Why did His People join EveryNation [Archive]

philiprosenthal

08-27-2006, 04:11 AM

40days40years (NOT PHILIP ROSENTHAL)writes:

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/23745.html?1156648034

"You know here is a thought and I chose to respond on this thread but the SA thread would have worked also. Maybe this deserves a thread of its own but I will let philip do that if he so desires.

This is cynical but EN is in the business of taking over churches. If you want to take over a church can you think of a better plan then to get Paul Daniel to join EN? Rice must have known about the earlier sin of Paul Daniel that philip says was covered up. Look here is the thing, you could get His People to join EN then when the opportune time arises you could blow Paul Daniel out of the water by exposing that sin and then take over His People lock, stock and barrel. It's perfect. The best scenario for EN would be cover up Pauls sin, have His People join EN and then wait for Paul Daniel to fall into sin again and then boom His People falls completely into EN's orbit of control in the States.

If His People congregants had no idea of Paul Daniels sin what a perfect lever of control to have over him. You see if Paul Daniel had been clean the danger would be that in the future he might get disillusioned with EN and pull out of EN all together like the folks in Louisiana did, once Paul joined EN he could not do that if the congregation did not know about the earlier affair. EN in the states would have that rabbit to pull out of its hat if Paul tried to leave.

This is a perfect machiavellian plan. Just wait for Paul Daniel to sin and then boom swoop in or if he does'nt sin? sometime in the future if he is not playing ball let his former sin slip out in SA. It is perfect insurance to keep His People in line. In the back of the mind of Rice he must have known this. Like I said brilliant.

Philip in Maranatha a Paul Daniel coverup for a sin like he did would most likely not have happened I can see why that thing should have been exposed but it worked in EN's favor in the states to keep it quiet. Did Rice know about the earlier indiscretion of PD in the early 90's and when did he know about it?

His People congregation is locked in, Every Nation - Bonasso/Broocks win big time a guaranteed win. Wow their good. Ofcourse maybe it was not planned this way and it just happened."

ABOVE ARE THE WORDS OF 40DAYS40YEARS - NOT PHILIP ROSENTHAL. This is a big question which I feel deserves a thread of its own.

philiprosenthal

08-27-2006, 04:37 AM

Philip Rosenthal responds(not 40days):

40days. I don't know the answer to this question. I have heard some speculation. I think it needs to be part of the investigation and I think we need to find out the truth.

The person who first told me about the scandal speculated that he thought His People joining EveryNation was basically Paul's strategy to dodge discipline for adultery by the IFCC.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/23745.html?1156648034

But that is just speculation. We don't know for sure. What we do know is that the circumstantial evidence fits the theory.
1) When Ray McCauley called for discipline, Paul in the presence of various other HP leaders threatened to leave the IFCC if they disciplined him.
2) The disciplinary process was in 1996.
3) The MorningStar apostolic board visited South Africa in 1998, as part of the 'courting process'. Jim Laffoon at that visit gave his famous 'Net prophecy'. And Paul anounced to the congregation that His People was starting to work more closely with MorningStar.

Nevertheless, whether MorningStar was conciously aware of Paul Daniel's adultery at the time - I don't know of any evidence for this. I take the view people are innocent until proven guilty.

The next and different question is what they were aware of at a later stage. I think that needs investigation.

What I have been told, is that they demoted Paul from apostle to ordinary senior pastor at some stage when they found out about something about his 'relations with women'. What they knew I don't know. But whatever they knew they never told our congregation, and I feel that if this is true, they owe us an apology for this. Nevertheless, it is possible that they may have been told the spin-doctored lie that some other ministers within His People were told - which was that there was no adultery - that the relationship didn't go further than a kiss initiated by the girl and that it had all been dealt with by the IFCC and the prosecuting pastors.

Nevertheless, there are things that are unexplained. Paul Daniel was one of the most power hungry leaders you will ever meet. He had a vision he told us to build His People into a denomination of 1000 churches. When the His People came back from visiting the American MorningStar churches, they were not particularly impressed. Still today, His People members take a view that His People Bible School had better content than that of MorningStar. Since MorningStar curriculum was introduced, attendance has shrunk. His People Cape Town is much much bigger than anything else in EveryNation. His People London is one of EveryNations wealthiest churches. Why on earth would His People merge with MorningStar with a deal that kept MorningStar people in all the top jobs in the merged denomination, with His People leaders in junior positions? Paul Daniel had much more leadership charisma and ability than Broocks, Bonasso or Murrell. His People was a better organised movement. His People members made jokes about MorningStar's disorganisation. Even from a worldly power perspective it doesn't seem to make sense?

philiprosenthal

08-27-2006, 04:44 AM

It would seem that Paul was:
i. either being pushed into doing this.
ii. he was hoping to eventually take over EveryNation from Rice Broocks.

I think the latter theory is strengthened by the issues that:
i. He told some leaders that he had given up his vision for His People but believed that God would give it back again.
ii. He invited EveryNation leaders to big show off conferences in Cape Town.
iii. He moved to Nashville in 2003, and reportedly started building a house there, which would indicate he was hoping to stay.

But anyway, I don't know the answers. I think this needs to be part of the investigation. I am just saying what I know.

Nevertheless, the issue that bothers me is that the decision to join EveryNation was taken by Paul Daniel without consulting the rest of us. We did not agree to it. Maybe he consulted Bill Bennot, but I don't know if he consulted anyone else. So the decision was taken by an adulterer and those covering up for him. What legitimacy does that have? These guys would have been kicked out at the time had we known what they were up to. I take it as a form of fraud. We were deceived. We at the time knew nothing about the Maranatha history of MorningStar or their discipleship and micromanaging control practices etc.

Those who later disagreed with EveryNation's policies and behaviour and His Peoples membership of the denomination got pushed out. It was not a merger with consent. It was by force. The best pastors got marginalised or pushed out by EveryNation.

Ulyankee's timeline research showed that various MorningStar apostles went and bought much bigger houses just after the merger. They did very well out of it. They also got control of churches across Africa and Europe and a scattering elsewhere - areas they had not previously been able to penetrate.

40days40years

08-27-2006, 07:59 AM

Very interesting stuff philip.

philip: The person who first told me about the scandal speculated that he thought His People joining EveryNation was basically Paul's strategy to dodge discipline for adultery by the IFCC.

40/40: Yeah maybe but that is like a kid who joins the marines to avoid his parents discipline. EN is like a beast a machine that can eat you up, that explanation seems insane but I am not Paul Daniel maybe it is plausible.

Philip then says: It would seem that Paul was:
i. either being pushed into doing this.
ii. he was hoping to eventually take over EveryNation from Rice Broocks.

Man if the point ii is true that would show extreme chutzpah on PD's part. Just speculation but you said that His People leaders visited EN in America and they were not all that impressed. Was Paul Daniel's ego so strong he thought he could take Rice Broocks and company some day off in the future? That never entered my minds philip but His People was 12,000 strong at one time.

Here is more food for thought. Could it be that there are differant factors at work? #1: the charm factor, don't under estimate the incredible southern charm that people like Greg Ball and Rice can assert when they want to make a good impression on people. The motivation for them to be charming is there look at how huge His People was? Bill Bennot is also a very likeable guy.

#2: The American factor. Could Paul Daniel have been enamored with the idea of "America" and starting something new and big with a bunch of charming convincing Americans? I notice the American factor with Australians for instance. --- Let us not forget that His People was an extremely good fit with MSI/EN. Both organizations were autocratic and personality based controlling movements, both were materialistic. PD could still be in control in South Africa and it is not like he would be taking a vow of poverty from guys like Rice and Phil B for the kingdom. He also would not be commiting himself to being more accountable and less autocratic to the congregations like a more normal denominations would require of him.

40days40years

08-27-2006, 08:46 AM

philip wrote: 2) The disciplinary process was in 1996. (for Paul Daniel's first adultery in 92-93)

3) The MorningStar apostolic board visited South Africa in 1998, as part of the 'courting process'. Jim Laffoon at that visit gave his famous 'Net prophecy'. And Paul anounced to the congregation that His People was starting to work more closely with MorningStar.

Nevertheless, whether MorningStar was conciously aware of Paul Daniel's adultery at the time - I don't know of any evidence for this. I take the view people are innocent until proven guilty.

40/40: I don't know philip you said Bill B covered stuff up that means he most likely knew about it in 96 and passed info to Rice about it. Now perhaps EN leaders were gracious and decided to forgive and forget but the fact that this info was most likely known by them and not His People average members is disturbing.

iii. He moved to Nashville in 2003, and reportedly started building a house there, which would indicate he was hoping to stay.

40: PD moved to America after the knowledge of his second batch of affairs was known, right? If that is the case it makes no sense, since this would be a second offense and he would be through and everyone at the top in EN would know that. Like I said get PD to America before he can go independent in SA? Let the Python have a chance to digest its meal.

You were right to be concerned about this philip. Yeah PD is gone but his behaviour and EN's behaviour ended up effecting thousands of people who had been kept in the dark.

EN/Murrell you should give philip his full public investigation and apology.

40days40years

08-27-2006, 08:58 AM

One thing is for sure philip. His People leaders in SA were snickering at MSI small churches, the lack of organization and the theological tools/teaching materials in the MCM/MSI/EN culture. They are not snickering anymore.

philiprosenthal

08-27-2006, 09:46 AM

40years.
1) I don't know when EveryNation found out about the first affair or what they were told. There is so much deception going on in the organisaton. I have realised now that EveryNation top leaders don't just deceive me. They also deceive eachother. There is a culture of deceit and cover-up. This whole culture needs to be repented of and replaced with transparency. Maybe they are still deceived. I don't know.

2) The whole issue of Paul's second batch of affairs is a complex murky one again. I think the top EveryNation leadership knew he was 'having trouble with a woman'. They did not know it was adultery until he was actually in USA and confessed to it there. I don't know for sure, but I get the impression they thought he was just had a flirting relationship and hoped that after a sabattical in the USA and lots of counselling he would be spiritually restored and could go back into ministry.

There is also the possibilty that Rice suspected that there was more to it than what Paul was confessing - and that he set a trap for him by bringing him to the USA. If that is the case, he was very clever. Getting Paul away from his idolatrous followers meant he couldn't defend himself against being kicked out. Anyway on this point I am grateful to Rice. Thanks Rice.

I also don't know how many adulterous affairs Paul had. I know for sure at least three. But someone rumoured more. I don't know. Someone needs to investigate the full scope of this thing and let us know the whole truth.

No. His People leaders were naive about EveryNation. They have been naive about a lot of things. It is very sad. But I have hope that out of this mess, we can redeem some good. That is why I am trying to lay new foundations for the future. Everynation in its present dysfunctional form I think is doomed. People may take time to realise that, but eventually they will hopefully do so. Therefore I would like to at least play a part in pointing a new direction for the future - save others the pain of learning about church governance the hard way. Please read and comment on these articles.
http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive

philiprosenthal

08-27-2006, 09:46 AM

40days40years

08-27-2006, 10:47 AM

philip: There is also the possibilty that Rice suspected that there was more to it than what Paul was confessing - and that he set a trap for him by bringing him to the USA. If that is the case, he was very clever. Getting Paul away from his idolatrous followers meant he couldn't defend himself against being kicked out. Anyway on this point I am grateful to Rice. Thanks Rice.

40/40 here, philip be very careful at congratulating the fox that guards the hen house. Yeah these guys are very good for being kind and supportive and getting a confession out of you but look at the prize.

philip said: Everynation in its present dysfunctional form I think is doomed. People may take time to realise that, but eventually they will hopefully do so.

40/40: hey champ your sounding like the rest of us. What happened to the reform talk? The system is bad though I love a lot of these guys but the system is bad.

philiprosenthal

08-27-2006, 02:20 PM

40days. When I say the system in its present dysfunctional form is doomed, I mean doomed to repeat again and again the cycle described in the article at this link - building God's kingdom muddled up with mans kingdom and hurting lives in the process.
http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1146 820951

But no. I think the organisation can reform. I think we can break this dysfunctional cycle and exit toward a redemptive reform future. But we need to reach and educate the young and naive leaders joining the organisation so they don't just become cannon fodder for the achievement of the goals of the sociological cult. Hopefully they will read the reformist posts on these message boards and implement an alternative vision.

football7

08-27-2006, 09:46 PM

Good Luck said with sarcasm

40days40years

08-30-2006, 10:29 AM

Here is another question dedicated to philip.

Why was there no vote by the His People membership on whether to join MSI/EN or not? - Why was Paul Daniel given the authority to make a unilateral decision of such magnitude which would effect many thousands of people without consulting the congregation first? Is that right and moral or it the way God ordained things to be? 1776

philiprosenthal

08-30-2006, 10:59 AM

40days
Because His People and EveryNation taught falsely that it was biblical for all decisions to be taken autocratically. Sometimes this was called consensus, but funny that there were usually never any dissenters - and when there were, they usually ended up thrown out of that group.

This is one of the false teachings I am now challenging. I swallowed it 10 years ago because I was young and naive. I don't swallow it any more. I think this case example is good reason to abandon the teaching.

The only vote I ever saw taken in my 13 years in His People was a vote on whether after a church hike we should go to a restaurant or have a barbeque. Paul Daniel had total cultic control in His People. I know of one case where every single other minister in the church (about 30 others) opposed him in a decision, but he still got his way anyway. He was just an autocrat. He would walk into a room and everyone would be on edge.

Things have changed a little, but not much in His People. That is why I am pushing for reform. See my proposal for an accountabilty board for His People Cape Town. I am told a lot of leaders in His People Cape Town support such a concept, but the senior pastor does not - and so he overrules the rest.

http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1145 953642

That is why I have written and posted articles on this subject here - and I will post more in future.
http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive

I hear that recently this year (2006) EveryNation has started to vote at denominational council meetings. So that I think is a sensible reform. Its dangerous to let just one man lead because all of us have a tendency to follow our sin nature and unrealistic to think you will always get consensus from everyone.

No it is not right or moral or God ordained. I think one of the myths we need to kill is that apostles and other hierachical leaders need to be followed blindly.

http://everynation.proboards102.com/index.cgi?board=abusive&action=display&thread=1146 820734

philiprosenthal

08-30-2006, 03:38 PM

SHOULD HIS PEOPLE CHURCHES PULL OUT OF EVERYNATION?

In discussing the above issues, about the illegitimacy of His People joining EveryNation I do not want anyone to interpret that I am recommending that His People churches pull out and go independent. I don't think this would be a good scenario. I think that may lead just to a repeat of the Maranatha break up, where churches become independent and even less accountable - and thus repeat the same mistaken patterns.

I would recommend that if churches decide to leave, they should immediately join another denomination for accountability purposes. Or if a group of churches leave, then they could remain mutually accountable.

Likewise if individuals leave His People, I recommend you immediately join another church or at least go around looking for one - in order to be accountable. I know some people do manage to survive spiritually as 'out of church Christians', but many don't - and the scripture commands us to

HEB 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

I would suggest a key issue of churches leaving or staying is whether the EveryNation denomination decides to move in the direction of reform or not. If it moves towards reform, there is hope. If not, I suggest pull out. But there are many factors that need to be considered in such decisions and I think it may be different for different churches.

A key issue I feel though is that I feel churches should have the freedom to decide whether they want to belong or not. If the elders vote to pull out and congregation also endorses that with a majority vote to pull out - then they should be allowed to do so. Radical idea? I also don't think senior pastors should be allowed to unilaterally pull churches out or join for that matter. We need to put an end to that era of spiritual autocracy.

ulyankee

08-30-2006, 03:39 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:

I hear that recently this year (2006) EveryNation has started to vote at denominational council meetings. So that I think is a sensible reform.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

I agree with you Philip. This is a good move. However, look at who is doing the voting. Look at who are on the IMT. Yes, they voted Steve Murrell in as president. However, this was a foregone conclusion since he was already chairman of ENC's Board of Directors - the person who is in this position is EN's de facto legal head anyway. My hypothesis is that much of this was set into motion in October last year, when the scandals involving the Los Angeles office first broke - the IMT merely rubberstamped it. Whether they believe they rubberstamped it or not is another story. See '84's comments on "bounded choice."

Remember that the Maranatha top elders' board voted on things as well, up to and including voting Bob Weiner out of office and voting to dissolve the parent organization. But did that stop what was at the spiritual root of Maranatha, a root that has survived to this day?

You are right, that is a myth that needs to be killed. The ascension gifts of the five-fold ministry did not make leaders the primary intermediaries and arbiters of Christ's glory and grace. They are not Christ-by-proxy.

philiprosenthal

08-30-2006, 04:01 PM

The argument against voting was explained to me like this:
* The church is a theocracy. Not a democracy.
* God speaks to leaders.
* The leader must pray and hear God and then tell the people what he says.
* The people must follow.

Now the problem with this idea is that it doesn't always work that way and it doesn't need to.
* Leaders can hear wrong.
* God can speak to anyone - not just the leader. There is no real reason why the leader can hear better than anyone else.
* Leaders can be hypocrites and frauds who can't hear God at all.
* Since we all have a sinful nature, we can easily pretend to hear what we want to hear God saying and even do something without hearing from him.

Now I am not an advocate of complete church democracy like the Baptists have, because I think there is the danger here that unspiritual sheep can out-vote the spiritual shepherd. But I think we need checks and balances for major decisions such as changing denominations.

And if the leader can pray well, then he can pray for God to also speak to other people and tell them the same as what God told him - so he can win his vote. Or if he is a good leader, he can tell people which way he prefers them to vote and most of the time, they will probably go along with him.

mcmstaff78

08-30-2006, 05:27 PM

Phil - the problem here is that the "leaders" of groups like EN think the sheep are dumb. Not only do they think that, but they work to keep them dumb. Consequently, they discount any kind of advice, guidance, etc., that might not come from a "leader". In the eastern Church fathers, one reads the phrase "rational sheep" in reference to the people of the Church. We are not "dumb" sheep and the only people who are "dumb" are the ones who treat God's little ones as those to be taken advantage of and discounted.

Most of us who've been "leaders" know just how dumb we can be and that this attitude is one of spiritual arrogance. Further, it builds upon the concept that "we" are "special" (that ol' MCM "Green Barret" mentality) and that God has a "special" vision for us beyond what He tells us to do in the scriptures. Consequently, it takes a "special" relationship with God to discern this. Well, that's all just the old gnostic heresy in a new robe. Also, quite honestly, people that aren't doing what the scriptures already tell them to do (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with God, to obey Christ's commandments, to not be "friends" with the world system, etc., etc., etc.) don't need any "special revelation" or guidance from God and don't "deserve" any.

God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud. The "leader" who discounts God's little ones is no leader at all.

coppertree

08-30-2006, 05:54 PM

Hi All
I think now with 20/20 hindsight, that the Word says a good warning in " that what you have done to the least of them you have done it to me" ( a paraphrase ). In other words as in James about the lowest among the church and how they are treated. This is how we are viewed by our Lord and the world that is looking for a way.

robert_unknown

08-31-2006, 07:36 AM

"In other words as in James about the lowest among the church and how they are treated."

it even goes so far, that IF people have to engage into lawsuits, the courts shall be in church and be led by "the lowest among us".
God sees the low people differently than his green barrets, I guess. Another reason why this junk stinks!

miltietoast

08-31-2006, 09:04 PM

it even goes so far, that IF people have to engage into lawsuits, the courts shall be in church and be led by "the lowest among us".
good job robert, I have posted that several times. God has a sense of humor when we get full of ourselves. I do not know if God is threatening us or warning us or what.

robert_unknown

09-01-2006, 04:06 AM

imagine phil lightyear or PD sitting in a church court, trying to cover it all up, and the judge and the others are the lowest brothers in church. not the guys how are dependant on them and on the jobs...

story would have been written differently, wouldnt it?

(Message edited by robert_unknown on August 31, 2006)

miltietoast

09-01-2006, 10:42 AM

mcm said--Phil - the problem here is that the "leaders" of groups like EN think the sheep are dumb.
milty says--that is the spirit of priestcraft-don't do as we act --do as we say and we know what's best for you even though it does not apply to us ........

lablady2

09-01-2006, 11:05 AM

miltie and mcm : I have a question that i hope you won't mind me asking. Just ignore it if you do.

Were there open discussions in the "inter sanctum" about the stupidity of the sheep or was it just an assumption based on the fact that they were following and falling for whatever was dished out? Were most of the field/grunt leaders aware that they were in fact deceiving the sheep or was it more subtle, as in a shared deception? I'm really curious if the psychology of leadership in MCM (read sales) was openly discussed.

It doesn't make me angry. I find it kind of fascinating on some perverse level. How do you perpetuate a mass deception that continues for 26 years or more? Why do some leave in a year and some in 15 years? Interesting to me.

mdillon

09-01-2006, 11:29 AM

hey labby pardon the chime in.

i'm taking Shared Deception for $500 Alex, speaking as a former grunt. got reamed on more than one occasion for caring too much for "low-realmers"-- needed higher vision.

dillyeaux

mdillon

09-01-2006, 11:34 AM

lablady2

09-01-2006, 11:35 AM

Jump in anytime, md...you always make me laugh.

I just have vision of Bob, an overhead projector and transparencies titled "Electrolux and/or MCM: The Art of The Cold Call" or "MCM: You too can be a closer!"

philiprosenthal

09-17-2006, 07:58 PM

Robert

Yes, if those judging Paul had been people not dependent on him they would have kicked him out. The congregation itself acts like an appeal court in Biblical church discipline procedure. That is why in Matthew 18 the semi-final step is to tell it to the church and in 1 Timothy 5:20 it says an elder must be rebuked publicly. That is so that the judges are accountable to the congregation as a whole - if they get it wrong - then they can be overturned. His People didn't follow biblical procedure so we couldn't do this.

On a separate issue, one of the former HP leaders told me recently that Paul Daniel after one of Jim Laffoons prophecies told the other leaders he thought it was just a manipulation to try get His People to join MorningStar. I don't think he had any special spiritual insight, but it is interesting he could see this.

mcmstaff78

09-19-2006, 04:23 PM

The Eastern Orthodox Church has an interesting tradition at ordinations, the proclaiming of "axios" or "worthy" at a certain point in the liturgy. This is explained in the following:

"From the very beginning of the historical existence of the Church, there were certain persons whom God Himself appointed to govern through the bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Only he who has received the gift of government can govern the people of God. The laity, while they do not have the gift of government, have the gift of discernment to "prove all things" (I Thess. 5:21). This represents a special form of ministry entrusted not to individual members of the Church, but to the people of God as a whole in their common task. In the early Church, everything that took place, whether it was the celebration of the Mysteries, the reception of catechumens or penitents into the Church, the excommunication of heretics, etc.-all was done with the participation of the people. The testimony of the people concerning the revelation of God's will in the early Church was in the nature of a consensus concerning that which took place as being consonant with God's will. This did not mean that each member of the clergy or laity expressed his personal opinion or desire concerning whatever was being done in the Church. The church authority, in the person of the bishops, was not bound by the will of the people, just as the people were not bound by the will of their leaders. The overriding authority was the will of God as revealed by the Holy Spirit acting through the bishops and confirmed by the same Spirit in the voice of the people.

"The Church in its composition represents a totality of clergy and laity, and therefore the participation of the latter in the selection of a bishop is, in principle, entirely justified. The first rule of the Fourth Council of Carthage states, "A bishop is ordained in agreement of the clergy and people." The same rule is affirmed by the Constitution of the Holy Apostles: ". . . a bishop to be ordained is to be . . . unblameable, a select person, chosen by the whole people, who, when he is named and approved, let the people assemble. . . on the Lord's day, and let them give their consent" (VIII:4). Sometimes the people would propose their own candidate for the bishops' consideration. Sometimes the will of the people had a decisive significance. When there was a unanimous decision, the people expressed their verdict by exclaiming "Axios!" or "Anaxios!" (unworthy)."

Thought folks might find this interesting.