

Saved by Grace,
Dave

[jeannie (jeannie)]

Exactly my point Jim.

You wrote: Words and doctrine disconnected from and meaningless to real lives. You will not know Christ apart from His words.

Put a real life in front of you when you write your words. Your words are not doctrine but your words and do not disconnect the value of the human life your words are directed at. I know Josh is now free from his pain and great suffering. He is with the Savior he so lovingly sang about. He walked this earth for 25 years and his life mattered and had great worth. The people you address on this forum lives also matter and have great worth. I am not trying to rebuke you or tell you what to do, Jim.. just asking you to consider the worth of the individuals you are addressing and consider reframing your approach in light of that...

...you tempered your words in your post to me because I stated my vulnerable edge today. Thanks..

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

You misunderstand me Karen, what I am saying is that you don't get to pick and choose the parts you like and discard the parts you don't because it is the very Christ you proclaim that said the scripture can't be broken. I'm sure you don't get it. He is what he says. The same Christ who died on Calvary is the same one who stood before Joshua with outdrawn sword before the massacre at Jericho as Captain of the Lord's Host. You cannot say honestly that you believe He is one and not the other, because He says he is both.

[arguendo (arguendo)]

Dave, I am sorry I was so hard on you and wrote to you in that manner (no one wants to be talked to like that), but I thought anything less would have been dismissed with a joke, a nod and an eye roll.

Humility, faith, love and intelligence are a tremendous arsenal. I doubt that there is anything that you can't conquer.

Of course what you have written in the past, or even in the near present, isn't crap because you have redeemed your words and gave them their true meaning again. In fact, perhaps they are more true now because they have been tested and still remain true. The meaning, and value, of our words is defined in the context of our actions.

I wish every good thing for you and your family.

[anova (anova)]

Karen,

Your ignorance and the smallness of your mind disgust me.

Anovus

[anova (anova)]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[anova (anova)]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

" Regarding Roberta my comments were not appropriate. I have no problem with strong women, some of you think I do, but I do not. She often humorously bemoans the lack of a penis. I should not have lowered my standards by joking inappropriately about an area that she has joked about. As humorous or callous as my comment was it was also unkind and inappropriate. This is something that I should not do - not only as a human being, and a Christian, but a pastor. Roberta, please forgive me."

David, I am still surprised that you missed the actual humor/sarcasm.

I have never "bemoaned" the lack of a personal male appendage...I have and will continue to openly mock those that think women cannot preach because they do not have one.

"I should not have lowered my standards by joking inappropriately about an area that she has joked about."

Lowered your "standards"? Still sounds like a backhanded apology to me, but I am ok with that....*LOL*

Say hello to Christine for me Dave.

Case closed.

[karen (karen)]

Anovus,

I am bringing a complaint about you before HRH. I happen to know you have stepped on a lot of toes in the queen's court and will have no trouble finding others to corroborate my charges. I can hear the verdict now: "off with his head!" Perhaps you should make preparations to leave the kingdom while you still can.

[anova (anova)]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

[herroyalhighness (herroyalhighness)]

Ooooh, ladies in waiting - unite! Well, Anova...guess you must walk softly and watch out for toes! The noble Lady Karen may bring charges of her own unrelated to those of Sirs Cape of Cod and Cla of Verite! Oops! guess this should move to the Queen's thread before we get slapped for talking out of turn...uh...I mean out of thread...oh...it's off the topic! Sorry - to all who are offended - sigh!

[c_la_verite (c_la_verite)]

dave drago... your apology is more than accepted by me... i was never offended by anything you said to or about me... i think anyone with a crush on steve quinlan...male or female would be best off to let it go alsohttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif
in any case your post just confirms the esteem i already had for you... i think the level of reaction to your post was correspondant to the level of respect and love that people feel towards you here... i hope that even if you do not post you will at least continue to lurk here because i am sure you are a praying man as well...

blessings

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

1.Arguendo,
Thank you for your kind words. I know you meant well. I needed to hear what you had to say to me. Also, thank you for the encourgement. May God bless you.

2. Roberta,
It is not a backhanded apology at all. My humor was inappropriate. Regarding my standards this is what I mean:

Ephesians 4.29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."

My top ten list did not meet that standard. PERIOD.

3. All Scripture is for my benefit. Whether I accept it or not.

Romans 3.4 "May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
"THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

4. Regarding the office of pastor/elder/bishop it is reserved for men. The Bible is clear in this office and the qualifiactions. The Baptist Faith and Message affirms this teaching and I support it. Other denominations believe the same.

5. Regarding preaching that is just one function of the elder. Many men (Billy Graham, Junior Hill, David Ring come to mind)and women (Beth Moore and Ruth Graham Lotz come to mind) preach the word without occupying the office of pastor. In the SBC we have men and women registered as evangelists.

6. There are so many more fucntions of the elder then just preaching. The elder is a servant-leader. He serves and oversees the church as an undershepherd.

7. Regarding deacons and deaconesses there is considerable debate about 1 Timothy 3. Some claim that Phoebe was a deaconness. Othes say 1 timothy 3 lists the qualifications of a deacon's wife and not a deaconness. Both points have their merits. Either way the deacon or deaconness is a servant and does not oversee the church. Each local church should investigate the scriptues and determine the standard from the bible.

8. I will send my regards to Chris. Do the same to Scott and Dave. And may the peace of God rule your hearts and minds!

For Him,
Dave

(Message edited by dave drago on February 28, 2005)

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I can read the Bible, Dave, and I know exactly what it says on the subject. You also know that I contend that the Pauline "standard" was applicable and appropriate for it's day, and that I don't think God is a mysoginst, Paul (a Roman and Pharisee)was writing in the context of PAUL's times, not God's.

Time have changed...no...I am not in debate mode with you and your buddy Faucett. I know what I believe, that you all think I am wrong...and guess what....I don't care.

I will say that with all the corruption in the church today world wide...you men might think twice, and let go of your pitiful control of things.

Why is it you and Jim always come across so condecendingly? It must be that "male appendage/pastor" thing....good grief.

ta ta

[anon_brief (anon_brief)]

Nice post, Dave.

[ariel (ariel)]

David Drago,

I appreciated your last post, (not that it was intended for me) but it displays the kind of heart I wish most pastors in GGWO/TBS had.

[cape_cod (cape_cod)]

Dave Drago,

I do NOT know you sir, nor have I read very many of your posts. However, I must say that I do have respect for you from reading this thread. WHY, you ask? The issue is NOT that a believer falls in some way, because we ALL do. The issue IS how does the person REBOUND. My take on your words is that they are spoken with sincerity, honesty, and humility. Personally, I hope that you continue to contribute to FACTNet as I NOT only think that you have a good heart, but a lot of intelligence to go along with it.


Jim Faucett,

I personally think that you're VERY intelligent as well, and have A LOT to offer. I would humbly suggest just ONE thing. Speak the TRUTH and allow it to stand on it's own. The TRUTH does NOT need defending. The truth will either 'stick' and be meaningful because it truly IS the truth, OR, it will just simply fall by the wayside because it really wasn't truth at all. The word of God will NOT return back VOID!!! That is a promise from God. Jesus Christ spoke the truth and there was NO way that anyone could even say anything against His words because it was said with such extreme WISDOM!!!


Arguendo,

In regards to your February 28, 2005 - 3:48 pm post. I have to tell you that it blessed me due to the fact that I feel that it meant a lot to Dave. Thank you!

***Just a suggestion:
There is just so much room for misunderstandings here in this type of format. It's just far too easy to assume what the person's 'tone' of expression is and misunderstand what the other is trying to say in it's proper context. Perhaps we should NOT react so strongly when we post, as if we know exactly where the other is coming from.

(Message edited by cape cod on March 01, 2005)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Dave, Thank you. Your apology is accepted. I have no wish to be at odds with you; even when we disagree. I do hope that you will stay with us.

I think that I understand women better than most men; but also that I understand men not as well as most men do. This perhaps is largely due to the fact that my mother was a deep and strong believer and my father was spiritually clueless. So my personal character is much more reflective of her than of him. He has always been a mainly negative role model for me. I have distinctly chosen to be a different person than he is. Following him, many of the male authority figures in my life have been incredibly abusive and disrespectful of individuality. I guess they've driven the point home. When a man seems more gentle and respectful of others (like Jack or Steve), I respond to that positively. But generally women seem more like that than men. I have to conclude that I do have some degree of gender prejudice; and ask your forgiveness for any degree to which I've shown that toward you. I believe in trying to have a level playing field; but at the same time intend to learn from my experiences, and not just pass them off as exceptions to some unwritten rule that is an imaginary 'norm'.

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Dave, thanks for being honest and modeling what to do when we "blow it". What a relief to know that we can blow it and not have it be the end of the story.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Amen John. Dave is truyly a man of integrity, and I have been blessed to call him friend.

BTW, I noticed I didn't openly say I accepted his apology, but I did and do.

[cape_cod (cape_cod)]

Okay, I'm going to take this deafening silence as everyone's HaPpY and content once again! Yes?!?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/talker.gif

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

Cape, I think there was a natural pause after people worked things out. Some theological points were raised that could probably be discussed further at some point, but there's some serious stuff happening on other threads. Much prayer and wisdom are needed.

Hodeuon

[manchette (manchette)]

have u read the cri martin report?
i am reading it.
it mentions that xians in TBS believed others were not "as" blessed, missing God's plans for them... did you believe so?
i did for a short time/ it was hammered all the time. But i believe in a very impt principle :
whatever was the teaching about it saying so is not biblical, we're in a great xian ministry, but others can live things as good as us or even better for it depends on God ; not on a doctrine/man/structure.
I think this is the fault of believers in ggwo not to have known that, not of any man, this is believers role thru JC to search for the Truth. Not to receive everything as the Only truth. Accusinf pst Stevens about it seems wrong to me. They heard this principle, even taught it to others (2tim2.2) but did not apply it to their own lives.
Which is why when wounded afterwards they're puting the blame on men, not on them or on God.
All this factnet seems to me is not expressing the truth we hadn't seen before , but the result of not practising personnaly the Word of God and aplying it diligently to own's own life, members of the Body at GG. If it had been the case, Stevens must had changed his teaching and/or actions. I read "no touch love" came around 1986 sthg , meaning things did change in the process of time passing by. it was not preached before. Sthg made it change. Which proves we/they had not been able to be true to God (xians at Lennox, S Berwick and so on...) and face Pst Stevens with it (being human beings, thus imperfect/i keep this in mind).
It's everybody's fault, CHS is not to be a scapegoat, we had one, this is enough.

What do you think?

[jayso (jayso)]

I think TBS under the leadership of "Dr." Stevens should have taken heed to the CRI report instead of giving it lip service and not putting into practice the suggestions therin.

The CRI report gave grace to TBS and suggested that positive changes could be made to correct the various problems "Dr." Martin and others at CRI discovered.

There were some others aware of the CRI report who could have spoke up sooner to influence CHS and even could have instigated a "coup d'etat". Instead, they silently submitted to CHS' critisism of CRI and continued TBS "business as usual". Sad that a lot of people were hurt because CRI was not taken seriously by TBS.

The report is still available for reading by the "new leadership" at GGWO. Many of the same issues raised by CRI can still be corrected.

BTW, all these anacronyms ... TBS/GGWO people will be SOL having the SOS of CHS if not changed ASAP! TTYL, JAS from NY, USA

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
REPORT ON "THE BIBLE SPEAKS", LENOX, MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared by Gospel Truth Ministries, Inc.
Box 518, Sandwich, MA 02563
March 28, 1981


We are living in a day, when, more and more we are witnessing the growth of a particular kind of threat to the Christian church, one which is rising up from within the very ranks of the body of Christ. We find scriptural warnings against being misled in this manner in the epistle of Jude, as well as in Romans 16:17 &amp; 18, where Paul exhorts: "Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." A similar reference is found at Acts 20:29&amp;30: "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."

How aptly these warnings relate to the tragic events at the Penple's Temple in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones had professed to be a born-again believer, and yet his authority and control were allowed to go unchecked, to the extent that in time he became more important to his followers than Jesus Christ. Many who died in that jungle were professed Christians. Other groups which have misled many genuinely born-again Christians, though not to that extreme, would include Victor Paul Wiewille's The Way International, the Local Church of Witness Lee, and others. It was out of concern for the unity of the body of Christ that a number of ministries, dedicated to the defense of the Christian faith against doctrinal error from outside as well as within, have felt the need to express a warning, in love, relative to certain divisive tendencies which have been exhibited by the Bible Speaks Ministry, of Lenox, Massachusetts.

It is, understandably, a difficult task to have to scrutinize a ministry which is generally recognized as a Christian body, with much good fruit in evidence. Some research ministries have termed the Bible Speaks an "aberrations Christian group", a research category applied to groups not too far removed from the evangelical/fundamentalist realm in the area of basic doctrine, and many of whose leaders were, at one time, members in good standing within conventional evangelical denominations. Many sincere evangelical Christians are members of some of these organizations without realizing (or admitting) the cultic characteristics which the groups have developed. These members are understandably concerned and hurt when critical attention is directed toward them or their leaders. However, the application of the term "aberrational" is based upon both theological and socio-psychological criteria. Nonetheless, it is with much prayer, and with a motivation of love and caring for those in and considering association with The Bible Speaks Ministry, that this report is prepared and presented.

Carl H. Stevens, Pastor and Founder of The Bible Speaks, was born in West Sumner, Maine, on November k, 1929. After graduation from school he became a salesman for the Cushman bakeries. In 1961 Stevens became Pastor of a Bible church in Milton, Maine, co-pastoring churches in West Sumner and Norway. He was named area co-ordinator for Youth for Christ, as well as serving a term as President of the Oxford County Camp of the Gideons. In September 1962 he was named Pastor of the badly failing Montsweag Baptist Church. Many who knew Stevens in these early days of his ministry have expressed the opinion that he was a dynamic minister, who preached the gospel as it had seldom been heard in New England.

According to Bible Speaks literature, Stevens was ordained by a council of independent ministers at the Montsweag Baptist Church on March 7, 1963, although he had reportedly been active in Christian work since receiving Christ in 1952.

Within six months of Stevens' assuming the pastorate at Montsweag, the church began to realize significant growth, apparently due to a visitation program instituted by Stevens, with the intent of inviting people to church and winning the unsaved to Christ. After a time, the church members voted to drop their affiliation with the organized Baptist Church and become independent. By 1967 the congregation had grown to a point where a new church building was needed. The new church was named The Woolwich-Wiscasset Baptist Church, and was dedicated in 1968.

By 1971, under Stevens' leadership, the Northeast School of the Bible began on a part-time basis. In 1972 the school opened on a full-time schedule with 100 students registering. By 1975 the attendance was 325.

In 1973 both the Church and the School relocated in South Berwick, Maine. There is an element of controversy surrounding the move to South Berwick. The Bible Speaks Book of Miracles states simply that through several attacks made against the ministry, it was made clear that God desired the body to move to another area. Other reports, however, indicate that serious differences arose within the body, causing a division with one faction remaining faithful to Stevens and following him to South Berwick, and the other faction remaining at Wiscasset. There are indications that even households were affected by this division, with one mate leaving the other to follow Stevens.

With the move to South Berwick came the beginning of what The Bible Speaks calls the corporate community, with families and individuals living on the church premises.

By 1973 The Bible Speaks "Telephone Time" Program was being broadcast over Portland and Boston radio stations. Since that time The Bible Speaks has been active in sending out missionary teams to numerous foreign lands with significant results in the number of souls won to Christ. While in South Berwick The Bible Speaks had an active bus ministry, with the state Sunday school attendance record being broken in April of 1976, with 2,042 children coming to hear of Christ. By late summer of 1976 The Bible Speaks World headquarters were established in Lenox, Mass. on a 96 acre tract of land with some 25 buildings. The Stevens School of the Bible and Stevens Christian Schools opened in September 1976. The ministry also purchased two additional tracts of 12 and 35 acres. They presently lease the entire campus of the Holliston Junior College, renaming it The Bible Speaks West.

According to information provided to Gospel Truth Ministries by the Bible Speaks public relations department, pastor Stevens has no formal theological training, but official literature indicates he has received an honorary Doctorate of Divinity and Doctorate of Letters and Law from Clarksville School of Theology in Clarksville, Tennessee.

The Bible Speaks, according to its publications, has active members in 17 states and 20 countries, with over 220 Bible studies and services weekly in the United States and more than 280 worldwide. The Bible School has 28 extension schools and a total enrollment of over 1,000. According to their statistics, the outreach program has had impressive results as well, with 1,500 professions of faith in 1974, an estimated 6,000 in 1975, and 12,000, 30,000 and 72,551 in 1977, 78, and 79 respectively.
It was in the early 1960's while Stevens was pastoring two small churches in Maine, according to the Bible Speaks Book of Miracles that "...God called him one day to the back of the woods near a lake. There the Lord Jesus baptized him with what Pastor describes as liquid waves of love.

Along with this experience God promised him several things. First and foremost, God promised an anointing upon every message he would preach from then on. Secondly, God gave the Scripture Isaiah 43:19 and showed Pastor He would build a church that the gates of hell could not prevail against. The Lord gave more definition by saying it would not be produced overnight, but that He would build a 'one new man' of Ephesians 2:15 step by step." Isaiah 43:19 reads (NIV) "See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland."

It is interesting to note that the application of this verse to Stevens' ministry as well as the statement just cited, that the Lord "would build" a church that the gates of hell could not prevail against, and that such "would not be produced overnight" suggest that the building of the church by the Lord was to begin then, rather than already being an accomplished fact. Christianity historically has held to the position that the church was established by Jesus Christ nearly 2,000 years ago, and that the gates of hell have never been able to prevail against His church, nor will they. Expressions such as this have contributed to the fostering of an attitude which we have found to be quite common among members, past and present, of the Bible Speaks: that theirs is a higher calling; that the Bible speaks represents the fullness of Christianity as it can be experienced nowhere else.

Bible Speaks literature and recorded lectures contain numerous statements which would further contribute to an attitude of superiority among the adherents to the movement. Some examples would be "A, person can be saved, go to Heaven and yet on earth live apart from God's man. He may experience a certain portion of Kingdom life but he will never be full." (Tape #1410, and The Bible Speaks from the Throne, July 1976, pg. 14), and "We are hid in Christ and in the Corporate Body which is his fullness." (Meditations from the Throne, Pg. 4).

This feeling that The Bible Speaks represents the fullness of Christ, and is of a higher calling than other Christian bodies has even been a factor in the breakup of some Christian marriages and households. This is not meaning to convey the thought that the Bible Speaks or Carl Stevens has necessarily condoned or encouraged such breakups, but simply that the view of that particular ministry, as held by many of its members, has been a contributing factor in the breakup of the marriages of at least some Christian couples.

It is taught that outside of the Corporate government of God's army, such as that claimed by the Bible Speaks, one is under the devil's headship. In Meditations from the Throne, pg. 3 we read: "We will not allow natural relationships to tie us in the Devil's bondage. Instead we step ahead, leaving eternity to explain the steps of God. We hearken to a higher calling."

Now, the casual reader may very well take this in application to the general walk as a Christian as being of a higher calling, than that of natural relationships, which may have been the intended meaning. However, as mentioned, we are aware of Christian couples who have separated when one mate chose to follow the higher calling of the Bible Speaks ministry with a stronger allegiance than he or she had for the other mate or for any other Christian body. On other instances Stevens has referred to the Bible Speaks as "the best thing going in New England." (Tape #1871, Living From a View of the Mountain.) There is a definite tendency among the Bible Speaks members we have spoken with to look down on other churches because their Pastors may not have the "anointing" attributed to Stevens, because other bodies may not be as actively engaged in soul-winning as The Bible Speaks, and because being outside of

"God's Corporate Government" these churches have no covering to protect them from the devil's attacks.

Adherents to the Bible Speaks are taught that Carl Stevens is God's man, God's delegated authority. One Bible Speaks publication said of this: "True delegated authority is an authority derived from love, which causes one to serve. Therefore, properly executed authority never demands 'obedience' nor exalts itself." Nonetheless, the claim to being God's man and His delegated authority has placed Stevens in a position of unquestioned authority in the minds of many Bible speaks adherents. Many quotations from Bible Speaks tapes and literature give the plain implication that it would be wrong to question God's delegated authority. To do so would, in effect, be questioning God. To begin with, as you will recall, Pastor Stevens alleges that God promised him an anointing upon every message he would ever preach, thus making his messages virtually God's words.

The introduction to Meditations from the Throne states "As you sit and read this book and discover its revelations, you soon will realize that it is not written by a man alone, but through a revelation straight from the throne of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Thus, it appears that the Bible Speaks believes in continuing revelation as expressed through the person of Pastor Stevens. Of these revelations and of delegated authority we read in Meditations from the Throne on pages 10-11: "The seats of delegated authority have been filled with appointed servants chosen by God Himself.

If we forfeit the covering provided for guidance in life, it is as if we took off the Tabernacle roof causing the steps of our life to be without God's glory. Without our mind covered by the headship of Christ through God's leadership on earth, our natural mind and emotions operate in reaction to the atmosphere instead of revelation from God. We may have an eternal covering in Heaven but no experiential provision of revelation on earth."

Elsewhere it says: "Submit to the glory which has taken over the authority to which we are submitting. Submit to the glorified authority imparted to the man of God to be revealed on earth. Hear the Government." It concludes: "God's thoughts are uncovered to us when we are covered by his authority. The voice of God's man verbalizes the thoughts ministered by the Spirit. We first receive the word of revelation which gives us the word of reconciliation as we cry: '0 earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord' (Jeremiah 22:29) ."

Bible Speaks adherents have been taught to accept what Stevens says as God's words and to act upon such without question or hesitation. For example: "Revelation must not be left to discussion, but believed upon in immediate action. One place giver, to questioning truth revealed through God's man stops the flow of life for us in that personal truth." (The Bible Speaks from the Throne, December 1975, pg. 3). And "Every new word from God demands an immediate response of faith from man." (The Bible Speaks from the Throne, February 1976, pg. 11).

Tape#1410, "What it Means to be Baptized Unto a Man", contains statements such as the following: "If you don't hear the words of the servant of God, you are despising God." In another place we hear: "And all of a sudden you realize that it isn't him but it's Christ. He is no more than a servant or a messenger, but he is that. And because he is that from Christ you must receive his word and honor his message and obey his purpose."

On tape #1445,"Self Power vs. Christ is All in All", Stevens says the following: "When you come to a service and you hear a challenge, and
you personally get challenged, don't make a reservation to intellectually challenge me later through feelings; but humble yourself to what is being said as facts, and let God bring you up to what I am saying."

One of the most extreme teachings relative to questioning Stevens is found on tape #1350, Presumption vs. Speaking to the Rock, "If you have a close friend that evaluates anybody in delegated authority I'll guarantee you that if it's done with any consistency you'll be weak and sick and die within the future months (I Cor. 11:26-31)."

Total submission to delegated authority is stressed by such statements as "Imparted righteousness is received through the measure of your obedience to the Word in the submission to the government while in the state of continuing victories." (The Bible Speaks from the Throne, November 1975, pg. 19). Submission to the government does not mean earthly government, but rather, God's government of delegated authority.

Similar emphasis, again pointing up the superior position of The Bible Speaks over other ministries is found in this quotation from The Bible Speaks from the Throne, July 1976, pg. 11: "There is a lot of good in Christianity today but the ultimate product is not bringing people into what they should be in the Kingdom because they are not in the order and line of delegated authority." And, on page 16: "Under submission to the choice of God's delegated authority there are pleasures forevermore. At His right hand we are seated in a delegated position by God, governmentally arranged with divine wisdom that we might experience the fullest potential possible to experience the abundant life now."

There is a distinct tendency among Bible Speaks adherents to elevate Dr. Stevens to a point bordering on adoration. This may be fostered by teachings on Stevens' part such as that in Tape #1675, 'Following a Man or God, wherein Stevens emphatically stresses that he is God's man, and following his teachings is likened to adherence to the Apostles' doctrine as referred to in Acts 2:42. While Stevens says the term "apostle" is to be applied to himself only in the sense that he is a master builder or organizer, many of his followers look at him as having the same stature as the first century apostles such as Paul.

I taught a Bible study some time ago where a young man who had recently begun attending the Stevens School of the Bible told me what a privilege it was for him to be sitting under the teachings of an Apostle. Further examples of how his followers view him can be seen in the Bible Speaks Book of Miracles. In the dedication to that book, Stevens is referred to as the Good Shepherd, capital G, capital S. On the next page, in the section "ABOUT THE PASTOR" one reads: "What was it like to walk with Jesus, to see His smile, to be looked upon with that piercing glance, and to hear His precious voice speak those sanctified words? What was it like to laugh with Him, to cry with Him, to eat with Him and to be His friend? Most Christians have wondered this at one time or another. Those in the Bible Speaks stopped wondering years ago. To be a sheep under the shepherdship of Carl Stevens is to know intimately the person of the Lord...To know Pastor Stevens is to know Christ. To love the Pastor is to love the one who gave him to us. As one sheep I speak for thousands who have been led by our beloved shepherd out of Egypt and out of the wilderness into the Promised Land." The November 1979 Crossroads magazine said of The Book of Miracles, which was published in 1975, "Unfortunately when people share from the depths of their hearts the love and devotion they have for the Lord, they sometimes over express themselves."

The article goes on to state that Dr. Stevens has never been one to exalt himself, that the introduction to The Book of Miracles is inconsistent with his personal views, and was written without his knowledge or consent. We are told that as soon as Dr. Stevens saw the book it was taken out of print. We have been unable to determine exactly when the book was withdrawn from circulation, but it was apparently available for 22 to 3 years, allegedly without Dr. Stevens being aware of its contents.

One of the more unusual doctrines of The Bible Speaks Ministry is one which was taught by Stevens in Tape #1410,"What it Means to be Baptized Unto a Man:' This message was excerpted, with some changes in The Bible Speaks from the Throne, July 1976, pp. 11-17. All of the following quotations are from one of these two sources. Stevens admitted that this was a teaching which he had never heard preached before. The essence of the message was this: "Do not try to live after salvation without being baptized into a Body, into the Word, and unto God's man."

With reference to the body one is to be baptized into, he said: "And that must be in a body not with a clique outside of the body, and outside of true anointed, delegated leadership that is truly of God. There can be good people, but you just better remember that Jesus Christ doesn't anoint everyone for those positions." Stevens says that he is not saying you must be baptized unto him necessarily. But, he states that there were not many Moses', Joshuas, Elijahs, Peters or Pauls. "There were many Christians but there were not many leaders of that caliber, because Jesus only has one of them ... usually, in a generation." All of this is in relation to God's man, a label which Dr. Stevens freely applies to himself.

Stevens has also said "People say, I am not going to follow a man, I am following Jesus. That cannot be done. If you follow Jesus, you follow God's man who leads you in the authority of the Kingdom of how to live in him." Stevens concluded the message "Be baptized unto a man of God, and be true to him for Jesus' sake, and honor him for Jesus' sake with double honor, in I Tim. 5:17, submit to him at Hebrews 13:17 for Jesus' sake, never criticizing him for Jesus' sake, being willing to die with him in I Cor. 3:9 for Jesus' sake; Why? Because that's the only way that you can experience the authority of delegated grace ... is to be in the authority of delegated life."

In one issue of Crossroads magazine it was written: "Dr. Stevens sees himself as a pastor and no more. Those were his exact words in a recent message. He is a sinner, saved by grace. A vessel who God has called, and he has responded, just as hundreds of pastors in the world did. He is deeply grieved when people exalt him, and his attitude is this - 'Believe God, not me. If what I say should ever, for any reason, be off, then believe the Bible'." The particular choice of wording "He has responded just as hundreds of pastors in the world did" could still leave
the reader with the impression that Stevens is of a very select group of pastors, merely hundreds, past and present.

Furthermore, while he says "Believe the Bible, not me" he often endeavors to prove to his audience that his message is biblical by using isolated proof texts, sometimes in a very far-fetched application. One such example would be in his sermon "What It Means to Be Baptized Unto a Man" wherein his theme text was I Corinthians 10:1&amp;2 "Moreover brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through-the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" On this verse, Stevens reasons that since the Israelites were "baptized unto Moses", and Christ was his head, then this is a pattern for New Testament believers to follow as well: to be baptized unto a specific man of God today, and follow him as the Israelites followed Moses.

Unfortunately, we are not aware of one Bible scholar or commentator who sees this verse as Stevens' does, as being a pattern for New Testament believers, except insofar as the Israelites baptism unto Moses prefigures our baptism unto Christ. We have read numerous commentaries on this verse, and not one indicates that this is to set a pattern for believers today to follow a man of God as Moses was followed. Furthermore, the context of this verse brings out that even though the Israelites were "baptized unto Moses" God was displeased with many of them, and the passage concludes in verses 11 &amp; 12 with the fact that Paul had expounded on this situation with the Israelites as an admonition, that "He that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

There are other verses which The Bible Speaks has used in support of the "following a man" teaching, such as Phil. 3:17: "Brethren be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example." Another is I Corinthians 4:16: "Wherefore I beeseech you, be ye followers of me." And finally, I Cor. 11:1: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." A careful study of these verses and particularly of the Greek words rendered as "followers" reveals that Paul was simply exhorting his readers to imitate his example as a Christian and a missionary. He was in no way suggesting that individuals be followers of him in the sense of following him exclusively as a leader. Such would have been directly contrary to his expression at I Cor. 1:12 &amp; 13: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" Here we find Paul warning against just such tendencies as are evident in The Bible Speaks.

Furthermore, at I John 2:27 we read: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." So, while this verse is not ruling out the need of teachers in the Body of Christ, it is admonishing against looking to any particular man as teacher, since the Holy Spirit is the believers' teacher and guide in spiritual matters. Christ is the one mediator between God and man, without the need of another man in a position of mediatorship. When every part of the body of Christ is in its set place, each is able to receive from Christ directly, so that the body increases and edifies itself in love. In John 15 Jesus is the true vine, the whole vine. Every branch or believer is related to him directly, and receives its flow of His life directly, not through some other branch.

Of course we have pastor-teachers in the Church today as part of the variety of ministries to the body. To reject these ministries would be to deliberately reject the loving and wise provision of the Head of the Church who gives these gifts. On the other hand, though, to suggest that a Christian must submit to a human shepherd for leading and guidance is going to the opposite extreme and denies the Bible's teaching about the believers' direct access to God. Hebrews 4:14-16.

In mid-1980 The Bible Speaks released a 43 page booklet entitled The Bible Speaks Goes on Record. The introduction to this work states the intention of clarifying certain aspects of the beliefs and practices of The Bible Speaks out of the desire to establish a mutually beneficial working relationship with the entire body of Christ. The introduction concludes with this statement: "It is in the spirit of goodwill and reconciliation that we offer this paper." The report goes on to present an essentially orthodox Statement of Faith, The Bible Speaks' basic doctrinal beliefs, followed by an explanation of the Hermeneutic Rules (the method of interpretation of Scripture) followed by The Bible Speaks. Then follow elaborations upon several of the areas of Bible Speaks' teachings which have contributed to concern among other Christians and former members of The Bible Speaks: The Question of Spiritual Authority, The Question of Apostles, of Order, Honor and Commitment, The Question of Growth, of Marriage and Divorce, and finally, a glossary of terms peculiar to The Bible Speaks, and not commonly used outside of that movement.

Most of what is stated in these areas is quite orthodox, and were it not for knowledge of what was clearly taught in the tapes and periodicals cited previously, the casual reader would likely arrive at the conclusion that the problems had arisen out of a misunderstanding of what had been taught and that all that was needed was a clarification of terms.

In several areas, however, what is expressed in The Bible Speaks Goes on Record is a distinct departure from what had previously been taught. However, most of the major problems have been ones of attitude among Bible Speaks adherents: Their attitude toward The Bible Speaks Ministry as opposed to other Christian ministries, their view of The Bible Speaks' and Carl Stevens' authority, their attitude toward the person of Carl Stevens as God's man. It is perhaps easier to change one's position in writing than it is to change one's inner attitude. While positive changes are being observed in certain areas, such as a willingness on the part of The Bible Speaks to work shoulder to shoulder with outside ministries now, there are other important areas where change is not yet as overtly manifest.

One example would be in the view of Carl Stevens as an Apostle. We discussed earlier some of the implications the use of this term has carried in the minds of Bible Speaks adherents, as fostered by Stevens' statements about himself. While The Bible Speaks no longer recommends the use of the term Apostle when speaking of Carl Stevens or other Bible Speaks pastors, our research in contact with Bible Speaks adherents reveals that while the term Apostle may not be as frequently used, the attitude of his followers remains essentially unchanged. Whether this is simply a carry-over from before the teachings were changed, or whether it is still encouraged by Bible Speaks teachings is a question we cannot answer at this time, but we would urge those who come in contact with the Bible Speaks ministry to be on guard against viewing Carl Stevens any differently from any other Christian pastor with a gift in the area of leadership.

Another area where change has been expressed is with regard to Stevens’ anointed teachings. Statements previously cited clearly conveyed the impression that all of Stevens messages would have the Holy Spirit's anointing, that he conveyed revelations from Jesus Christ, and that these revelations should not be questioned. However, in The Bible Speaks Goes on Record we are now told: "In speaking of the anointing, the words are merely men's words, but the Hold Spirit is especially present to help our human infirmity in conveying the best sense or meaning."

We are further told: "It is impossible for God to be present in that which is untrue or unbiblical, it is impossible that false and unscriptural teaching be anointed teaching at the same time." A well-balanced explanation is then given, which, in light of certain of Stevens teachings which we have heard would enable most Christians to readily dismiss the thought that all of his messages are anointed. While much of what is taught is clearly scriptural and perhaps could properly be termed anointed teaching, there remains the need for discernment by listeners. The Bible Speaks Goes on Record goes on to clarify the meaning of the word "revelation" as they now use it. To most Christians "revelation" is a revealing, by God, of something previously unknown, as is the case with the writings of many of the early apostles. "Illumination" on the other hand, refers to the making clear or illuminating of an already revealed scriptural truth. We are now informed that when The Bible Speaks uses the term revelation what is really meant is illumination; that "when we speak of receiving revelation we would do better to use the words illumination or enlightenment for what is truly meant." Although the term illumination doesn't really seem to fit in the context of the passages previously cited, we would do well to keep The Bible Speaks' definition of "revelation" in mind for the future.

The Bible Speaks also uses some special terminology which would be foreign to many Christians outside of that body: Terms such as one's vertical, one's horizontal, going through the cross, being hid in the body, keeping a single eye, and others. Related to such peculiar terminology are some additional areas of possibly questionable doctrine, but which have a lesser significance than the divisive attitudes already discussed. With regard to the attitudes of his followers toward Stevens, and their view of that particular ministry, there may well be members of the Bible Speaks who do not hold to these same attitudes which we have found to be fairly common.

Nonetheless, in spite of the tremendous amounts of good accomplished through the ministry, the number of people who have been hurt, even if indirectly by the ministry, including the dissolution of some Christian marriages, has been sufficient to move us to present this report on some of what we and other research ministries see as potential problem areas within The Bible Speaks. This report is not intended to condemn The Bible Speaks, nor to be judgmental in any way, but rather to be cautionary,...to express warning to those in and entering the Bible Speaks, that they might be alerted to those areas which many respected Christians see as aberrational toward Biblical Christianity.

Perhaps as Christians we should realize that such teachings and tendencies as we find in The Bible Speaks in the areas of authority and submission have indeed grown out of real need. In the midst of a permissive society people do need authority. But it is our task to point them to the basic authority of God's Word. Then we can point them to Paul's admonition that they learn to know those who labor among us, and esteem them in love for their work's sake (I They. 5:12). In our impersonal society, people do need the kind of close fellowship demonstrated in The Bible Speaks. Ways of meeting this need can vary with the circumstances. But the kind of division seen in the Corinthian church, bayed on building a following for a human leader, must be avoided.

In today's complex society people do need teaching and training. But more is needed than one person or a local church can provide. The Bible calls for a plurality of ministry and gifts within the local church (II Cor. 12).

Above all, we must recognize that the sin of causing division in the church is a most serious offense, as suggested by Romans 16:17 &amp; 18. In light of the many divisive tendencies within the Bible Speaks movement we would urge caution on the part of those involved with the group, and those contemplating membership. This is not to even suggest that the adherents to the Bible Speaks' teachings are not Christians. But in the urgency of the times in which we live, the unity of the larger body is highly important if we are to accomplish the mission of the church. It is our earnest prayer that the body of Christ will not have to apply the admonition of Romans 16: 17 &amp; 18, cited in the first paragraph of this report, to The Bible Speaks ministry, but rather that teachings and attitudes within that body will be adjusted in such a way as to permit the entire body of Christ to function as one harmonious whole.

Finally, Jesus Christ must be kept central. He alone is the great Shepherd of the Sheep. The only covenant we need is the one sealed with His blood. The only covering we need comes through the blood atonement, something Jesus did once and for all - something that is available only through Him


More light on the subject,
Dave</font>}