Lets talk about Salaries lets talk about Money Babe

[robert_unknown]

there is an interesting view on money in EN. I will write an article later about christian work-ethics and whats going on in EN.

however here are some thoughts i would like to share with you people:


1- Secretaries, Missionaries...
People who want to work as missionaries or office-staff have to raise their support through MPD.

So people who work FOR EN dont get paied BY EN, but preferable from OUTSIDE of EN.

MPD charges them 5% or 12% (whats the right percentage?) for handling the finances people raise from outside EN. people are expected to pay additionaly 10% of this finances to their churches as tithes.

conclusion: if you want to work for EN, somebody else is paying your salary, not EN. you have to raise finances by your own to work for EN. they are working for NO cost for EN. they are getting charged (tithes, MPD-fees) for raising their own support. they are with their work generating finances (conferences, materials,...), but dont get payed for it.



2- "High Level Ministers"...
only a small group of individuals gets paid BY EN for working FOR EN.
Their salary however is puzzled together through incomes from different streams of money-flow as is:

- fees for conferences
- fees for MPD
- Worldpartner contributions
- Tithes from EN churches towards EN Ministries
- employment in different ministries (ie.CFC...)
- employment in "home-churches" (Nashville,...)
- private businesses

Brooks and Bonasso are earning way more than 600k a year.
their employement ie at CFC is in my opinion a fake employement. Rice Brooks is by no means working 30+ hours a week for CFC.

conclusion: some people get EXORBITANTLY high salaries FROM EN afiliated ministries, for NOT bringing enough performance to justify the salaries.

what would one have to do do earn 600k/per annum?
i have no idea. the high-earners in amway are earning 55.000,- a month which is about 600k a year.

so there must be another justification for this salaries which we will study later.

however - there is no transparency from the EN leadership towards the people who tithe, contribute money and work into the ministry, pay fees for MPD and conferences. noone knows about the incomes of the big guys or about the streams of income.

not only is the amount of money that they earn unethical in itself. also the way to gain this money is unethical: people who tithe from much lesser incomes. people who tithe to the church have to pay conference fees. people who WORK at the conference (interpreters...) have to pay the fees, people who raise their own support have to pay fees, donors give money for missions (but the money goes into the pockest of some few)

all this is covered under a false theologiy of "submission".

[40days40years]

robert what is MPD again spelled out? I was feeling fairly content before you posted just lightly toasted now your getting me mad.

CFC was taking in how much? and staff had to raise their own support?

one problem brother grasshopper Robert (I stole that by the way a hard habit to break after MCM)

- fees for conferences
- fees for MPD
- Worldpartner contributions
- Tithes from EN churches towards EN Ministries
- employment in different ministries (ie.CFC...)
- employment in "home-churches" (Nashville,...)
- private businesses

robert you are slipping brother don't forget corporate board salaries, speaking fees for conferances and outright gifts from athletes and others. Certain brothers may have multiple streams of income coming in from ministries that are not ministries but businesses and are not required to have a 990? form.

TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF ALL STREAMS OF INCOME INCLUDING GIFTS, THAT INCLUDES THE FULLER BRUSH SALESMAN!

[robert_unknown]

40 thanks for the addition! you are right! honorariums, "christmas bonuses" and other things play also an important role!

yes - i forgot to mention that there are MULTIPLE streams of income.
yes - some staff (i dont know if ALL have to) has to raise their own support. i know a girl who moved to the states to work in the headquarters in Nashville - she had to raise support through MPD!

MPD - "Mission Partner Developement" - if i remember wright!

here is the link to the CFC Form900... you can see how much they take in. you can see who is "employed", for how many hours a week, and how much they get for it... (jsut scroll down)...

ulyankee posted this somewhere:
http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=742588832&Yea r=2004&Cobrandid=0

(Message edited by robert_unknown on July 13, 2006)

[forword]

And lets not forget loans, grants, or whatever they are from the Malachi Foundation.

And... if you think about it... the staff on MPD actually pays EN for the privilege of working for them. Incredible!

[40days40years]

MPD stand for, Monster Partner Development!

[robert_unknown]

one thing thats really weird is this:

the BigGuys reason their huuuuge income by comparing their position to a secular job.

but they use non-profit structures to gain all the advantages of non-profit organisations.

but the people that are emplyeed are always challenged to see it as "service". neither their work, nor their salary gets treated like in a businnes mileu.

so we have two classes of people:

the "ministers" (come from the greek for "servant") who are payed like business people. or better.
the "layman-workers" who are treaded like servants.

they use the "business" and "ministry" thing against each other. their churches or EN as a whole is a business, when it suits the minister, and its not a business but a ministry when it suits them as well.

so we have two sets of policies in the church at the same time.



(Message edited by robert_unknown on July 13, 2006)

[robert_unknown]

forword:
you brought it to a good conclusion!

and the BigGuys are getting payed for beeing the BigGuys. its so priviledgted to pay the BigGuys!

[another_brick_in_the_wall]

yes, and EN doesn't really offer any type of benefits that you would find in normal corporate office.

i was amazed when i first heard that office staff could only work if they raised their own support.

and the staff was treated like dirt. mind games. excessive abuse. and the staff would get no Christmas bonuses!

ludicrus!

[another_brick_in_the_wall]

i just wonder where did EN Nashville get the money to purchase all of the Brentwood property that surrounds Bethel?

that is high-value land.

land intended for expansion...but EN was thrawted.

why did none of the members know how these purchases were being made?

EN Nashville approached surrounding neighbors and bought them out. that had to mean serious money.

[40days40years]

I got (have) to raise my own support to be abused?

gotta love it, that is better then the mob. It's evil, cymbrogi come on in and rebuke me.

[robert_unknown]

so, lets examine only ONE source of income of only ONE of the BiGuys:

R.B´s employment at CFC:

2000 - secretary - $41,000 (40+ hours/week)
2001 - secretary - $47,000 (40+ hours/week)
2002 - secretary - $37,000 (40+ hours/week)
2003 - secretary - $73,000 (40+ hours/week)
2004 - Vice President - $76,000 (30+ hours/week)


Nice career isnt it? One year you are the secretary and the next year the Vice...
nice payment also - i remember - this is ONLY ONE stream of income!

i am just curious: how the heck does Rice manage it to work 40+ hours a week for CFC?
besides all his other "apostolic duties"?
is he beaming himself around in the world?

(Message edited by robert_unknown on July 13, 2006)

[miltietoast]

James 5:1-6 specifically v4,5. Behold,the hire of your laborers who have reaped down your fields,which is of you kept back by fraud,crieth;and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. 5. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth,and been wanton:ye have nourished your hearts ,as in a day of slaughter.

Rocks and stones fall on me.Hide me from the anger of the Lamb!, would be my prayer if I was in EN leadership

[jesusisawesome]

I was naive enought to give up finishing my degree to get more involved with supporting this ministry and being a part of feeding the top leaders' lust for money. Talk about learning your lesson the hard way, heheh! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/crazy.gif

In your summary of money threads, don't forget the contacts with rich business men that were also courted for money. I babysat one night while Phil Bonasso went to meet with a rich business man in LA, hoping that he would donate to the ministry. I never heard the outcome of the meeting. Makes me wonder if that was more money in his own pocket in the name of "reaching the world for Christ".

[jesusisawesome]

BTW, people with money, such as professional athletes, were given different rules from the rest of the flock in the church. One of the women in leadership pointed out to Phil Bonasso that AC Green wasn't held to the same level of accountability and shepherding as everyone else. For this, she earned a rebuke from Phil, and was told that this was none of her business.

[ginger1]

Let's talk about the illegal flow of money. Phil Bonasso has raise CASH Only donation for World Partner. Knowing Phil Bonasso, those disappeared. How about the Extortion, $4000 a month from the Polus church.
His salary from the PV church. How about those building funds also, Those disappeared. That also happened in Brett Fuller and Ron Lewis church. None of them wants to open their books and give an account to those building funds.

[ginger1]

jesusisawesome, the reason why these athletes are not held in the same accountability, is because they are like slaves who have earned their freedom. Just think how much do you think AC Green, Mark Brunell , Tony Boselli and the rest of the athletes have (PAID) their freedom ?

From the building funds to Champions for Christ , Malachi Foundation, Feste Capital.
They PAID Millions to have their freedom in EN. Unlike we, we are unable to pay our freedom in there.

Its the same thing as the Slavery in the South. Some slaves have to EARN their freedom and those Athletes EARNED it . They did earned it well too, the Slave owners gave them positions in the household.

[robert_unknown]

folks, lets post some facts here... links to entries at federal authoruties, real numbers, streams of income... ;)

people from outside shall find what they seek ;)
must not take them years as it did for us ;)

[maranatha1984]

Robert: Yes- follow the money. Cash is KING, whoever has the Cash is King. You see the guys learned from Joe and Bob at MCM.

MCM was nothing more or less than a conference machine. Bring people in- make it so they have to attend MCM buy the tapes pay the fees, etc etc. The cash flows from the minisrty were minor with the exception of the RED GREEN BLUE books that lined Rose and Bob's pockets.

EN has taken it a step further- overlapping entities...see my next post

[dust]

MPD:
I knew a older lady who SO BADLY wanted to work for EN.
WHY, would they allow this vulnerable women in her 50's to be driving around several states begging for money, when her very personality didn't have the skill set for it, and she could ONLY get hurt, which she did. I viewed this as greed on church behalf.

NEXT CASE: QUITE THE OPPOSITE. This is in Europe. Pretty girl on her way to America for a month elicited support at the airport from two men. She is quite the beauty. This American OLDER man falls in love with her. They start communicating privately and arranging meetings. She is grossed out by him, but plays him to keep the money. I asked her to write him OFF. Do not take money from him; he is trying to buy you. He is obsessed with you. I read the letters. He wanted a RELATIONSHIP with her at twice her age.

A year later at the world conference, she flys to his town so they drive together across the U.S. WHY? I need his money. I said, NO, now it's becoming prostitution. You need to tell your pastor the methods that you are using to seduce support. She wasn't having sex with him, but she was playing him for the money..setting on fire his lust for her. She was insistent: He's my biggest support. I need his money.

What did she USE the american man for? Money to save the lost on campus in Europe.

This girl was lovely and eager to please the Lord. I hope she reads this and realizes what she became to please EN.

[dust]

In the above "middle-aged single mom" example, she flew to California for MPD school, and then had a hard time locating her MPD coach. She followed their cue, started making long drives state to state trying to raise support. She failed and it was really sad. But, anyone would know in advance, she didn't have the skill sets for this. I questioned WHY would they put her through this? JUST FOR CASH.

[upcase20]

jesisawesome: You forgot that the athlete's wives
are given different rules also. It seemed to me that the average newcomer was subordinated to a lesser social class the minute they joined. First they had to follow the pastor in all matters of their life. The athletes were always exalted even if their playing days were gone. It amazed me.

[robert_unknown]

"no money, no honey" ;)

[jesusisawesome]

Ginger: Its the same thing as the Slavery in the South. Some slaves have to EARN their freedom and those Athletes EARNED it . They did earned it well too, the Slave owners gave them positions in the household.

JIA: Then there's the former slaves here on FactNet, that have come to their senses and bucked the system and gained their freedom . . . http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif Those of you still in EN, you too can have such freedom!

[jesusisawesome]

Upcase: The athletes were always exalted even if their playing days were gone. It amazed me.

JIA: It is the same as in the "world". No different at all, whatsoever.

[ulyankee]

Didn't the apostle Paul say that if you are free, to stay free? And if you can gain your freedom, to do so?

1 Cor 7:21-23: Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.


Being a SLAVE to EN is NOT and I repeat NOT the same as being a slave of Christ!!!!

[maranatha1984]

Uly:Being a SLAVE to EN is NOT and I repeat NOT the same as being a slave of Christ!!!!

84: right on ULY as always, As I will show in my Blog a very humble Baptist Pastor asked me three simple question;

1. Is the burden you have easy and light- if it is not then it is NOT of Christ

2. Are you free? For where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty

3. Who are you serving...yourself, what men say or what Christ Says?

Those questions were the "last straw" for me and allowed me to break out....

although the journey back from the prison to reality was lonely and hard it was those three questions that allowed me to get "out"

[hewrote]

%Christ calls us Friend. Not slave%

Galatians 4:2-4

2He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,

%Oh what a friend we have in Jesus%

Ecclesiastes 4:10

If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!

[40days40years]

84: Obviously the burden was not light and easy, we were not free, and we were serving the words of others and ourselves vs. the words of Jesus but still the weirdness of the ministry could be used to keep people in for a long time.

I'll explain, the atmosphere at an MCM meeting was a little off. A normal person whether a christian or not might make the comment this is a little weird when visiting. In the flesh no one wants to be associated with something that is weird or embarassing and the natural insticts is to stay away. Of course people stayed because they did'nt want to be a man pleaser and care to much what others think. Somehow the weirdness was translated into meaning were "100% totally committed" to Jesus Christ. In a clever way they used the uncomfortableness of the ministry to keep people in because by putting up with it your proving your serving Jesus. That is another element at work with this thing.

[philiprosenthal]

I would like to know if anyone know how much Paul Daniel was paid before he took his 'Sabbatical'? Seems like the church was short of cash before this and had a surplus to raise the salaries of the other staff once Paul's salary was cut. I was told a figure astronomical by South African standards, and have asked the church to confirm, but get no answer. Anyone know?

[robert_unknown]

I only know from a former pastor that it was "absurd high"...

[dust]

Robert
I do know that many secretaries in EN get paid FROM EN. They don't raise their own support. It is not high, nor in keeping with averages. They will tell you that they either took pay cuts to work in ministry or are not paid well.

The issues in the structure of the office is that they will pay you like an hourly person, but treat you as if you work 24 hours a day. If you are a secretary and they call you to work Saturday or babysit, you are expected to do so. In other words, the gals in the office are often used to do a lot of PERSONAL duties for the pastors. The staff is usually very very stressed out because:

1. They find out too much information and they don't know how to process it.
2. They get trapped in their "position." On one hand they feel "special," but they know they are used.
3. They are not ALLOWED to just quit. They consider these admin jobs "ministry" jobs, and, therefore, are under HEADSHIP.
Their headship may not give them permission to leave the job; they will be considered in rebellion. Quitting position may be like wanting to leave the church.

This may not be true in every case, but, it's true in many cases....enough to state that it's wrong on many levels:

1. They may be abusing labor laws. They are paying HOURLY and then expecting exempt status output. (Asking 50 hours of work, only pay 40). (Everything is "unto" God.).

2. They use subtle or not so subtle tactics to abuse thier position of power. (typically the workers are YOUNG SINGLE GIRLS, easier to manipulate).

RAISING SUPPORT: If the Associate or Para pastors need a secretary or admin support, THEY DO HAVE TO RAISE THEIR OWN SUPPORT. There may be special cases where what I'm saying doesn't apply, but it's more typical than not.

I would like to know more about the labor laws here and why there is so much freedom for the church to treat people differently than corporate america does. Seriously, this is an issue that makes me CRINGE when I think about dominion theology.

[miltietoast]

the issue of social security taxes has derailed many prominent democrats(i hate dems and rep for different reasons,do not believe Jesus would vote,boy that could bring em out of woodwork)you can "screw" the young girls financially but do not mess with big brother.

[40days40years]

miltie that reminds me of my old man saying that society can tolerate criminals and deviants but it cannot tolerate the average man not paying his taxes because it needs suckers like that to survive. It is just like EN. When it comes to the IRS you are guilty till you can prove yourself innocent. Like my old reprobate boss use to say to me, money does'nt talk it screams.

----p.s I agree dems suck.

[ulyankee]

dust, IMHO someone needs to check on FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and whether it applies here. Tennessee does not have its own overtime or minimum wage laws but defers to FLSA (http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-wages-benefits/employment-employee-wages-benefits-wages-flsa-overview(2).html). According to this opinion (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/opinion/FLSANA/2005/2005_09_23_12NA_FLSA.htm), a local church does not necessarily come under the FLSA if it isn't engaged in "interstate commerce;" however, I would posit that it's very possible that those working for Bethel/EN Nashville would qualify as being involved in interstate commerce since it is after all the international headquarters.

Covered hourly employees are supposed to get paid for all the hours they work, according to the FLSA.

My understanding is that being a church doesn't exempt one from all laws... just those that otherwise conflict with the First Amendment. That said, it takes a lot for government to step in in general even when there might be evidence that applicable laws might be broken, because of the First Amendment.

I'm NOT an attorney, so these are just suggestions only and NOT meant to be legal advice, but I would suggest that anyone who wants more specific information either contact the TN state labor office (http://state.tn.us/labor-wfd/lsdiv.html) or the Wage and Hour Division (http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/) of the US Department of Labor.

(Message edited by ulyankee on July 17, 2006)

[robert_unknown]

dust, you are of course right with what you say.
there seem to be 2 kinds of worker-bees in the nst of EN. the ones who get payed by their churches/ offices with small salaries (i know a precios lady who was underpayed for many years like this, while the pastor raised his income continually) and then there are the self-supporters who raise support through MPD.

both is ethicly and biblicaly WRONG.

while ie Rice Brooks, besides all his other streams of income, earned $70,000,- for beeing the fake-secretary of CFC in 2003, the real working secretaries hardly can cover there expenses.

well ladies - draw your conclusions.

[robert_unknown]

have you read Rick A. Ross about CFC?
they have an article and talk, among other things, about Rices and Gregs salaries...

i quote rice: "He says he is paid $2,500 a month, and that between salary and a housing allowance, Ball makes no more than $100,000 a year. "There's no money in this, believe me," he said. "

he said... but what he didnt say is that this 2.500,- a month are only ONE stream of his income. and its not even true as the Form 990 proofs. in 2004 his salary at CFC was $76.000,- per annum..,

and the most funny things is that he says THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT, because Ball makes ONLY 100.000,- a year with CFC...

HELLOOOOO... i take this humble salary, if its not enough for you guys. hey, rice, champ... i wouldnt mind.

i dont know, but 100.000,- is quite much...

(Message edited by robert_unknown on July 23, 2006)

[robert_unknown]

here´s the link:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/champions/champions10.html

someone tell me how to shorten/ title links.

[j2theperson]

***someone tell me how to shorten/ title links.***

I don't think anyone could explain it any better than the people at webmoney.com (http://www.webmonkey.com/webmonkey/teachingtool/links.html).

And, yeah, I'd take $100,000 a year too. They obviously don't know the definition of the word "money" if they think $100,000 isn't money.

[robert_unknown]

would be an increase of 300%...
but - hey - we dont do it for the money, champ. there is no money in it. just peanuts...

but i know. i have no right to think so. i am just a
worker bee who has to pay tithes, work 4times a
weak for the church and ask no qúestions... ARGH

(Message edited by robert_unknown on July 24, 2006)

[ginger1]

You know one of the things I do not understand is why some of these churches are still sending money ? this is after they found out about the misuse of funds.
These Leaders still have their $700K homes. And a lot of people who works in the office MOVED to Nashville and some have bought $400K homes. There are decent homes over there for $100K - $200K range.
Nashville can still afford to pay these people Large salaries. I have not seen any of them trying to sell their homes. All I see was there are still buying. Does that look like money going to missions ???

[robert_unknown]

at least they should be fair and open the books. so the churches could decide whether they like to support them by paing their tithes, or not.

[freedom43]

Part I: Here’s a description of a real situation in Maranatha involving money that was part of the catalyst for my departure after being in the group for 12 years. This is from my perspective, and I try to describe the situation to the best of my recollection. Wealthy prominent doctor (divorced and married to wife number two) joins Maranatha church. He seems to own lots of real estate in the area. Two or three women in the church work part time in his office. That’s how he heard about the church and got involved. He also hires a guy who has been a long-time church home group leader to be his office manager. Another family in the church – head of the children’s ministry and members of the church for 12 years or so -- tells pastor they are thinking of leaving and going to another church because they need to move too far away to afford a house; so far away that they will be unable to continue attending the church. Doctor offers them a subsidized place to live closer to where the church meets. They accept and decide to stay for now.

To date, the church’s two pastors have rented or owned houses in affordable neighborhoods in the suburbs. Next thing you know, they are living side by side in brand new houses in an expensive close-in suburb. Guess who lives next door? The doctor and his wife –three houses in a row on a cul de sac. Isn’t that cozy?

Meanwhile, doctor’s first wife is telling anyone who will listen in the community that he abandoned her and their five children to marry his nurse after an affair – his current wife. We’re all sinners. His sins are forgiven. He’s a new creature in Christ, right?

Meanwhile, home group leader/office manager and his wife have concerns about the church and tell pastor they are considering leaving and going to another church. Doctor fires him immediately – leaving him jobless with four or five mouths to feed at home.

Children’s ministry family decides they have had enough too and decide to leave. They tell the pastor they are leaving. Shortly thereafter, they receive a post-dated eviction notice and doctor’s wife shows up at their door with a real estate agent and calls them “white trash.” Doesn’t that sounds like Christian love?

As part of its “reform” efforts, pastor announces that there is now a new financial board for the church. Guess who is on it? The doctor! Including the pastor, there are a few other people on it too – almost all of whom seem to be living in houses owned or subsidized by the doctor!

[freedom43]

Part II: Church member asks to see financial statement disclosing pastors’ salaries, housing allowance and other income. Church member points out that most churches fully disclose salaries and housing allowances to members. Church member asks about eviction notice/white trash comment and was told that the pastor refused to get involved. After all, why should he believe one party over the other? Why should he believe folks he has let run the church’s children’s ministry and known for at least 12 years over the rich new doctor whose house he seems to be living in? Church member points out how those who are deacons and in leadership (or on a financial board) scripturally should not be a new convert, should be above reproach and have a good reputation outside the church -- and how doctor does not seem to meet those criteria. Church member asks how anyone, including the doctor, came to be on the financial board which heretofore has not existed. Church member proposes several people to serve on the financial board besides the doctor who better meet the criteria (but aren’t rich). After not receiving satisfactory responses to any of these questions, church member quits attending church in disgust and never hears from them again.

Fifteen years later, former church member finds website where others who have been involved in Maranatha/MSI/EN describe abusive situations, scandals – with finances STILL shrouded in secrecy after all these years! One of the current leaders of MSI/EN is one of the pastors from the story above! Unbelievable. In the meantime, former church member wonders what ever happened to the good ol’ doctor (I heard he moved away) and whether any apologies or restoration were ever made to those directly involved, whether the situation was ever explained to anyone in the church and whether the pastor ever regretted any of those decisions.

I know that some of the people more directly affected by all this have posted on the board. I don’t want to open up old wounds or force them to talk about what happened, but I think other people should be aware that issues related to money, secrecy and abuse have been going on with some of these MSI/EN leaders for a very long time.

[ginger1]

Some of those finances at least have trails, like their mortgages.

Second, Phil Bonasso has renovated his home in 2005 and Phil took out PV's equity on 2004 for $1.2 million. Currently , none of the building funds have been disclose. And we know for sure that PV church renovation does not cost $1.2 million either.

[john_r_jones]

43,
thanks for sharing your information. Ginger it seems their mission field is the gated communities and their vast legions of needy millionaires who lack discipling as a beneficiary to round-out their life experiences.

John

[robert_unknown]

i will post my experiences with finances soon. stay tuned.!

[freedom43]

I just checked the county website (after finding a very very old church directory with addresses in my basement) and confirmed that the house that the EN leader I mentioned in my story above was indeed owned by the doctor who was abusing the flock. I couldn't confirm the other one on-line -- the record did not go back far enough. I am not as concerned about that one anyway because the other pastor had enough sense to leave Maranatha.

[upcase20]

Freedom43: How far does that directory go back to ? I still have some dating back to '87 - '88

[upcase20]

Freedom43: How far does that directory go back to ? I still have some dating back to '87 - '88

[freedom43]

upcase -- I think the oldest I have is 89. I joined the DC church in 84 but didn't save them, I don't think. I only found the ones I have because I had a leak and water damage in my basement, and they were in water logged boxes, along with some other mementos I tried to salvage.

[upcase20]

Freedom43: I assume the other pastor with "enough sense to leave" was Mark. I kept most of the literature from when I attended, '87 onward. I kept things like The Covenant Members Agreement/Course, pictures, etc. thinking they might be curiosities one day. Too bad I didn't vieotape some of the craziness I saw, like the leg growing tricks. Nobody would believe me when I told them.

[upcase20]

(Message edited by upcase20 on September 04, 2006)

[miltietoast]

Marks daughter rachel got married several weeks ago in St Loius I believe

[freedom43]

Yes, upcase, it was Mark. Not that I am absolving him but at least he got out of that system. I think he has a church in northern VA somewhere. I would love to know what it is like.

Miltie -- I heard about Rachel -- saw a picture and couldn't believe how much she looks like Debbie to me -- and that she's all grown up!

[upcase20]

Yes, Freedom43, he's pastor of a small church in Va. It's on the web and there's a picture of it. I think he had character to get out. I can't help but think of all the people who followed him so faithfully, the marriages they approved, and the people who got married because of the coercion from the leadership. The guy who stayed, he's making big, big money. I think he had a vision alright.

[freedom43]

I also think about all of the good people who left that church under his leadership and were denounced as having something wrong with them. Over the years, there were many. Fault was always found with those who left -- never with the leadership or the church. I know of at least one instance where the church elected elders (in an effort to seem reform minded, I think). One guy was essentially summarily dismissed because he disagreed with Mark in private. Nobody really knew about it until a few weeks later. Mark was talking about all the elders from the pulpit at one of those mandatory Sunday evening meetings on "spiritual authority" (aka beating the flock into submission)-- and this guy wasn't named. Someone asked about him -- and Mark said "oh, he stepped down." Which was not true.

Anyway, you are right on the guy that stayed. I've been thinking a lot about his whole focus and that ministry on recruiting professional athletes. Think about those tithes!

upcase -- did you ever take a weekend trip with church folks to Deep Creek lake?

[robert_unknown]

"I know of at least one instance where the church elected elders (in an effort to seem reform minded, I think)"

we had a pastro who apointed elders. when EN arose on the scene, and when the merge was over, the pastor realized (some of the big guys told us this in a leadership meeting), that EN wants that the "apostles" apoint the elders (not the pastor).

this got this pastor quite emberaced.

some of my friends have been elders then. one of the guys did NOT WANT to be an elder, but got apointed by pastor anyhow. they told me recently, that after the "new policy" pastor disbanded the elders overnight. He asked him, why this is happening now, and pastor said "You have been elders on aproval, only"...

such a weasel!

[ulyankee]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

when EN arose on the scene, and when the merge was over, the pastor realized (some of the big guys told us this in a leadership meeting), that EN wants that the "apostles" apoint the elders (not the pastor).<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Robert, this was described in the "old" Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines for Convention Membership. It is in order to keep elders relationally connected and accounted to EN apostolic leadership, not just to the local pastor. If '84 is around he could (and probably would) say WHY.

APPOINTING ELDERS AND PASTORS

The appointing of elders, pastors and members of the Board of Directors is a critical function of the International Apostolic Team. [. . .]

Foundational to MSI is that not only the Senior Pastor, but all primary leaders of local churches--especially elders--be joined relationally to the International Apostolic Team and the vision and values of the movement. The IAT, working together with the Senior Pastor helping to appoint elders, accomplishes the following:
--Protects the Senior Pastor from potentially unwise decisions.
--Can charge the new elder to serve and protect the Pastor and vision of the church.
--Can encourage the elder to support the mission and values of MSI at the local church level.
--Will make the elder aware that he is accountable to the International Apostolic Team as well as to the Senior Pastor.
--Through the appointment process, the IAT can connect relationally with the new elder.

(Guidelines p. 17; emphases mine)

So potentially what this does is divide loyalties. Which is the higher authority here? Apostolic leadership. So if the pastor and apostolic leadership disagree, who does the elder submit to? Apostolic leadership.

More covering doctrine in action.

I believe the primary change between the old IAT and the new International Ministry Team that has replaced it is that there are more extra-local people on the IMT. However, its functions in this area are almost identical (http://www.everynation.org/en/top/about-us/global-oversight-structure/international-ministry-team.html). It is still charged with training and appointing ("covering?") elders.

So by virtue of HP (your previous "covering authority") submitting their authority to that of MSI/EN, they came under this new covering authority and these new policies and procedures.

(Message edited by ulyankee on September 07, 2006)

[freedom43]

For clarity, the situation I described above happened between the Maranatha break up and MSI/EN formation. It happened under Mark Caulk before he left and Brett Fuller took over as head pastor.

[upcase20]

Freedom43: There was toooo much controlling there by the pastors: marriages, jobs, careers, but everybody went along with it. You can see by Ulyankees entries there were so many secret rules only the leadership shared, I did not find out about until I left. The pastor who replaced Mark carried on in Maranatha tradition, they just did a name change. People who left were denounced as having something wrong with them, I always thought you had to have something wrong with you to join the chult (church/cult). I did not really care for the pastor that replaced Mark. He was charismatic but did he really have the congregants best interests at heart if you didn't follow his dream? I think not. He was just trying to build a religious dynasty off the backs of others. I always wondered what they said about me when I left, not that it mattered, because I knew I wasn't going back. Then the church broke up. I thought that just validated my theories on this place. . . .. I never went to Deep Creek Lake.

[football7]

I think if you knew Mark now you would see a totally reformed person. I say that both in doctrine and personality. They told me it was hard to read all this because of the comments and how bad they feel.

[freedom43]

football7 -- that's interesting because I've tried to find any comments specifically aimed at him and can't seem to find anything that's all that bad. maybe I missed something. do you know if he has had any contact with any of the people he feels he hurt during his time pastoring the DC church? just curious. i am not in touch with many folks.

[upcase20]

Ditto here. I liked Mark. Further I'd ike to add that he was the only pastor in the DC Church I did like, and respected.

[football7]

Sorry, I've been off the last few days. I don't know if he has been in contact with any other people. I know he made the move to reconcile with Brett several years back. Hummmmmmm that was not good, very fake etc.... not from Mark but from Brett.
MC has had his own issues to resolve over the years. Just like me and football hubby, we lost touch with so many people and as I have said in other posts...........rejected it as " my other life ". There church in Stafford is all new people, reformed in teaching, charasmatic in worship with some litergy. They are really happy now in the ministry, very humble.

[miltietoast]

sounds like a common path of former maranatha people and esp pastors is down the presbyterian road.

[lablady2]

milt: and maybe a couple take the road to Tel Aviv. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[miltietoast]

yeah lab that was a smart one
Let's see ,I want to associate with a people the world despises for no logical reason. You can walk point on the bunny trail with loaded 38's.

[lablady2]

miltie, you ol' romantic, you know love ain't logical.

[annelewis]

football, you can tell Mark &amp; Debbie that I've been looking for a church just like that! I think the 1,500 mile travel distance makes regular attendance a little impractical though. Glad to hear they are doing well.

[freedom43]

football7 -- I am very glad to hear they are doing well. To this day, I still can't quite figure out exactly why Mark left. I seem to recall that there was something about "if folks ever lose confidence in me." But, I do feel like he was sort of pushed out by Brett and others. I think he was sort of the fall guy because I think he came to symbolize Maranatha/authoritarianism to many. I guess I didn't realize there was "bad blood"/need for reconciliation between him and Brett because I found some notes from his last sermon recently -- and it seems he was very much trying to do right by Brett and keep the troops in order and solicit loyalty to the church and Brett as a leader.

I'm glad Mark got out. It sounds like he has found his niche/found peace.

And, it sounds like Brett is in the same cesspool that I left almost 15 years ago from what I have read on these boards.

[deniserhoades]

I have to pipe in. I was secretary to Mark for several years and still consider myself a friend to the Caulks, whom I love, admire and appreciate. Even though we've been gone from DC since 1995, we still consider ourselves friends w/ the Fullers as well. I can tell you that Brett was as surprised as anyone when Mark announced they were moving to pastor w/ his brother. During that time, with everyone leaving the church and all the misunderstanding swirling around, the Fullers were also unsure of their future with the church. (This may be TMI, but the Fullers had at least one offer to go elsewhere and pastor outside of Maranatha. It had a lot of appeal for their family, but the church had already dwindled and more left after the Caulks moved. The Fullers stayed, not because there was this great situation to pastor, but because they cared about the people that remained. And that's the truth.) It never works to think in terms of just good/bad. I have no doubt that Mark and Brett both would say they were doing their best w/ tough circumstances. They'd probably do some things different with hindsight. My guess is that today they respect and care about each other and they know it will all get ironed out in an instant in heaven. What you have here are guys who are good folks and imperfect (me too...at least re: imperfect...and I'm not a guy :-). Anyway, it was a crazy, goofy system with some delightful, wonderful folks that I love, respect, and will always miss. d

[miltietoast]

It never works to think in terms of just good/bad.
lot of wisdom there denise welcome
I know all the caulks and love their imperfectness,they may have noticed a few of my imperfections also

[nicknak]

Here, here on the Caulks. I was with them in Columbia, SC. I love them and respect them. To this day I have nothing but fond memories of them. Rachel was just a few years old when they came, and then 'Becca came along. I wish them nothing but the best! They hold a very special place in my heart!!

[upcase20]

Freedom43: Didn't Mark Caulk stand up before the congregation and give his reason for leaving ? That's what I heard. . . . . .You mentioned Brett being in the same cesspool you left 15 years ago. I saw so much craziness at his hand, I thought he was the reason for the cesspool.

[freedom43]

Hi Denise!

I suspect you know who I am (Anne gave me your e-mail address but I haven’t written yet.) I have such fond, loving memories of you and your family. I hope you are all doing well.

If you know me, you know that I also served the Caulks for years in both paid and unpaid positions. I love their family. I always had a great relationship with them. I don’t have any issues with them personally and do not question their commitment and integrity. Given the right circumstances, I would love to see them again and sit down and talk. I have many fond memories of lots of folks -- whose hearts were all in the right place. I hold no personal grudges or unforgiveness (at least that I'm aware of).

As you said, they were likely just doing their best in a difficult situation. That being said, I am still having trouble separating the “bad system” from the people running it. At what point, should people expect accountability from individuals who propagated (or continue to propagate it)? Obviously, no one is accountable to me – I left in 1991/1992. But, I saw a world of hurt and people who were trampled by the system that was being led by Mark and Brett. I saw a system that treated the pastorate like royalty (or perhaps dictatorship would be a better description). A system that would not let people leave in a healthy way and where disagreement was not allowed. Per the story I posted above, I saw pastors who seemed complicit in situations where members of their flock were treated very badly by others in the church. The others being people who were obviously providing significant financial resources to the church. In retrospect, it made it seem like the pastorate had been bought – or was using the power of money to try to control people and keep them in the church. Now, perhaps those situations were explained and people repented and restoration was made – and it doesn’t happen anymore -- but it was never explained to me – and I sought to understand how those things could happen and to understand the financial situation of the church –a church I had given years and years of my life and thousands and thousands of dollars to. I wanted to believe that things would get better, and I asked a lot of questions and never got answers. Brett did take over a church that was hemorrhaging people – and I ended up being one many who left, I guess. Perhaps, that was why I never heard a peep from a soul in the church after I left.

To be honest, I had not given much thought to any of this in many, many years or about any possible long term implications of it. I guess I assumed that things had gotten better, that perhaps the books had been opened, for example. But from what I have read here on FactNet, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Anyway, I’ve heard it said that sunshine is the best disinfectant. I tend to agree. If there is nothing to hide, open it up -- don't be so secretive. Most churches have open financial disclosure statements for all to see.

Upcase – my recollection is that Mark talked about leaving along the lines of “I have always said if folks lose confidence in my, I will leave.” It was a long time ago, but that’s all I can remember at this point. I will see if I can find any notes or journal entries to fill in the blanks.

[lablady2]

" That being said, I am still having trouble separating the “bad system” from the people running it. At what point, should people expect accountability from individuals who propagated (or continue to propagate it)? "

This touches my heart. From a Jewish perspective, there is no forgiveness without personal accountability. As the high holy days of Yom Kippur approach, it is my responsibility to think over my actions for the past year and to contact any person I may have wronged or to make right any wrong I've committed. Then and only then can I expect forgiveness from God. If the person chooses not to forgive me, I am absolved because I took responsibility to correct my actions. Forgiveness requires justice and mercy.

Following Mel Gipson's episode, the Jewish community offered forgiveness with a caveat - you must prove you are sorry and that will take time. The proof that you offer that you are sorry for your sin is that you don't do it again.

I think "true" Christianity expects that, too. I don't believe for one moment that what we experienced in MCM was the real deal but a perversion of the real thing. In fact, that's one thing that convinces me that many in MCM leadership were not walking (are not walking) with God - their hearts should have broken with repentence for those they harmed.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

[deniserhoades]

Hey, there! It's great to be back in touch w/ folks. I smile every time I think of you and your roomies and the funny things I remember. Remember when a to-remain-nameless roomie dragged home a Christmas tree from the side of the highway? I was in email contact w/ her and her husband recently and told them my oldest is in college. "No," they said, "Joshy would be too little and scared to go off to college by himself!" Of course now he's nineteen and bearded and is this absolutely amazing young man. Listen, I hear what you're saying. I can only say that if everyone put their lists of hurts and abuses on the table, the personal abuse that I saw Brett and Mark endure would be right up there w/ anyone's list. I'm not saying any of it was right, just that my questions today center around, "What was I (ME-ME-ME) thinking to have put up w/ stuff that was wrong and unbiblical? Why didn't I (ME-ME-ME) pipe up more?" As I answer those questions, I don't feel so much fury. I'm happy to answer any questions that I can. Email away (offline, though, just because I am SOOOOOoooo swamped right now, I won't be able to factnet much). We left when the church was reconnecting w/ Maranatha folks around '96. We just couldn't go there. We'd been overseas for a year -- which had been a fiasco, but, again, much of it through our own doing -- but when we returned to the states, DC was hooking up w/ Morningstar and it just wasn't something we felt right about for us. We moved back to Kansas -- Marc's hometown -- where we've been ever since (11 years). I'll have to say...as painful a process as it was to leave DC, I am grateful for those years, but SO grateful, too, for the last 11. It's been a blessing I could have never dreamed up, yet it was borne out of adversity. Whatever it took to get us here...I can now say, thank God for it! d

[deniserhoades]

Re: Forgiveness

Maybe more for expedience than virtue, I've tried to follow Jesus's example: "Forgive them, Father..." (and Corrie ten Boom's) and forgive before there's repentance, even w/o expectation of someone else's repentance.

It's not only been a time-saver (one of my big core values :-), but it's been "soul chiropractic". Feels good. Loosens me up. I can walk w/o discomfort. d

[freedom43]

Thanks, Denise. I will be writing just to catch up. I was wondering exactly how old Josh was. I knew he had to be in his late teens at least. I can't believe it. I remember him as an adorable little toddler. In fact, I still think I have the cutest picture of you, him and your mom somewhere at home.

Anyway, I appreciate hearing your perspective and your journey out. I'm sorry it was so hard. I agree, the important thing was moving on. I, too, have done a lot of introspection about why I was there, my own actions, etc. And, as I have said on these boards and elsewhere, I made those choices --and they have led me to where I am today and helped make me the person I am today -- and I'm pretty happy with my life, career, family, etc.

On the roomates: I have countless fond and funny memories of them. The Christmas tree was a great one. I think the statute of limitations is past; so I will say that I think it was taken from the side of a state or federal parkway! (In her defense, it had been uprooted by a storm.) I can still picture the trail of pine needles leading to our front door in the high rise, and two of my roomates in overalls (this ain't Vermont anymore). When I opened the door...a gigantic tree, with branches everywhere, and the nameless roommate with a saw in one hand and the Christmas tree in the other announcing in her sweet, high-pitched voice: "Ta Da!!!" Priceless!! I slammed the door and went and got a broom to erase the trail of pine needles that might lead the mean landlord to our front door! I hear from friends that she and hubby are doing well with lots of kids. I saw her sister a few years ago. I really should drop her a line too. I will always love that family. I am also in touch mostly via e-mail with our Watermelon friend. I finally bought her house in VA from her about three years ago after renting for many, many years. She and her husband and six year old son are doing well.

[lablady2]

I guess I've just never been into the time-saving, feel-good, soul chiropractic spirituality.

I expect people to repent when they are wrong. To make matters worse, I don't believe in turning the other cheek, either. That principle doesn't exist in Judaism. If you slap me across the cheek without provocation, you'd better come up with a good reason and FAST. That's a behavior I wouldn't have tolerated from my children and I won't tolerate it from adults. I teach you nothing about justice, compassion or love by allowing or enabling your bad behavior without calling for an accounting.

Repentence isn't about me. It's not about making me feel good or saving me some time or allowing me to walk without discomfort. It is about doing what God requires. It's about giving the offending person an opportunity to experience freedom from the burden of sin and to grow in knowledge and love as an individual. It's about loving someone else enough to engage them in an uncomfortable situation and work through it.

Just a different point of view.

[freedom43]

Hi lablady-- I appreciate both of your recent posts. I got so excited about "seeing" an old friend on line that I did not respond to your other post. A dear friend is Jewish, and we often debate (and usually agree on) many issues. She'll surprise me now and then and tell me when I state something that reflects Jewish principles in her view. I still have a lot to learn, but at every one of those moments, I gain more understanding and respect for the Jewish faith. It makes a lot of sense to me/in life.

I agree with you about accountability and wish there were a way to enforce it/require of the folks we discuss on these boards. I guess many of us realize that it ain't gonna happen; so we work to find peace/or closure in the only way we can -- and that is by looking at ourselves and what and how we can accept and move on. Does that make sense?

I mean, I guess I really don't know how to resolve these issues. I guess I could call Brett and/or Mark up on the phone? That would seem weird after all these years, no? Or I can post here and hope they come clean? What are your thoughts on how to practically require accountablity from them/EN?

[lablady2]

freedom: I actually called someone in Gainesville a year after I left. It was something I needed to do for myself, and I've never regretted it. As you can imagine, the response was less than favorable but I was prepared for that. I just needed to tell someone the truth about how we were treated and how others were treated. That was my responsibility; I couldn't control their response.

I think calling or writing is an option. Totally up to you. Follow your heart. Of course, you can move on without doing any of that. I did forgive those who didn't ask for repentence because I am required by God to do so; it's the right thing, and it's for my good as well. However, I think the OTHER person might be shortchanged when there's not an opportunity for repentence and healing. Depends on how far you want to take it, in my opinion.

One thing you can do (okay, bear with me, this is kind of new agey) is to write the letter you would have written to Brett. Write it for hours and days. Make sure you say everything. Cry. And when you are ready, burn it. Have a ceremony. Whatever lets you let go. I'm Jewish in part because it's all about the ritual!

I wish you peace!
J.

[upcase20]

Freedom43: You said in an earlier post that when you confronted him in church, his reply was not what you expected. I never got my questions answered either. What good would a phone call or letter do ?

[40days40years]

lablady you said: This touches my heart. From a Jewish perspective, there is no forgiveness without personal accountability. As the high holy days of Yom Kippur approach, it is my responsibility to think over my actions for the past year and to contact any person I may have wronged or to make right any wrong I've committed. Then and only then can I expect forgiveness from God. If the person chooses not to forgive me, I am absolved because I took responsibility to correct my actions. Forgiveness requires justice and mercy.

Lab that sounds awfully like Maranatha to me. Lots of wiggle room there. To me it depends on how big the sin is and what the nature of it is. I am not saying God won't forgive.

MCM/MSI/EN leaders hide behind: If the person chooses not to forgive me, I am absolved because I took responsibility to correct my actions.

Those leaders say they have repented and their sorry and they are making efforts to change, we ate the meat and swallowed the bones, we made mistakes. These are the same people that required massive repentance for a minor sin and they expected it quickly but their own ongoing sins of decades they say, uhh were not perfect, were changing in another 20 years things will be differant. That philosophy you talked about was used by pharisees and MCM/EN. It is not up to the standards of Jesus.

I am sure we all commit sins we are not aware of and we are all in a state of non repentance at times. Yeah it is great to contact those you have wronged but don't rely on that to much because at the end of the day the sins are suppose to be put onto a sacrifice to take your place.

(Message edited by 40days40years on September 14, 2006)

[lablady2]

40 day: I can't force someone to forgive me, no matter how sorry I am for any failings I might have. I can't legislate morality and I can't command forgiveness from another. Now, THAT would be like MCM.

[lablady2]

Are there big sins? Hmm....I thought sin was sin. Who gets to decide what the big sins are? What's big to me might not be big to you.

According to New Testament scripture, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, right? All sin is missing the mark.

Your comment about "wiggle room" is interesting. Since I've stated that Yom Kippur means actively going to the person I have offended to seek forgiveness, I fail to see any attempt to wiggle here. The onus is on me, the offender, to take responsibility for my actions and to attempt to correct them or make restititution for them.
There's a lot more "wiggle room" when it's up to the offended to have to seek justice for him or herself.

[40days40years]

Yeah that is true and I said some contradictory things. Yeah I know sin is sin whether it is big or small. I don't know your sins I am assuming they are generic personal things so in that case I understand what your saying and you can't make somebody forvive you but on a bigger MCM/EN level? EN leaders think they have addressed the sin issues of their group, they did their part now their absolved. Phil B probably thinks that once he has paid back the 30 grand or whatever it is and made an apology it is enough, he is absolved. Maybe that is to extreme of an example.

Lab you said: Are there big sins? Hmm....I thought sin was sin. Who gets to decide what the big sins are? What's big to me might not be big to you.

Exactly, I do think institutionalized sins are a pretty big deal. I guess in a big way the leaders of EN as a group think that they addressed some of their problems/sins, had a leader apologize from the stage, boom they are absolved and it is time to "move" on. That was my take on the attitude of their latest conference. Yeah we made some mistakes and sinned here and there. It just seems the top leaders have a very mealy mouthed type of repentance compared to the types of repentance they demand or demanded from the sheep.

[jonmoseley]

Someone asked:
Freedom43: Didn't Mark Caulk stand up before the congregation and give his reason for leaving ?

MOSELEY: YES, but it was not as hinted at above.

At Mark Caulk's final Sunday, he gave a real sermon, which I do not recall as clearly as the ending. He made comments (laying down principles and concepts) that would later be supportive of Brett Fuller's leadership, although we did not know where Mark was going with it at that point. Although I don't recall if it was pointedly an apology, the entire sermon was strongly apologetic and one of seeking reconciliation. PREVIOUSLY in discussing the break-up of Maranatha and the local church now being independent, Mark Caulk had ALREADY been apologetic many times and in many ways, including apologizing that he could not protect us more from what was happening at the national level. He apologized for his own errors and omissions. And to the extent that it had not already been covered several times, on that last Sunday he did so further.

THEN, at the end, he described how after the independence of Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill, Mark Caulk had been the continual source of expressions of anger, bitterness, acrimony, blame, etc., etc. I AM NOT EXPRESSING WELL HERE WHAT MARK ACTUALLY SAID, but recalling the sense of it that I recall. Mark was presenting himself as the focus of all of this bitterness and anger NOT IN ANY WAY being critical of others AT ALL, but rather instead portraying himself as a LIGHTNING ROD and focus for all of the hurts people were having trouble getting over.

He said that he had hoped that people would heal after the separation of the local church from Maranatha. But it was not happening. AGAIN, I AM TELLING THIS BADLY because the sense was clearly that Mark was suggesting that HIS PRESENCE was the problem. I cannot explain his exact words because I so VERY strongly DISAGREE with his sentiments on this point. Whereas unmistakably the fault was of all of those childish and bitter people BEATING MARK UP in unbiblical and unnecessary ways, Mark Caulk was explaining how it was his presence in the church -- his very existence -- that was to blame for 100% of the problem.

He made it sound like it was ALL HIS FAULT that people were still bitter and angry....

And then he quoted from Jesus... that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.

He explained that if what it would take for people to heal is for him to leave, then the good shepherd puts the sheep ahead of himself, and he should leave.

He clearly explained how his desire was for his absence from the scene to promote HEALING and restoration. If he were not there as a reminder of Marantha days, he hoped, then it might help with the healing process.

And with that Mark Caulk laid down his career, his salary, his reputation (accepting the blame for everything, far more than was really true), his ministry, and his church. What pastor lays down his church without being asked?

This is why Mark Caulk is 100 times the Christian of any of you throwing rocks at a church that has not existed for 16 years.

SO WHAT HAPPENED? Mark Caulk laid down his entire life, and ended up (as I understand it) working construction for a time in Tennessee, with a wife accustomed more to sophisticated living IN ORDER TO HELP PROMOTE HEALING and HELP GET RID OF THE BITTERNESS.

DID IT WORK?

Look at this board.

Shame on you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is a pastor who laid down his life that you might lay down your bitterness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And what did you do?

Was it worth it for Mark Caulk to give up everything?

[jonmoseley]

Naturally, everyone was shocked. Those who had been meeting Mark Caulk in private and BEATING HIM UP, dumping all of their bitterness about the past, I don't know if they had second thoughts. But no one had expected this and no one knew what to do.

I WISH NOW I HAD STUDIED BRETT's REACTION (rather than looking at Mark) but it is my (very vague) recollection that Brett was almost as shocked as everyone else. I got the impression that Brett had known the ending of the sermon before it was delivered, but perhaps only by mere minutes before the Sunday service had started that morning. He looked like someone struggling to compose himself, and figure out what he thought, what it all meant, what to do, even though he was not 100% surprised.

As soon as Mark Caulk left, about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the people RAN FOR THE EXITS (so to speak, they at least waited until that Sunday service was over).

Instead of following Mark's example of self-sacrifice, instead of being sobered, perhaps even shocked, out of their wallowing in regrets and bitterness, they RAN.

In other words, those bitter people that Mark hoped to help facilitate healing of, made no effort to find healing, but stayed in their emotional state.

It looked for a time like NO WHITE PEOPLE were going to remain, and the church was going to break up along racial lines... and almost certainly break up entirely.

That is why Matt Dentino, Lisa Desiderio, Karl Crank, I, and a few other White members (of whom my memory ought to be better) staunchly stood our ground and made it clear that we were NOT going to leave no matter what.

Brett Fuller is far from perfect. He is the LEAST controlling MOST polite minister I have ever known... to a fault... literally. He is more likely to neglect people than to control them. Much more ready to say "Oh well" than fret over someone not following him. He is much more likely to cause problems by keeping secrets than to breath a negative word about anyone. His greatest fault is "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" and hope it will go away, NEVER to be unkind or impolite about anyone.

I went on a trip to Kenya with him in which we were together 24/7, even early in the morning and on a long airplane trip, and therefore CRANKY and pressed... You could not find a more pleasant, unflappable, studiously polite, never, never, never angry Christian. From what I have seen, I don't think it is possible for Brett Fuller to get angry. I don't think he knows how. Exasperated (surprised and astonished at something crazy going wrong and lively, wondering what to do about it), yes. But lose his temper? I think somehow God left that component out.

YES, IT WAS TOUGH. At the time, Brett Fuller was caring for a DYING FATHER in his own home, and not a push-over father, either, but one of strong opinions as Brett himself would describe him.

Brett inherited a church IN FREE FALL, disintegrating and shrinking by the week. HARDLY A PLUM for anyone to remain loyal to.

For every reason a church member had to leave, Brett Fuller had more reasons to leave than anyone.

I then prepared to go on a mission trip to the Soviet Union (then still the Soviet Union, but just barely, at the tail end, though we did not know that yet).

I went to weekly prayer meetings at New Covenant Fellowship, the home church of the mission trip leader. About the only time I had any kind of a "hootah" session as Tik describes WAS NOT IN MARANATHA but in New Covenant Fellowship. (Again, shame on you people picking on only one church unfairly.)

[jonmoseley]

The mission team (which included former Maranatha people from around the country) had very powerful prayer meetings at New Covenant Fellowship, while Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill was (seemingly) dying, and growing cold and dead. I was getting fed spiritually at New Covenant Fellowship, filled with the electric fire and power of the Holy Spirit by a thriving, blazing church. We had visions and prophecies (right there in a small conference room) about the upcoming trip. (Astonishingly, one of the images seen and announced unfolded in reality EXACTLY as described 6 weeks earlier, when we crossed over from freedom into darkness at the Soviet border, just as a gigantic, thick black storm cloud enveloped Tallinn, Estonia, as if we were entering a visible wall of evil.)

Some ladies called me aside after that Tuesday-night prayer meeting for the mission trip and said they noticed some things, spiritually, and wanted to pray for me. I said yes. The prayer went until 1:00 AM. I say this to shame those of you who want to accuse MCM as if such things were unusual in the Charismatic side of the Body of Christ.

I felt great. The next night, Wednesday, I set up the TOA portable amplifier and the Kurzweil electric piano for Louis to play for the VERY SMALL prayer meeting in Annandale. I was ON FIRE, filled with the Holy Spirt from the night before. We were maybe 10.

Brett led the prayer and the worship. Then, after quite a while, as praise turned to prayer, I saw something I had never seen before....

Brett got down on his knees and broke down in tears.

Not in some spiritual act, but uncontrollably from his own heart, almost in total DESPAIR.

Brett cried out to God -- almost oblivious of those around him or not caring about being transparent -- and poured out his heart. He was tired. So tired of the strife, the controversy, the accusations (internally from within the local church, that is).

Clearly he was talking about THE SAME bitterness and anger that had led Mark Caulk to lay down Mark's ministry and hand it over to Brett. People were still dumping on Brett, as they had dumped on Mark.

That SAME refusal of people to forgive, to love, to move on, to turn to God now weighed on Brett Fuller like a ton of bricks and Brett literally, actually, broke down and wept.

He told God that he was so tired that he wanted to quit. Brett told God, almost as if no one else were in the room, that he wanted to quit, he didn't know if he could go on.

The rest of us circled around and prayed for Brett.

Although I considered myself nothing spiritually, having always served in the church only through practical things and adminstrative work, I did feel that I was fortuitously carrying THE FIRE from a powerful, thriving, alive church the night before. Whereas everyone else seemed dull and beaten-down, I had just been FILLED and felt alive and on fire and drenched in the Holy Spirit from New Covenant Fellowship.

Like a torch bearer carrying the flame from one place to another, I like to think that I was able to add something small to those prayers, that GOD HIMSELF had planned it that way.

And, now, here you all are.

Such powerful Christians you are. So deep in the Spirit. So beaming with righteousness.

And yet you do not forgive.

If you do not forgive, do you have enough of a place in the Kingdom of God to judge others? You who do not abide by the most elemental aspects of what Christianity teaches, how then are you so skilled at judging others?

I had a hard time forgiving my parents for the rough knocks of growing up.... until I suddenly realized to my astonishment that THEY WERE ONLY HUMAN. Once I relieved them of god-like qualities and saw them as mere people, I was able to forgive.

[jonmoseley]

1 Corinthians 13:13 on --

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[40days40years]

Jon thanks for posting. Several posters here have addressed issues about Mark Caulk. The general consensus as an outsider looking in is that he is a tough, stand up guy. The gist I got was that few of the modern E/N leaders at the very top have his integrity.

[jonmoseley]

To: 40days40years. You are right, but I think you are missing some things.

a) It was this same stand-up guy (who behind the scenes, as I understand it, was a voice for reform and loosening up before Maranatha finally snapped) WHOM EVERYONE WAS BLAMING. It was their bitterness that was the issue, not Mark Caulk. It did not matter that Mark Caulk was one of the guys (I believe) FIGHTING FOR THEM and trying to protect him. The bitterness of those who would not forgive (and only thought about me, me, me) was eating THE GOOD GUY alive.

Could there be any of that going on today?

(b) Tik actually blames Mark Caulk as one of the bad guys, while lionizing Mike Caulk.

I posted my experiences with Mark Caulk on Tiks' blog WHICH TIK DELETED.

[40days40years]

I mean I think Tik represented Mark Caulk as a ramrod marine/ true believer, tough but sincere.

I am an outsider to your situation but once the weekend is over I kind of think that someone who is very busy will be posting to the stuff you wrote. So definantly keep tabs on this and your other threads. God Bless thanks for sharing.

[freedom43]

Part I -- first, someone needs to tell Jon Moseley that some jerk is impersonating him on FactNet and making him sound like an arrogant, obnoxious, judgmental person by attacking people and making unfair, broad generalizations about people who post on FactNet.

As I have said previously, I hold no grudges or unforgiveness against any Maranatha/post Maranatha leaders I encountered.

Mark Caulk was tough, but I believe sincere. I do not question his integrity. I liked Mark and hope he and his family are doing well. I didn't realize it at the time, but he was very controlling and did not allow dissent. I think that was what he learned from Bob W and company. The system was awful and he was a good and obedient sergeant in that army. But, those in leadership in the local church who disagreed with him -- left or were forced to leave.

I don't think it is my place to name names here -- but I did hear MISTRUTH from the pulpit about people who left the church. This happened at Sunday night members meetings. Were those recorded too, Jon? Perhaps you didn't know it was lie -- because you believed everything that came out of their mouths. And, because they use silence (don't want to be accused of being a gossip do you?) to control people and not explain publicly why certain people left the church. But, if you ever bothered to talk to people who left, then you might find out that their side of story was different from what was said publicly. But, of course, you didn't talk to people who left because they were painted as bad seeds, unforgiving, bitter etc. The same thing you are accusing those who now want to talk about their experiences there. Talk about things we were never allowed to talk about as members without being attacked or accused.

[freedom43]

Part II: when someone left usually there were quiet accusations/rumors followed by fiery Sunday night sermons about the accuser of the brethren, gossip, importance of spiritual authority, the spies who gave a bad report and were not allowed to enter the promised land. In fact, Mark's last Sunday night sermon was so heavy-handed that Brett felt the need to send out a follow-up letter about an upcoming member's meeting to sort of qualify the tone/soften the message.

Even though my concerns about the church started before Brett was #1, I believe Brett was complicit in anything done while he was #2. Mark summarily dismissed a church-elected elder -- and was not forthright about it from the pulpit.

But, the last straw for me was the finance issue and the fact that Brett appointed a fairly new convert to his "financial board" who was wealthy and who owned the house Brett lived in. The financial board member and his wife were abusive to church members --and Brett stood by and let it happen. That is wrong.

I still have copies of some of the handouts etc. from the last members' budget meeting I attended. And, I have the letter I wrote Brett -- and his lame response -- before I left. Pies charts with percentages (no totals) of where the money went was about as detailed as it got. So, we might have known that 60 percent of the church's budget went towards salaries, but we had no idea what the total budget was or what the pastor's salaries were or who was paying their mortgage/rent.

Anyway, the cumulative effect of the control, the closed books and the fact that people I loved, knew and served with for years there were lied about -- was enough for me to leave.

I think it's awesome that Brett sounds like such a great guy, humble, etc. I just don't understand how he could stand by and let a wealthy doctor whose house he was living in -- abuse other church members in an effort to control them/keep them in the church/punish them for leaving. I don't hold a grudge. I just think it's wrong -- and concerns me that money became more important than those sheep whose faith was practically shipwrecked by their experience in that church.

And, frankly, if I had heard that things had changed there, I would keep my mouth shut and let it go. But, it doesn’t sound like it has.

[upcase20]

Jonmoseley: I knew you John. I used to give you rides home after church. I agree with just about everything you've said.

[upcase20]

Freedom43: "I have the letter I wrote Brett---and his lame response---before I left". That tells me he really didn't care, which is a shame considering all the years you put in there. I helped counsel a girl out of the VA EN church last year and she wrote a letter too, with your same results, after she had requested a meeting. I always thought that he thought that most of the people there could be replaced, and as long as he was getting new members he wouldn't care. Just look at your letter. Cold and impersonal but true.

[freedom43]

upcase -- you surprise me that you are agreeing with jonmosely's recent posts. Have you read his tirades across all the boards from this past weekend? I find most of them arrogant, offensive, off base and bordering on mental imbalance.

Now, remind me, why did you leave EN/Brett's church again?

[freedom43]

upcase -- I've been thinking about my last post, and I hope it didn't sound antagonistic towards you. I didn't mean it that way -- just surprised and curious. Also, I have a question. I remember you saying that after you left, some people who you gave rides to shunned you/wouldn't talk to you. Was Jon one of them? Just curious. Also, you should know that some folks on other threads are wondering if the person posting is really Jon Moseley.

[jonmoseley]

Freedom says:...I did hear MISTRUTH from the pulpit about people who left the church. This happened at Sunday night members meetings. Were those recorded too, Jon?

MOSELEY: They were recorded when I ran the equpiment for Sunday night. I cannot speak for others.

I NEVER heard departing members even MENTIONED... not once.

I take it back. One time Mark Caulk APOLOGIZED for having shunned a brother and sister who left and got married and Mark Caulk publicly admitted that HE HAD BEEN WRONG to not be beter to them after they left.

Other than that, people who left were just never MENTIONED one way or the other.

And I expect that Metro Morning Star inherited those tapes from Grace Covenant Church which inherited them from Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill. SO those sermons, I expect, are still on tape in Brett Fuller's church's library.

HOWEVER I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. You also write:

Part II: when someone left usually there were quiet accusations/rumors followed by fiery Sunday night sermons about the accuser of the brethren, gossip, importance of spiritual authority, the spies who gave a bad report and were not allowed to enter the promised land.

MOSELEY: NO DOUBT there were memebers of the congregation who engaged in gossip, knowing it to be unbiblical. THAT IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE PRECISE.

You blame leaders for things they never said, based on gossping among the congregation.

That is hugely important because in my experience most of the theological errors were the same. FELLOW MEMBERS may have told you things that were wrong, hassled you, etc.

The only time I was ever beat up in Maranatha IT WAS NOT FROM A LEADER but from wannabe Jonathan Edwards who were maybe 1 year older in the Lord than I and who had NO position or authority over me, but that didn't stop them from pushing people around. They were NOT leaders. By contrast, the leaders were all wonderful.

Was there a correlation between people leaving and such sermons? I never noticed it. Maybe, I can't say yes or no, because it never crossed my mind.

FINALLY FREEDOM WRITES:
In fact, Mark's last Sunday night sermon was so heavy-handed that Brett felt the need to send out a follow-up letter about an upcoming member's meeting to sort of qualify the tone/soften the message.

THAT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN. Mark Caulk's last sermon was incredibly apologetic and self-effacing and apologetic. You must be thinking about a different sermon, as I will accept that you remember something. But it was not Mark's last sermon. And I did not receive any such letter from Brett Fuller.

[jonmoseley]

FINALLY... Were you there when Ed Buckham left the church?

Mark Caulk publically KISSED Ed Buckham to show that there was absolutely no problem with Ed Buckham leaving. Mark called Ed up to the stage and gave him a smooch and wished him well.

Now, you could say oh that is different for this or that reason.

But your thesis is that church members would be discouraged from leaving by being bad-mouthed, etc. Yet how would anyone feel that they could not leave after seeing a key pillar of the church walk away and be lauded for it? Yes, I would not want to get a smooch from Mark Caulk. But no one would feel deterred from leaving by seeing a key leader walking away treated so well.

[jonmoseley]

Of course, as I clearly explained originally, I cannot say what happened in private meetings or in corridors.

I ALREADY said in my post that I (of course) cannot say what was said that I did not hear.

But if I never heard ANY of this, it surely wasn't a very good effort at deterring people from leaving NOW WAS IT?

It's like the end of "Dr. Strangelove" where they learn that there is a Doomsday Machine, and they ask WHAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING A DOOMSDAY MACHINE (for retaliation from attack) IF YOU NEVER TELL ANYONE ABOUT IT?

Your implication is that people were deterred from leaving... and yet it was SO SECRET that I never encountered any of it.

So how does that deter people?

I have no doubt that immature members gossiped and violated the Bible all over the place. Heck, I saw that.

But we are talking about the LEADERS here. If you want to blame the congregation for gossiping, they are surely guilty of that.

But the leaders NEVER did anything that you describe in any open meeting. At least not after 1985 when I joined.

As to whether things have changed with Brett's church YOU ARE LISTENING TO OTHERS when you say it looks like nothing has changed.

YOU ARE BIBLICALLY REQUIRED to do what I did....

I went and looked.

Either say nothing at all, or go check it out for yourself. THE BIBLE REQUIRES THAT, because anything else is rumor and gossip, which you are not allowed to engage in.

[freedom43]

Jon -- I don't want to argue any more with you and hopefully will have enough self control to just stop. But you can't just dismiss other people's views or experiences by saying THAT JUST DID NOT HAPPEN. I realize I can't do that to you either. You obviously viewed things very differently than I did.

Just so you know, I have my notes and summary from Mark's last *Sunday night* sermon and a copy of Brett's letter to members in my files. I had completely forgotten about it -- until I had a flood in my basement and was cleanning up recently.

From my notes/summary, I perceived his sermon as very much a "like it or lump it" message about counting the cost and committing to Grace Covenant under Brett's leadership at an upcoming special member's only meeting. The follow up letter from Brett tried to clarify the message about what that meeting really meant, and I perceived it as a softening of tone/spin control from Mark's previous Sunday night sermon -- which had rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way.

I did not engage in gossip. I sought to understand why a church elected elder was no longer being considered an elder by Mark and Brett -- something that was not explained and covered up. When asked about it from the pulpit at a Sunday night meeting, Mark said the elder had "stepped down" which was not true! I sought to understand why my homegroup leaders of 8 years were leaving the church and what had transpired behind the scenes and why the husband, a man with four children, was suddenly fired from his job with a doctor(another church member) when he decided to start visiting other churches. I sought to understand why the couple who ran the children's ministry and had been part of the church since its inception were leaving -- and why they (and their four kids) were evicted from their home by the doctor and his wife when the family decided to visit other churches. This doctor was then serving on Brett's "financial board" (which appeared out of nowhere) and owned the house Brett lived in. I have since confirmed this by checking the Arlington County real estate records. You have still not even acknowledged that any of that happened. Were you living under a rock? Was any of that ever explained? Did you care that people were being fired and evicted by someone on Brett's financial board? At the time, I confronted Brett and got no answers. The doctor was a divorcee and a fairly new convert -- did not meet the New Testament criteria for a deacon much less a "financial board." My roomate was told by a relative in the community about this man's family situtation and that he had commited adultery with his current wife and that his ex-wife was telling people that he abandoned her and her five kids. He did not have a good reputation outside the church and his wife was verbally abusive to more than one person I spoke with. But, Brett stood by and let it happen. Perhaps he was afraid of losing the doctor's money and the nice house he was living in that belonged to the doctor. Perhaps he thought the ends (mo' money to do God's work) justified the means? I really just wanted to understand and not have stuff like this ignored or swept under the rug. I think it speaks volumes about Brett and the priorities of him and his church that when I asked him/confronted these issues, he did not answer.

[upcase20]

Freedom43: This is all very interesting. I used to go to home group meetings at that house. . . . .I agreed with Jon on his writings about BF and somewhat on Mark, Ed, and Eric. I did not mean to imply I agreed with everything he said since I've been blocked from Factnet from all but one computer, my laptop, so I have not read every thread, just the ones Jon wrote on BF and company. . . .I was shunned by everybody when I left, but my first instance was from Jon. He didn't have a car at the time but he had no problems asking me for rides home after church to his apartment. On the eve of the Clarence Thomas Nomination I ran into him on the US Capitol Grounds passing out political flyers the night before the Senate confirmation. I remember walking up to him and saying Hi. He recognized me, was rude, and quickly dismissed me. This was my first taste of a post Maranatha relationship, and a rather distasteful one at that. That was when I began to wonder, "What kind of place is this". So yes he was the one. When I went back for a couple of visits to the church, as I walked in, the ushers, (who had been my friends) wouldn't even shake my hand. I knew I did not need this, especially from these "christians" and that's when I started researching this place. . . . .So after all these years after the free rides Jon, "YOU"RE WELCOME !!".

[freedom43]

upcase -- thanks for clarifying and sharing about the shunning -- so wrong. I'm sorry that happened to you.

You're cracking me up with the "you're welcome." "Talk to ya" later!

[jonmoseley]

UPCASE20: You are not talking about me, as there was never a time that I did not have a car. I drove to Washington, D.C. from Gainesville, Florida in my car and always had one. I gave other people rides.

I was never at the Capitol during the Clarence Thomas hearings.

You must be thinking about, I don't know, Jim Backlin or maybe Matt Dentino? Both Jim and Matt are one-track-mind kind of people and if they are passing out flyers in the midst of a political fight they will not change gears from what they are doing. Matt Dentino is an acquired taste, although I love him.

Or could you be thinking of Mark Merritt?

You are definitely not describing me.

Freedom43: If something did not happen, I am going to tell the truth. If someone accuses you, freedom43, of robbing a bank, and I saw that you were doing something else at the time (such as typing on here), I am going to stand up and say THAT DID NOT HAPPEN... because it did not.

When are you talking about events WHEN I WAS THERE and I know you are wrong, how many other things said on this Board are also wrong, when I wasn't there?

If you have Brett's letter, could you please fax it to me, because I never got one myself.

I have no doubt, given your attitude here, that your heart was so wounded and bitter that you PERCEIVED Mark's comments as negative.

But that is in you, not in what Mark Caulk said.

If Mark said "Good morning" to you I have no doubt you would have perceived that as harsh and negative. EMOTIONS DO THAT... FOR REAL. I am not exaggerating. ALL people experience that phenomenon when they are emotionally upset.

I WAS THERE and it was the most humble, moving, sacrificial speech I can remember hearing. It was filled with apologies.

I have no doubt that you are remembering a real sermon. But I think you have the wrong day.

[freedom43]

I could pick up the phone and call 15 to 20 people at least who were also there and would agree with my version of reality with regard to things I have posted about. It was a common tool of Maranatha and of other cults to paint anyone who leaves or disagrees with them as bitter, backslidden, gossips, whatever. God knows my heart and will judge me, not you.

I have really been reluctant to use names but I will use first names so that perhaps you might grasp what I am trying to say. Tim, an upstanding and mature Christian whose family I knew well, was elected by the church as an elder. Apparently, he and Mark/Brett had a disagreement over something to do with church governance during a private conversation, and it was decided by Mark/Brett that he was no longer an elder (much like I would say that Mark dismissed anyone who disagreed with him). Tim was given no voice in the matter. It was never announced to the church or explained. At a member's only meeting down the road on a Sunday night, Mark named the recently elected elders and neglected to mention Tim. Someone asked "what about Tim." Find the tape Jon -- listen to it. Mark said, "He stepped down." That was a lie. Tim had never "stepped down." Mark was not forthright. I know this because I asked Tim and his wife about it -- and to this day, though I have not seen or talked to him in years, I would put his integrity up against Brett and Mark's any day of the week.

Simone (sp) was the doctor who owned Brett's house. Most churches know the pastor's salary and know what the housing allowance is. I believe the church deserved to know this information regardless of who owned the house. It was just made worse when Brett appointed him (yes, it was out of the blue) to his financial board. I agree that board sprung out of nowhere, and you might have known about it if you read your mail, including the letter from Brett about the member's only meeting. No, I am not going to fax it to you.

Stuart, who was Simone's office manager, was fired by Simone when Stuart and his wife decided to visit other churches. Jim and his wife were evicted by Simone and his wife -- who was also verablly abusive to Jim's wife-- when they decided to visit other churches. Again, I would put their integrity up against Mark and Brett's any day.

I asked Brett about all this this -- including the nature of the financial board, how one got on it, etc. and his answers were just not sufficient. He basically refused to even talk to the couples involved about the situations described above -- couples who had been serving as leaders in his church for years and years and years. I asked him to open the books and show salaries and housing allowances and he would not. What was there to hide? With all that had transpired, I felt I could no longer trust the leadership at Grace Covenant to put the sheep ahead of money; so I left.

These things happened and were wrong. Accept it. No amount of name calling towards me or anyone else is going to change reality.

[freedom43]

Excerpts from letter dated May 7, 1991, from Brett Fuller addressed to "Dear Saint."

"There is one thing I would like to clear up. At the May 5th meeting, we announced that there is going to be a meeting on June 2nd that will complete the transition of the authority from Mark to myself. It was communicated (if not overtly, then certainly by subtlety), that everyone should re-evaluate their commitment to our church and decide by June 2nd whether they want to be a part of Grace Convenant. I am sorry that is the message that went out.....Let me make this perfectly clear - the purpose of the June 2nd meeting is not to re-evaluate your commitment to Grace Covenant, but to provide a format for those who wish to reaffrim me in my role as pastor. The reason we are waiting until June 2nd is because I felt there should be a time of at least four weeks for you to judge and determine whether I am the kind of man you can follow..."

Go back and listen to your tapes, Jon, for May 5, 1991, sermon— you will find a very harsh sermon on church leadership and authority that made me even afraid to ask Brett any questions. It made it sound like you better count the cost and show up on June 2nd if you want to be in God's will. I think it was titled "Moses is Dead." It welcomed no questions about the past. But, I decided I had to ask about the things I have described. So, I wrote him the letter mentioned above and sent it during that 4 week interim. I found that his response fell short and at that point, I knew he was not the kind of man I could follow. So, I left. I don’t hold a grudge or unforgiveness and am not bitter. On some level when I came to this website I was hoping to find out that things had changed. That someone had raised these issues about that church and that they had been addressed. But, I have found that is not the case. Instead, we have jonmoseley’s version of reality – which is obviously vastly different from many other people’s version, including mine.

[upcase20]

JonMosely: I'm going to have to go back through my records to investigate this, apologies to you if I was in error, but It was not Jim Backlin, Matt Dentino, or Mark Merritt. I watch closely your entries and that of Freedom43 as we were in the church at the same time, though I saw the light before you both did and avoided the trainwreck.

[upcase20]

Freedom43:I never, ever recieved a straight answer fron BF. I could have told you not to make the effort. Mark Caulk used to write those letters too, I still have the one he wrote when they were in the middle of a sacrifice campaign. He used the plural form "Dear Saints" however.

[jonmoseley]

The letter you quote from from Brett after Mark Caulk's departure does not suggest what you said that there was anything wrong with Mark's sermon. It merely clarifies the purpose of the upcoming meeting. I can understand your interpretation of it, but I have a different interpretation and recollection.

I think you are badly mis-stating the situation, when Mark at his last sermon GAVE UP HIS OWN SALARY, his own CAREER, his REPUTATION, his place in the ministry, EVERYTHING HE HAD WORKED FOR.

I think you are really failing to put things in context. When a pastor LAYS DOWN HIS ENTIRE LIFE FOR YOU, that you might forgive and find peace, your portrayal of that sermon is off-base.

If Mark Caulk suggested "I am giving up EVERYTHING... what are you going to do...?" I find nothing wrong with that message.

When the pastor himself gives up EVERYTHING for you, it is not an unreasonable question... ARE YOU going to respond? Are you going to seek peace and forgiveness? Are you going to move beyond the past and look to the future?

16 years later you are still moaning and groaning. 16 years after Mark Caulk gave away his place, his ministry, his title, his career, his SALARY FOR HIS FAMILY for Pete's sake... HOW have you responded to that gift and sacrifice intended FOR YOUR HEALING? (Note: The church started crumbling when Mark left. When he made that decision, he could have looked forward to a secure place and salary for the foreseeable future. Yet he walked away from all that FOR YOU.)

You (y'all collectively) complain on this Board that members were asked to sacrifice while leaders did not.

NOT! Here we see the leader sacrificing MORE THAN YOU EVER DID (or me).

And whereas Mark Caulk GAVE UP EVERYHING in the hopes that you and others might find healing and move beyond your hurts...

... what have you done with Mark Caulk's gift?

16 years later have you even made an effort to forgive an move on and look to the future?


I spoke with Matt Dentino night before last. He says (1) He did not have a car, (2) He did often ask for rides, (3) He lived in a house in Arlington not an apartment, (4) He was very active in the Clarence Thomas issue and was downtown around the Capitol, (5) He does not recall passing out any fliers, (6) He believes that JIM BACKLIN DID pass out such flyers and was around there, (7) Jim Backlin lived in an apartment in Arlington/Rosslyn and as I recall did not have a car.

I don't know who Freedom43 is but a friend who reads this as a "lurker" (without posting) tells me he thinks he know who it is.

If that is correct, I recall visiting a congressional office after (she?) had left Marnatha Church on Capitol Hill and being quite friendly.


IT IS TRUE that Brett Fuller will never respond to criticism.

It is my interpretation that Brett Fuller has a "think happy thoughts" kind of personality. He simply does not dwell upon anything negative. He will not say anything negative about anyone or any circumstance. For his polite and decorous personality, negative things simply do not exist. And he shuts them out and ignores them. Neither does he say or do anything negative if he can help it.


I HAVE SENT BRETT letters about things I did not like about EN, before I left, and I did not receive any response. There were things that could be done better. But I think the discussion here is way over the top.

[robert_unknown]

"When the pastor himself gives up EVERYTHING for you, it is not an unreasonable question..."

only because a pastor SAYS this doesnt meen he DOES it. i have NEVER had a pastor who gave it all up for me...


"It is my interpretation that Brett Fuller has a "think happy thoughts" kind of personality. He simply does not dwell upon anything negative. He will not say anything negative about anyone or any circumstance. For his polite and decorous personality, negative things simply do not exist. And he shuts them out and ignores them. Neither does he say or do anything negative if he can help it. "

sounds spiritual, but isnt. Live is not "just happy". Live is not "only bright". Jesus NEVER avoided difficult situations. He never avoided situations where he has been critizised. He encouraged people to test him, and to test his words. He himself critizised the pharisees sharply.

of course there is a difference between "critisism in itself" (just because one likes to critizise everything), or "justified critizism".

if you read this board, you will see, that people HAVE REASONS for their critisism. they have seen bad things. and its their RIGHT to question this, to compare it with the bible, and to judge it for themselves.

Hard to understand for someone who is happy in an abusive environement!

[freedom43]

Jon – subtlety seems to be lost on you; so let me spell some things out. Not sure if you have noticed but I have not been that critical of Mark specifically. I mostly characterize MCM/GCC as the problem, controlling, manipulative, etc. But, let’s be real, a lot of people who left at that time – and before -- had serious problems with Mark and how he ran the church. I did not really have any direct conflict or problems with Mark personally. I spent a significant amount of time in his home and with his family and never saw anything that raised an eyebrow that I can recall. I do think that the type of role I played – maid, daycare, teacher for the kids, gopher, etc.,-- was something that was just part of the Maranatha culture, and I don’t think it’s necessarily right that pastors were essentially treated like royalty. But, whatever -- it’s done. I did it as unto the Lord. I don’t “blame” Mark for that. I do think he mishandled the dismissal of the elder I have mentioned. And, that incident –and that he was not completely forthright about it made me wonder if there were other things he was not forthright about – mostly around why people left the church – which seemed to be because he had to squelch any dissent.

Anyway, among other things, Mark’s departing message was about burying the past and moving on. He was essentially the fall guy in my view, taking the blame for “mistakes that were made” under Maranatha. He wanted to leave a clean slate for Brett. I admire that he had the courage/guts to lay down his career, etc. and I believe he left in a classy way/with character. (Setting aside the fact that I felt his departing sermons were heavy handed and scorched my eyebrows.) I don’t know what Mark was thinking at that time or what he thinks now about his leaving. I have read here that he is a different person, much reformed—that he sought “reconciliation” with Brett years later – which I found very interesting. So, do I think he “layed down his life for me” by leaving? No. No more than I/other members of the church layed down their lives for him when he was pastor by serving his family, the church, putting careers aside and taking pay cuts to work full time for him, etc. My feeling is that perhaps Mark saw the handwriting on the wall and knew the only way he could break free from a destructive cult and get healthy was to start fresh, break all ties and run. And, from what I have seen/heard, it sounds like he had some hard times but is doing just fine now.

So…back to moving on -- I really wanted to do that when Mark left –move on and continue serving in that church. Regardless of what had happened under Mark, Brett was now my pastor. But, when I heard about the abuse I have described, I could not stand by and watch and say nothing. I just needed to know that Brett was not a part of it and would deal with that kind of stuff head on. He didn’t. He wouldn’t. So, I left – just like Mark Caulk did. And, you may or may not be happy to know that I am doing just fine now too.

So, my questions for you are: why is he a hero to you for leaving, Jon? Why am I not allowed to talk about my experiences? Why was it such a noble and giving thing for Mark to leave – but not the rest of us?

[miltietoast]

I give up my salary for you , oh my bad it 's your money . Christmas Vacation all over again"Clark I am going to get you a little something"

[coppertree]

<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>Hi Freedom,
Thank you for your posts. I have posted this here , recently but it may have gotten lost... Mark Chaulk. came to our church, and tried to help us, he did a teaching based on Gal.3 , he tried to help but we could not hear. Thank you for your hard work and faith.}

[mcmstaff78]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

miltie: I give up my salary for you , oh my bad it 's your money . Christmas Vacation all over again"Clark I am going to get you a little something"<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Kind of like the guy who is hitting you saying, "okay, I'm going to make you feel better now" and stops hitting you. So now I should thank you?
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

[freedom43]

Hi Coppertree -- thanks -- I did see that but did not understand --when did he come?

[jonmoseley]

FREEDOM43 ASKS: So, my questions for you are: why is he a hero to you for leaving, Jon?

MOSELEY responding: Why is Jesus Christ a hero for voluntarily dying for us? A "fall guy" is someone who is set up by others against his will to take the blame for them. That's not what Mark Caulk did. Mark sacrificed FOR your healing. He did not have to leave.

You left because you did not like certain things in the church, which you could not change.

After the break-uo of MCM, NO ONE BUT MARK CAULK was in control of Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill. He did not leave the church, as you did, because he did not like things that he could not change. HE COULD HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING in the doctrine or procedures of the church.

Mark Caulk left explicitly and solely as a gift of healing FOR YOU and others.

Mark Caulk put you first, above himself, above his own career, above his own salary, above his own power, above his own reputation, above his future, even above his family's financial security.

The definition of a hero, going back to Greek literature, is one who sacrifices himself for another.

You left MCCH because you were thinking about yourself.

Mark Caulk left the pulpit at MCCH because he was thinking about YOU.

Mark Caulk wanted you and others to be able to heal, by removing any reminder of the past under Maranatha from your lives.

What have you done with that gesture and act? Clearly nothing.

FREEDOM43 ASKS: Why am I not allowed to talk about my experiences? UNQOUTE.

MOSELEY: No one said, least of all I, that you should not talk about your experiences. Indeed, one of the reasons that I object to Tik as a hypocrite is that ammong the comments he deleted from his blog (where it invites comments, even though they are not visible to just anyone, until you click on the comments section) were my glowing praises of his attempt to understand what he has gone through and to reflect back and to learn from the past. However, he wants to post for 1 billion people around the world to see ONLY the negative and not a balanced view. So, Tik does not want to "talk about his experiences" he only wants to slander a current church he knows nothing about.

This Board is the same. DO YOU want to talk about your experiences? I respond most to Freedom43 because (a) we have specific events in common so we can discuss something meaningful rather than just dust in the air and vague accusations, and (b) Freedom43 appears to be clothed and in his/her right mind and able to carry on a reasonable conversation.

But much of this Board does NOT want to talk about your experiences. Most of y'all only want to attack. You don't like it when I do it. SO WHY DO YOU DO IT YOURSELVES? This entire Board is attack, attack, attack.

I don't think it is right to make false accusations. If a person has robbed 9 banks, it is a FALSE accusation to say they robbed 10. I don't care how much you don't like them.

I have tried to INVITE organized and meaningful discussion about your experiences, trying to pull out of the stew here specific questions about your experiences, such as (a) I hear lots of complaints about what you did for Jesus in MCM, including giving up things. Why do you say that was bad? Do you now reject the idea of giving up material happiness for God? (b) Do you no longer believe in miracles or God prophecying to individuals? I detect a distinct anti-charismatic tone. Have you soured on the miraculous? (c) Most of what you complain about was NOT limited to MCM. Why do you focus your wrath only on MCM instead of practices and theologies you now disagree with. Would it help to understand that MCM was NOT unique.

[osakadan]

Problem is that NONE of the MCM "churches" should have been continued in any way, shape or form. Those wishing to continue to follow Christ should have found homes elsewhere.

[robert_unknown]

i want to remind you all, that Mosely has managed it to loose the topic of this thread. If you guys can kust ignore him here, and leave this thread for the given topic, i would love you even more http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif
he has opened enough topics, where we can engage in a discusion with him if we like to...

[freedom43]

Sorry Robert and everyone, I apologize that this thread has gotten off topic. The original story that sparked this was about money – and a soap opera around money, jobs, housing that led me to question MCM/GCC and leave the DC church. I feel I need to engage with Jon a little more about that topic and don’t know where else to take it.

So, Jon, let’s say I agreed with your premise that Mark’s departure was a big sacrifice for the DC church to set things right – separate it from Maranatha -- so the church could move on. What should I do then? Stay in the church forever? For how long? If so, why did YOU leave (twice now, it sounds like)?

Back to Maranatha, so are you agreeing there were problems with Maranatha? Because the way you have been talking here – it sounds like you are relishing the glory days of hanging with Bob Weiner, being baptized by him, protesting Central American policies with him, etc. (Hint to Jon: that will not likely endear you to many of the folks here on Factnet). I think Rice might have baptized me – or at least been there and prophesied while Dennis Darville did it, do I get gold stars for that? I mostly remember that it was in a hotel room (room 152?) bathtub of the Carolina Inn in Chapel Hill. Sends shivers down my spine to this day. Not. Now running into Michael Jordan on campus and Lawrence Taylor, that’s a different story. (Okay, I am digressing – and kidding somewhat.)

Anyway, after Mark left, I left because the scenario that happened – though in the works before Mark left – happened on Brett’s watch. It was a signal to me that Mark was/had not been the problem! So, here we are back to your premise – if a sacrifice is in vain, does it count to God? Who knows – I leave that up to God! continued

[freedom43]

You keep talking about Mark laying down his life for me (so glowingly that at first I thought you were talking about Christ – like substitute the words Christ /Mark and see how that sounds to you). What would you have me do? Should I find Mark’s church in Virginia suburbs and thank him, join? Should I have tried to stay in Brett’s church and make it work? I did – however shortly, try. And, as Brett suggested in that letter I quoted, I needed to see if he was the kind of man I wanted to follow… and he wasn’t. To me, he wasn’t because he was a chip off the old Maranatha block. I’ve heard people here talk about spiritual DNA – and I think he had the same kind Mark had. So, Mark’s leaving may have diffused the situation and drawn some fire from some critics – but bottom line, that church was built on a foundation filled with control and manipulation and I really don’t think it has changed that much from what others have said.

You accuse me of doing something for ME as if it were a horrible crime. (Even if you were right, it wouldn’t be – more on that later!) As I said, I left because of abuse that happened to other people – not me – that gave me an indication of how things would be under Brett. I didn’t think he was putting God or God’s people first. Jesus died for people; they are the most important thing on this earth. Jesus does not want us in a church where the pastor abuses the sheep or allows others to do so. I don’t see anything wrong in leaving a church that abuses people. Also, it made me realize ever so clearly that I did need to protect myself, take care of ME spiritually, because Brett was not going to do that. His church was trampling and controlling people, chewing them up and spitting them out, not helping them. You have said that Brett’s church is not meeting YOUR needs right now, what’s the difference, Jon? Isn’t that about YOU? I think it’s awesome that you have left. Try to find yourself a church that is not so controlling. It’s hard ‘cause I think you are like someone who has been abused in a relationship – somehow they keep being drawn back to abusers/abusive situations. You deserve better and God wants something better for you.

[upcase20]

Once again I have to side with Freedom43 especially about Brett. I don't think his priority was to people who were not going to follow him. He was not going to put these people first. If you didn't want to follow him, it was on to the next person who would. Even when Mark was there I always thought of it as Mark and Brett's church. At one time they even taught the same courses. I never really seperated the two. When I left people called me and told me to come back, saying "the church wasn't like that anymore" but I thought, how could it be any different, the same pastor is there . . . .Freedom I don't think Jon has left, it sounds like he's still there.