Rejected, Yet Rejoicing Vol 7 – Evidences Examined

magglass

Spiritual, Logical, Judicial, and Forensic Evidences

Revealed and Examined Part 1

Disclaimer:  I expect this page will be dynamic in the short term as I am still adding some evidences soon.  For example, I hope to have the Franklin’s testimony within a few weeks.  Thank you for your patience.  10/05/15

I audio recorded the Titus 3:9-11 rejection of me by my former elders in front of my home in an unscheduled visit about 9 pm on Jun 11, 2015.  Kerrigan drove past to his home, and Kevin’s truck pulled into my driveway and he and Tracy got out.  Then Kerrigan joined them and began to walk toward me on my front patio.  I had told my children go inside and asked my wife to get my audio recorder.  This was the first time I ever recorded anyone in our fellowship.  The conclusion of this short visit was a Titus 3:9-11 rebuke for me from Tracy Bays, Kerrigan Skelly, and Kevin Lovell.  This audio includes my conversation with my wife and my calls to the two witnesses afterwards; Josh G and Dan R. .  It should be noted that in the short inquiry Tracy Bays did, he immediately went to Titus 3:9-11 without discussion or agreement from the other elders. The logical conclusion was that the elders preplanned this rebuke of me, if I failed to come into submission to their ideas.

The audio link  for the elders Titus 3 rebuke of me is HERE. 

In this audio you will hear Kerrigan state at time 4:48, “I have audio recordings of us telling you this, and explaining to you over and over and over again, now you are lying about us.”   What audio recordings Kerrigan?  Have you ever asked to make audio recordings of me? The answer is no, you haven’t.   Now, I do not mind audio recordings I do it all the time in the open air.  I know God has a book of remembrance.   He has recorded everything perfectly, words, intentions, feelings, etc.  However, if you the elders do it covertly what are your intentions with that recording?  Well now, you have used these as evidence against me to accuse without my presence.  Do you consider this to be just or an unjust scale or weights?

Prov 21:3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

You will notice probably the most direct point on the whole audio at time 5:26, “Why do you think you can conduct the meeting[Matt18] like that.  To wit he responds with a deflection of, “I thought we weren’t having a meeting.”  You can hear the elders proclaim as I walked away from them that night, What sin are we in?  You agreed with us three years ago, etc.  Actually, I didn’t agree with them which is why I asked them to sit down with the fellowship and discuss the Matt 18 process so we would all be in agreement in the first place.  Why couldn’t we have spoken of this as men in the fellowship and come to complete agreement or not?  How much pain and destruction could have been avoided?  Part of the problem here is the wrong thinking that when someone hears a particular view on something and comes to agreement, that their thinking is now stagnant and stops there.  When we learn something especially from the Bible, we should continue to examine, test, etc  under the instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Going back to Kerrigan’s statement, “…now you are lying about us.”  What lies Kerrigan?  The lie that by faith, I gave a testimony to two of the men in the fellowship about the decisions that you and Kevin made regarding this Matt 18 church function three years ago?  The lie that you all have clearly added to Scripture by modifying the church process outlined in Matt 18?  The ‘lie’ that you had outside counselors about a primary church function that you and Kevin would not reveal to the fellowship?  The lie that you all had told me the issue was not salvational, but that I couldn’t discuss it with anyone in the fellowship because this would cause discord according to you?  The lie that you all had set legalistic boundaries with other preachers that I believed violated the spirit of Rom 14:1-15?  What lies did I tell in the email that I transparently sent to you three elders requesting a meeting of inquiry with the two witnesses to whom I had testified?

When Brother Pat and the preachers from NC came to visit the next weekend,  Pat visited with Kerrigan for several hours.  He told Pat that the elders would not meet with me and them unless I first confessed my sin of  bringing this issue to the attention of other men in the fellowship, thus causing division according to their view.  What I was trying to do was to arrange a meeting for the witnesses to inquire of the elders concerning these matters.  What was this sin?  They revealed they think my sin is in the spiritual division by me trying to bring a possible Matt 18 through Joshua G. and Dan R..  That I was disobeying their order not to bring this issue to anyone in the fellowship that would cause division.  In the elders berating of these witnesses they brought up the points of:  1.  John is trying to bring a Matt 18 against us  2.  If this is the case, how can he and you do so when the Bible says in 1 Tim 5 that accusations must be from 2 or 3 witnesses?  3.  What sin are we doing by conducting Matt 18 the way the Lord has led us to after months of prayer ?  4.  Were you [the witnesses] bringing a Matt 18 against us?  5.  We conclude that John is trying to bring division over these issues by testifying to you about his discussions with us, thus John is in sin.

KJV vs NJKV Translation Differences Led to Confusion

Accusing Elders of Sin?
A major dilemma for me was according to the NKJV Bible that to bring an accusation against an elder, this must come from two or more witnesses.  From my perception, everyone seemed agreeable to the Matt 18 church function as the elders taught it.  The men of the fellowship did not even question it.  During any teaching or discussion I would try to reveal this concept, without directly causing schisms and division over the matter.  Here is the NKJV passage to which I am referring:

NKJV 1 Tim 5:19-21  Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. 21 I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality. 

KJV 1 Tim 5:19-21 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. KJV

Do you pick up any important differences?  Boy howdy, I do!  But, unfortunately, not until after trying to arrange these things the way that I did with the witnesses and elders according to the NKJV translation.  Still don’t see it?  Go back and carefully read it again especially the part before and after the ‘witnesses’.    For me, by faith, I was trying to arrange a meeting whereby the situation could be explained in an environment of inquiry vs. accusation.  Then the witnesses, as I explained to them, would have to decide for themselves which side was right or wrong, or that both were wrong.  But, they couldn’t both be right.

The NKJV says that any accusation against an elder must be ‘from’ two or three witnesses.  But, the KJV says, “….receive not an accusation, but ‘before’ two or three witnesses…”  So, with that clarity in hindsight, I would have asked Josh and Dan to a meeting with the elders without any prior testimony of what was happening.  Then I would have rebuked the elders according to my understanding in front of them that every word might be established.  I would have then resigned our membership in the fellowship if they did not change their mind.   From then there would be information within the members of the fellowship that the word about this Matt 18 step three process would be realized.  Keep in mind my constrained understandings were not allowed to be discussed within the fellowship at all for three years.

Another issue about the witnesses described heretofore was that with myself as the only ‘witness’ against them I could not bring a lawful accusation.  They held that no one could bring a charge against an elder even if it was as dramatic as sexual immorality, etc. unless there were two or more eye witnesses to the situation.  This could have led to an elder being found out on a particular sin by many individuals, without rebuke. No exposure brought within the fellowship  because the individuals wouldn’t know of the other/s testimony.  Imagine the pitfalls of such a philosophy?  The pedophiliacs rampant in the Roman Catholic church comes to mind.  In studying the aforementioned passage, I focused on the word ‘witness’ and found some surprising definitions!

Strong’s G3144  martus pronounced mar’-toos
Of uncertain affinity; a witness (literally [judicially] or figuratively [generally]); by analogy a “martyr”: – martyr, record, witness.

Notice the last definition, ‘record’.  I wondered on that in regards to our legal system and realized that often letters, emails, videos, audios, birth death certificates, medical/forensic records, historical records are all ‘witnesses’ in a court of law.   How much more would these things be applicable in God’s court?  He has a ‘record’ of every word we speak!  So, in regards to my case with the RFF elders I had at least four clear and concise emails with which I could call the elders to account regarding this extrabiblical system they had put into place with the unlawful shunning of the Franklin family.  Lastly, they had audios they recorded unbeknownst to me which were a record of what happened from the beginning of my concern about the way they instituted Matt 18 step three.  They were unwilling to give me copies of the recordings after they unwittingly revealed them during my Titus 3 rebuke.

In the matter of our dispute over Matt 18 the elders had from the beginning told me that I could hold my view on this matter as they did not consider it a salvation issue.   Logically, the way I viewed it then could not be considered ‘heresy’.  Therefore I could not be a heretic.  This shows the inconsistency of their understanding of this, especially considering they viewed the KJV as a good translation and Tracy promoted it and taught from it.  Ironically, he rebuked me with the NKJV translation of Titus 3.

NKJV  Tit 3:9-11 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.10  Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition,11  knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

KJV Tit 3:9-11  But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Who’s to Judge?  
From the very beginning of this problem with the Franklin’s four years ago Kerrigan had stated that he and Kevin believed the way they were led to handle a Matt 18 third step issue was because they were more mature, prayed about these things more, more experience, etc.  But, this flies in the face of 1 Cor 6:1-5 where the saints are called to judge matters among each other vs. taking it to an unbeliever.  In this comparison of the two translations you will notice, I hope  subtle but important differences.

NKJV  1Co 6:1-5  Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3  Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4  If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5  I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?

KJV 1Co 6:1-5  Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2  Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4  If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5  I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

Do you note the differences?  How about the main point?  The main point is that we will judge matters of dispute among ourselves not just among the elders who will then conduct Matt 18 step three by themselves.   The major difference I see is in vs. four.  In the NKJV it seems to ask a rhetorical question which would lead you not to appoint the least esteemed among the brethren.  Whereas, the KJV clearly commands the least esteemed to be appointed to judge the matter!  If this is the case, then certainly the elders would be disqualified from presiding over a Matt 18 step three situation though they certainly could participate and offer the obvious wisdom they have.

Call to Release Historical Audios of our Meetings   

I now call the elders of Refining Fire Fellowship to post publicly any and all secret recordings you have of our meetings so the transparency of the truth may speak in this situation.  Have you allowed the members of RFF to hear the recordings of our ‘private’ meetings?  According to Reggie W’s testimony of 09/05/15, the men of the fellowship had not heard any of the audios or seen any emails up to that point. This was almost three months after the cataclysm in our former fellowship.  Doesn’t anyone there care at all to hear the whole matter?  I remember one time Kerrigan and I were going to have a talk in my home a few years ago.  My audio recorder was sitting on top of my printer.  He got very defensive saying, “Are your recording this?”  I was surprised and replied that I wasn’t and showed him the recorder.  It was just where I happened to set it after getting home from preaching. Some of the accusations made in the final secret meeting held with the men of the fellowship without my attendance were from these secret historical recordings.  I stand by what I said, though I may not agree with some of my conclusions or theirs now.

My Testimonies to the First Witness, Joshua G.

Other Witness’  Audio Testimonies


Historical Emails

The historical emails are good evidences as they relay the truths of these matters.

RYR, Historic Email – My Email and Response From Elders About Matt 18 Aug 16, 2012

RYR, Historic Email – Elders Direction to Avoid a Brother 04/29/15

RYR, Historic Email – Informal Meeting Request and Response 05/30/15

RYR, Historic Email – Formal Meeting Request To Elders 06/11/15

Historical Narrative Documents
The historical and narrative documents are good evidences as they relay more of the truths of these matters.

Transcript of Tracy Bays Teaching on Doctrines of the Church#4

Sean Holbrook Audio Testimony 102415

Sean Holbrook’s Journey to “Biblical Unitarianism” 10/25/15 

Final Vol VIII Conclusions and Summary

 

14 Comments to Rejected, Yet Rejoicing Vol 7 – Evidences Examined

  1. Brad says:

    *Last real talk to Kerrigan Skelly 082115*

    In this phone call, I noticed that you put it to Kerrigan, “Do you realise you’ve shunned almost half the people we’ve had over the years?” (paraphrase)

    I don’t believe it was answered. This is quite a shocking truth. I’m sure we’re all for church government, but to have so many people shunned and disfellowshipped, something has to be going on. The fact that Matthew 18 is being seen differently, definitely sheds light on why these situations and this situation as well, has come about.

    I’m not familiar with many congregations from personal experience, but if half the people that become members at a church are shunned, I would be asking questions, as I would start worrying about my own membership in that church. It sounds like it was only a matter of time.

    As for their accusations of being intemperate, a picture of false accusation appears to be emerging. Examples of your intemperance that has been given include questions during the Q & A after church teachings, even ones in the “Bible Foundation” series that RFF has. What is wrong with that?

    It IS my experience that many congregation members, after hearing a sermon, once they walk out the door, start saying “Well I didn’t agree with such and such of what they said….etc etc”.

    Why is there a problem with voicing these things if you do not agree. I would be fine with someone talking to me about “what my child did”. I would not be fine with someone else telling my child off. Unless I submit my child to someone’s care while I’m away, and in so doing, advise they are the parent authority while I’m away, I don’t believe people have a right to chastise another person’s child. The parent should be told as soon as possible. My judgement on an issue may be very different from my brethrens. So how dare they attempt in any way to advocate a position of someone subverting the authority and judgements of the parent.

    Even between a husband and wife, there may be different judgements on what needs chastising and/or discipline. They can discuss this. However, an outsider who is part of the Body of Christ doesn’t have that right to subvert how the child is being brought up based on their judgements. That right can be given by the parents if they will, but it isn’t a right just because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

    I understand your “anger” and “intemperance” at the suggestion of this subversion of your parental authority Brother John.

    I notice that the teachings are never wrong, only those who come against it. This ought not be so.

  2. Sean says:

    I’ve made some thoughts via audio recording so far based on what I’ve heard. I’ll re-listen and edit my recordings if I have too.. it’s easier since I get thoughts as I think about this stuff at work while I’m listening to it during breaks and such. I hope to post those thoughts for my understanding so far in an unlisted youtube video to link to here so others may hear if you’d like. I just realize more personal testimony and understanding comes about as I ponder the past situations and concerns regarding some of these testimonies of others. There were at times I had concerns, but usually gave others the benefit of the doubt and now some of them are rearing their heads in showing that doubtful benefit to have been wrong.

    Some of these are difficult to hear still. I emailed Jeremy also(but I might have the wrong email now so I’ll try another one), but I’d like to hear/read more context from his story. I’m missing a lot of details so a lot of it doesn’t make sense. If Jeremy’s willing I’d be glad to read the emails back and forth he had with the different elders. If not I understand, that’s okay. But he had a number of interactions it seems with them and it might fill in a lot of details to read them. Plus I had my own personal query for him and if he answers some of the questions in clarification in those emails it would save him the re-typing of them if he’s willing to dialogue.

    So far, my most pressing claim is against Kerrigan in your phone call with him. He said something to the effect of “When have I ever been the kind of person to just shut you down and not hear you out?” [not a perfect quote]. I was in my car listening to this and yelled out “US!” Sadly that is my biggest quip with him. He’s right, he hadn’t been that type of person to my knowledge prior to my studying the trinity in-depth. Yet sometime between that time of knowing him in those 2-1/2 years he obviously changed. We hadn’t fully changed our minds until January 2014 and he(and the other elders) refused to hear us nor even acknowledge our multiple objections(let alone answer them). Then when given the knowledge via email that he refused to meet I charged him and the other 2 elders with false teaching and idolatry. I have 2 witnesses per the command of Scripture to accuse an elder, myself and my wife. No one heard us out. No one[until now in some form].

    I would also highly question Tracy/Kerrigan’s claim that you “have no witnesses, emails etc..”—you do have witnesses John… yourself and your wife if you consider the initial issue started back with the mis-use of Matthew 18 in regards to the Franklins. You have multiple witnesses that were all there that day even if they won’t testify on your behalf.

    I will tell you now, if the elders had given me a full explanation of their understanding of Matthew 18 back then. I would have stood against them also. They were not that clear or I did not understand their position. I honestly don’t even think they have a “position.” It’s a pure eisegtical method of inserting the word “elder(s)” into the text of Matthew 18 and it is NOT THERE. It’s that simple, it’s NOT THERE. It doesn’t say it’s a framework, you don’t see the disciples say “Jesus, that’s not practical, our local Jewish synagogue has 120 people… shouldn’t just the religious leaders handle it?” They are simply not willing to submit to those clear words. I’m willing to admit some texts are difficult and can possibly mean more than one thing based on the context… but I don’t see anything to lead me into believing that there is wiggle rom with this text of Matthew 18, still.

    • Brad says:

      Hi Sean,

      I just finished reading your “Journey to Biblical Unitarianism”. Something I wanted to ask about that got me intrigued was what it is you know concerning the Memra that is mentioned in the Targums. This was of interest to myself in a different context. My knowledge of the Memra is simply that it is the “breath” of God, the “words” that come forth from YHWH. The ancient pictographic writing for MeMRa would be Mem-Mem-Resh. Mem is a symbol of water/waves and Resh is the symbol of a man’s head. So the two symbols are of water and man. These things symbolise the very thing that the words of YHWH “moves upon” in the beginning.

      That is all I have for now. I might copy+paste this onto that link as well.

  3. Sean says:

    *edit*

    “quip” is not the right word, my mistake.

    “…my biggest contention…” is better.

    Had a bad memory on the word definition for a moment and didn’t check the definition until after I posted.

  4. SR says:

    I’m just now listening to the audio of your last phone call with Kerrigan. He keeps talking about the Matthew 18 issue like it’s no big deal. He keeps saying they (the elders) had no problem with you disagreeing with them, etc. But he neglects that the BIG problem is that they then use that position of authority to impose their view of Matthew 18 on the actions of every single member of RFF, including interactions with people OUTSIDE RFF! So you are free to disagree in your mind but you are not free to disagree in your actions.

  5. Eddy P says:

    John,

    First, let me say that I am humbled by your willingness to be seen up close int his situation and I have learned and changed in it. This was profound for me and I have been refined in your knowledge and in your story. I hope I am found to have seen with fairness and I pray that that is evident.

    In regard to the issue of Matthew 18, I see no reason to think there would ever be an action of turning someone out from the Body unless the entire church was consulted. Although one might see differences in the “steps” as Tracy Bays puts it, there is no doubt the last step is clearly whole fellowship hearing on the matter to ensure, empathy, clarity, and accountability. It says tell it unto the church and then “If he neglect to hear”. It is obvious the church would breathe into it. It makes no sense to find relief in the idea that a church of 5000 could not practically do this. In large congregations there is always a dividing into smaller fellowships to my knowledge. In what situation would we assume it wouldn’t work however? So, whether there had been multiple rebukes from the elders, or discussion a thousand times personally. To my understanding, the final step is to come before all the local body to ensure truth, righteous judgement, empathy, and EVERY chance at repentance.

    In regard to the foul mouth moment of Ruben Israel, I don’t personally see a reason to USE a foul word to demonstrate examples, I know some that do. If it were me, I would want to ask Ruben if it was a slip, if it was planned, if he felt it added emphasis, to what context he feels it is necessary in his witness. I would also put forth that Mr. Israel might take into consideration the faith of those like Mr. Bays. It might be a stumbling block for Mr. Bays to hear him curse. If so, would it not be prudent for Mr. Israel to refrain as in 1 Corinthians 8. It is also a purity of heart issue if one so easily uses offensive slang language. With all that said, I can only say I wonder how Ruben’s conversation with Tracy was received. Did Ruben tell him to kick rocks? Or did Ruben listen and consider in love and trust to a brother. How did Mr. Bays approach? Did he consider Ruben a Brother in Christ? Did Mr. Bays follow his Matthew 18 steps with Ruben before the sun went down or did he simply tell the fellowship to stay away?

    In regard to Mr. Morrell, There question of whether it would be a sin to lie to Nazis is most definitely a tough one. Is it more Holy to lean on God’s providence in that situation and speak the truth or to Lie and try to ensure the safety of those you protect? I spent most of my unregenerate life in lies, so I tend to stay away from them. I have yet to find a “righteous lie”. The commandment is not to bear false witness against our neighbor, I don’t think it is necessarily speaking to a moment of protection as we would understand the Nazi death sweep. Did your fellowship consider Mr. Morrell a brother? If so, was Matthew 18 followed in that regard? Before the sunset on his anger? These things are all questionable.

    For me this is the most disturbing. To Mr. Bays’ assertion that there could be a moment when rebuking a woman or child in private any time is necessary, I ask to be given an example. He never provides one that is comparable to what you seemed to disagree with. What could that possibly look like? For me, it is impossible to find a scenario of rebuke or council in which his assertion would be necessary. It most cases, especially in fellowships, it takes a matter of seconds to find another witness. If I as an adult male am in a situation where there is not another witness available within a stride or a five minute wait, I would think there are other concerns to take into discernment before any rebuke. Once again, I cannot imagine a situation where his “I must rebuke in private, the child or woman before the sun goes down” argument would apply. To my knowledge, No scenario exists, so it is simply a divisive justification of convenience.

    John, after listening to the teachings, review of tapes, and also after review the information that you have provided, Mr. Bays’ understandings, reactions, and dealings are disturbing. His understanding of Matthew 18 in regard to the absolute need to rebuke a female or child in private without consideration of the “look” of impropriety would bother me as a husband and a parent as well. I hope he ends up being admonished in that, or I fear it will be a snare for him. This is only multiplied by the witness of understanding he puts forth in regard to your conflict over Matthew 18. If, all other things are skewed by some sort of tension between the two of you, my witness of the video is that Matthew 18 would never need be applied in the manner he described and the manner in which you raised because of the “look” of inappropriateness. It opens him and the young lady or child to accusation.

    Finally, sir, I listened to the tape of the accusation meeting. I will admit I could understand that how one might be very wary of agreeing against the elders. I also understand coming to the truth and switching views.

    John, I write this next portion in total respect. I want to make clear that the gift of glimpsing your life in this matter, has changed my heart and understanding. I am thankful for it and it has made me repent of some of my actions toward the church I just left.

    I feel as though the frustration the elders felt from the switching of your views and the span of questioning where they and you continually disagreed may actually be justified. It seems to me that you admit to switching a bit. With good reason perhaps, yet the switching did occur. Of repenting of your confrontational nature then taking it up again. Of friction that had been labeled anamosity for Mr. Bays. These types of actions are very confusing and numbs those in the dealing to the severity of your intention. It may very well be that you are correct in all the things they have handled poorly as well as improper teaching on Matthew 18 (To which I agree is skewed) . However, I think that your history with them, whatever it may be has brought you to a situation where your frustrations and concerns had become like numbness to them.

    This next I say in all humility and pray that is received in love. John, after watching your work and evangelism for a few years, if you had told me you were not an elder in your fellowship, I would have been surprised. If a person who is clearly a leader turns down formal leadership for personal reasons, it is commendable and a testament to that person’s judgement. However, if that person then continually tries to take up the mantle he turned down, it is, divisive, whether he is in the right or not. It will seem like sour grapes, whether it is or not. Especially if that person has training in leadership, as you attained in the military. I feel that is what might have happened.

    By your confession, Kerrigan approached you to be an Elder, You declined because you believed you weren’t moderate enough with your natural and church family. After turning down that nomination, to be in contention with them constantly would be very frustrating and might lead to indifference toward your words. Then, when you challenged Mr. Bays in a teaching that although may be formally correct, there is no possible justifiable application, (i.e. private rebuke of a female or child by an elder without seeking witness or worry of the “look” of impropriety being assumed or conveyed) your words didn’t matter to them. To them, it was an opportunity for you to challenge Mr. Bays. Coupled with the failed Matt 18 rebuke to which you attempted, I can understand their seeing it as divisive. I would also note that I am unsure if how you went about establishing witness with your brothers is what the spirit of Matthew 18 is. It is of no consequence. The question of the look of divisiveness is clear to me.

    With all that said, I believe that perhaps, this is the very issue rearing it’s head that kept you from accepting the nomination to Elder. I believe it will be the exact thing that makes you the Elder God has made you to be in your future fellowship.

    Once again, I hope you receive this and that God speaks to you in some way through my witness of the information you have allowed me. I know that it has truly changed me over the past few days and I have had to repent of much simply in reading what God has done in your walk! I do not know that I would have come to the understandings I have now if it hadn’t been for the witness of your ministries over the years and praise God that he has given me another opportunity to examine myself through his word which I have received many times from you and your videos. May God bless your new ministry and heal your hearts and minds so that he may continue to be glorified through your faith!

    With regards and respect,

    Eddy P

    • johnmcglone says:

      Thanks for your thoughts Eddy! You are using terms in some of these situations you are describing that I would not apply. For example, you wrote, “…to be in contention with them constantly would be very frustrating…” I suppose you are getting this from the accusation recording. If that were the case then why wouldn’t they have done this Titus 3 accusation years ago, instead of when I finally brought forth the problem of Matt 18 to others in the fellowship? For them to even command me not to speak of a non salvational issue to others is legalistic and thwarts the growth in the body of Christ. I do understand that listening to these things and reading the emails is difficult. I am glad you were edified in your faith.
      May God bless you.

  6. Eddy P says:

    Perhaps “constantly” is a bit of an exaggeration,either on my part or in perception from the recording. I am in agreement with you about the legalism of a command to “not Speak of”. To be sure, there is anger on their part as can quickly be heard in the Titus 3 rebuke tape. It seems that the sun going down for 3 years on this disagreement repeatedly led to many mishaps and misunderstandings. However, Isn’t divisiveness a perceived thing? If your intent is lost from untimely or drawn out disagreement, was the truth served? Or would it have been served better in a more quick and timely manner ending of course with a full fellowship discussion and look at the word of God. I would think so. I am thankful to have the opportunity to learn from it further. God bless.

    • johnmcglone says:

      I am in agreement with you on some of what you observed. But, it is very easy to overstep reality in what happened. That is why I am trying to clarify for you from my perception at least. Hopefully, you will engage their perception on these matters as well. You wrote, “However, Isn’t divisiveness a perceived thing? If your intent is lost from untimely or drawn out disagreement, was the truth served? Or would it have been served better in a more quick and timely manner ending of course with a full fellowship discussion and look at the word of God.”

      The fact that this was not, ‘ending of course with a full fellowship discussion’, was a big part of the problem. Yes, three years of being double minded by their persuasions, me trying to cover a multitude of sin according to my view, them trying to bear with my questions over that time, etc is a big part of what caused the ‘numbness’ you referred to in your first post. I think I was initially very timely, but their arguments,and the order to not to speak on this to anyone, led to this growing into the disaster it has become. I think that they still believe they are doing things righteously according to their view. But, not allowing free discourse over these matters, has led to the secretiveness which always produces spiritual problems. Thank you.

  7. Romel betossib says:

    Brother John, first thing I want to say is that if you never did preaching you would have been a great attorney. With all do respect.
    I read and I heard a lot of info. on this matter. You are in a position that would hurt and brake some people that are not strong in the Lord. From your own daughter, new son Inlaw, your family and the church brothers and sisters. But thank God your foundation is great. It’s obvious the elders are wrong and they should not be elders, it’s an easy explanation from Matthew 18, there’s no doubt about it. I even asked our chairman what they would do in this matter and he replayed read Matthew 18. Brother you have shown that your not at fault, and I hope and pray that everything you want will fall into place. But I think the lord would want you to spend your valuable time and energy for him. You know you have lots of souls to reach, brother we can’t all do what you do, you have a gift put it all for Jesus. Let it go brother turn your back to it. I don’t want to see this thing linger on you. And I’m sorry if I’m coming on to strong. God bless you and your family and everything you touch.

    • John McGlone says:

      Brother Romel, thank you for your kind thoughts toward us. Yes, it is heartbreaking but we are pressing on in Jesus, He is worthy! We forgive them and have let it go in that sense. Our hope and prayer for them is to clear these matters before it’s too late. We are thankful to be in relations with our daughter and son in law and are able to see our granddaughter. We hope that his parents will soften their hearts in this situation so they won’t miss any more than they already have. Yes, still spending our lives on Jesus as He is the One who is worthy of all glory!

      God bless you as well dear brother!

Leave a Reply to Sean Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *