Rejected, Yet Rejoicing Vol 6 – Answering Accusations
Answering the Accusations Levied Against Me
After my Titus 3 rebuke by the elders in front of my home on Thursday night, they arranged a meeting with all the men of the fellowship except for me and Dan R. [second witness]. Ironically, this meeting was held on the same day as originally requested by me for the formal meeting of inquiry. Joshua G. attended the accusation meeting at the invitation of the elders, took notes and audio recorded that meeting. He testified to me later as to why he attended the meeting, he replied that he still had not heard the entire matter and was willing to give the elders the benefit of the doubt even though they put him through a difficult meeting on Thursday. These are responses to the major points they make in the defamation of my character. I would encourage you to listen to the recording as you read through my chronological, time stamped responses. Lastly, if you find something you would like to question me on, please take notes, time stamp them and email me! I don’t mind if you put them in the comments of this post. It may help others who may have the same question/s. Thank you for your prudence to judge these matters very carefully. 1 Cor 6:4 Some of my questions are rhetorical, but I hope the elders will actually answer them. Also, I have hope that the church, the body of Christ, will be able to put together from the evidence for themselves the answers in reality.
Listen here the to the three parts of this unedited accusation meeting against me.
THIS IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE ACCUSATION MEETING HELD 6/13/15 BY THE ELDERS WITH THE MEN OF RFF AGAINST JOHN MCGLONE WITHOUT HIS PRESENCE. I HAVE INCLUDED MY RESPONSES AND QUESTIONS I HAVE AGAINST THEIR CHARGES HEREIN
[The elders statements are in bold black lettering. My notes as A1, A2, Q1, Q2, etc. are my answers or questions to/for the elders. I have highlighted my answers in blue italics]
- TIME 2:36 In Aug ’12, Kerrigan states that the Franklin’s were in error on many different things. A1: I agreed the Franklins were in error on the issue of fashion control. My wife shared it was about food as well with some of the Lovell youth telling the Franklin children that eating meat causes cancer and so that’s sin. Q1: Were there any other issues with the Franklins that were not discussed during the rebuke in front of the church? Q2: Were the elders the first accusers/witnesses of Angela Franklin’s behaviors? Q3: Which elder approached them firstly?
- TIME 3:46 Kerrigan asserts I agreed with their Matt 18 positions in teachings. A1: Just because I may not have understood what they meant during a teaching or counseling does not mean I agree with it. Kerrigan has admitted I have not agreed with them from the beginning of this.
- TIME 4:23 Kerrigan asserts they did the teaching on the day of the rebuke as a ‘reminder’ to the fellowship of what we believed on Matt 18. A1: During this Matt 18 scenario played out before me, I finally understood completely what they meant and it did not agree with my understanding.
- TIME 4:35 Kerrigan asserts they explained to the fellowship that there was a Matt 18 situation going on and they called the Franklin’s to repentance. A1: I do not remember it that way. Q1: Do we have an audio recording of that meeting? I remember being confused asking if we could table the conflict to a meeting of the men of the fellowship, to which the elders responded we have already dealt with them about this and now we [the elders] were calling them to repentance or they would be rejected.
- TIME 4:48 Kerrigan asserts he stated to the Franklins and the fellowship, “We are not having a discussion about this, we have called you to repent, etc.” A1: This is where I began to understand what they meant about their view of Matt 18. Kerrigan states, “They wouldn’t repent, so they left.” A2: Actually Kerrigan and Kevin ordered them to leave to which James turned to me and asked if they had to leave. I agreed with the elders and escorted them out of our home even though I certainly wasn’t understanding what was happening.
- Time 5:06 Kerrigan asserts that I emailed them about a week later desiring to meet with them concerning these issues. He states, “Keep in mind, John heard the teachings on this and he had no problems with their teachings at these points prior to the Franklin shunning.” A1: Again, I respond that it may take several teachings and time to come to agreement on a particular issue or doctrine. Secondly, I may change my mind as well. Q1: The Matt 18:15-35 teaching seems to be missing from the Matt series playlist on Kerrigan’s channel, Click Here
- Time 5:17 Kerrigan agrees with me that I had no problem with their view of Matt 18, until the Franklins were rejected. But, he then asserts that because I didn’t know that was going to happen that morning, I was offended. A1: Wrong, this is a bald assertion and ignorant conjecture, I was not offended but confused by the whole thing. I will repeat that I don’t believe that the elders started the rebuke with, “We have a Matt 18 situation with the Franklins…” . I wouldn’t have to know what happened. But, I would expect the whole church to hear the other side of the story, after the accusations. You can clearly see my understanding of that position in the historical email.
Q1: Do you have an audio of the Franklin shunning? Q2: If that was my understanding, then why did they respond to my email like I didn’t understand, with explanations of their view?
- Time 05:41 Kerrigan asserts, “We humbled ourselves, studied, and doing things the right way.”
Q1: According to what verse? Kerrigan states, “We sought godly counsel from other men of God concerning a matter.” Q2: Who are these men of God? Q3: How is it that a specific church function can be, at least, partially determined by an unknown outside source that is in contradiction to plain public interpretation of the same? This is why I had asked where you all got this view from, because if a determination is made how we will conduct church business, then we should all, not just me, be aware of the sources. That information was given at the first meeting we had after the Franklin shunning. Would you make the audio recording of the meeting public so everyone can hear and judge it for themselves?
- Time 5:43 Kerrigan asserts, “We sought counsel from other godly Pastors…” They wouldn’t have gone as far as we did.[from RFF elder view] This group of outside men would talk to the offender in Matt 18 situation privately, reject them if the there was no repentance, then tell the fellowship about it. A1: The RFF elders disagreed with that view, as it did not go far enough in the spirit of Matt 18. They disagreed with the very people they got counsel from. But then took part of their counsel on Matt 18 which has caused all this confusion and doubt. Again, the elders believe they are to just tell the church about it, rebuke the sinner, call them to repentance. If they don’t repent, then they are rejected by the elders. This does not allow the simple hearing process in front of the church, according to Scripture. ERRATA: 11/23/16 I have learned and verified it was Britt Williams the head Pastor of Consuming Fire Fellowship in Centreville, MS that counseled them on Matt 18 with their erroneous view. They have an even stricter view holding that I would hate. He refused to discuss it openly and in depth though his counsel was part of the source of this problem which he termed a spiritual tarbaby that he would have nothing to do with . I hate traditions of men that usurp God’s Word that they may rule over men instead of over see the saints of God according to God’s instruction. I have come to believe this is a primary root of the apostate church. When men rule over the laity this way it turns them to spiritual zombies that esteem the teachings of men more than the instruction of the Holy Spirit.
- Time 6:18 Kerrigan asserts that I am supposing that I believe they are submitting to some other authority etc, is nonsense. >> A1: I agree if that if that is all I am saying then it would be nonsense. My objection is that they are getting counsel from people about church functions and that we the fellowship can’t know who those persons are. Not because I/we wouldn’t be willing to submit to that/them, but because every man in the fellowship is a watchman. But, if we can’t know whom to watch for, couldn’t an error come in even to the elders? Kerrigan states this is the only time we have sought counsel from other Pastors ever. Q1: Shouldn’t these issues be discussed among the members who are affected by these outside influences? Q2: Are the elders beyond corrections from the body of believers? A1: Not true, he sought counsel from Pastor Tim Warner from a fellowship in Tampa, I witnessed go into his office for a time as he asked questions about end times information.
- Time 6:30 Kerrigan states what the elders believe. “Trusting the elders decisions, trusting that we have done ‘our’ steps, we have done what we are supposed to do, we are living holy lives, as one voice calling these people to repentance. Q1: Doesn’t all of these assertions suppose things about the elder’s ‘process’, that the church may not know? Q2: Isn’t this adding to God’s Word in the simple public understanding of this passage? Q3: Would the elders please support everything Kerrigan is saying here, from the Bible?
- Time 6:49, Kerrigan states, “We met with John a week after…John was not on the ‘in’ on this information… Q1: This seems to imply that Kerrigan thinks I think I need to be ‘in’ on everything? That is simply not true, I think all the men of the fellowship should be ‘in’ on this situation and have as much transparency from the elders to the congregation as possible.
- Time 7:06 Kerrigan states that I stated, “Why didn’t you ask me for godly counsel?” A1: I don’t remember that I asked this question at this time. I may have because I certainly at least thought to myself why couldn’t they trust me and the men in the fellowship, to discuss these things openly among ourselves. In fact, isn’t this my whole point from the beginning of this controversy? This is part of what made RFF an excellent fellowship in the past is that we could be Bereans and talk about anything openly. The way Kerrigan is representing me here is like I am challenging them and lifting myself up to a place of authority. That is not the case from my perspective. I certainly think that at some time, maybe in later meetings that I did ask this question. Q1: May we hear the audio recordings of this meeting? Q2: Weren’t these meetings recorded, according to your own testimony, without John’s knowledge? Q3: Why wasn’t I allowed to speak to others in the fellowship regarding a non salvation issue like this. [See historical email Aug ’12 and historical email Informal Meeting Request]
- Time 7:13 Kerrigan explains Kevin’s analogy to John of someone going to someone for advice on blueberries if the person has never grown blueberries? He states you never have been an elder/pastor before so we wouldn’t go to you for advice on this situation. By this time, Aug ’12 Kerrigan and Kevin had sought me twice for eldership. Q1: Why wouldn’t they consider seeking my advice about it? Q2: Was John asking you to speak to him or the whole fellowship on this matter of the church function? [See historical email, Aug ’12] In that I stated that we needed to sit down as a fellowship and discuss this. Q3: Isn’t it a category error then to assert that John was seeking this information for himself instead of bringing this before the fellowship for agreement and unity? A1: I may not have dealt with these meetings as properly as I could, but that doesn’t mean I agreed with everything they were/are saying. Dealing with two or three godly people is difficult to say the least if you are in disagreement. I disagree with the way the elders did the original shunning with the two of you calling them to repentance with no testimony from their point of view of the Franklins. I have never believed that I had to be the one who heard or decide these Matt 18 matters but that the whole ekklesia would hear it, judge for themselves, and it would be an agreement from all and confirmation that the accusing witnesses have told the truth and the accused needed to be separated. However, if the two witnesses or the elders in this situation were wrong about their accusations, then they would be corrected by the congregation during their discussions on the matter. Is there anything too hard for the Lord? Q4: Aren’t these souls you/we are/were correcting worth the extra spiritual effort even if you [the elders] didn’t agree with it?
- Time 7:33 Kerrigan admits they spoke to these secret counselors/elders after the shunning had been done. [point of chronological confusion] Q1: So if this was done between the time you did the shunning and the time you spoke to John, why wouldn’t you consider what he originally requested that the elders speak to the whole fellowship about it? Q2: Do you believe that the two of you have added to Scripture by inserting, “…then the elders take over…” for the third step of the Matt 18 church function process? Q3: [Point of chronological confusion]: When you all answered John that your source for this doctrine was an outside counselor, obviously and logically this must have happened before the Franklin meeting as you presented it in our meeting, is that true or not? Q4: If you did this shunning on your own, then got my email/questions, then got their answer, then met with me, how is is that you were following godly men’s counsel regarding Matt 18 in regard to the Franklin shunning as you asserted in your first meeting with me? It seems you followed your own imaginations, were challenged by my email, then sought counsel, then had a meeting with me.
- Time 7:47 Kerrigan asserts what they think my position is that I think they think they are replacing the church with the elders. A1: Yes, I agree this is what I thought and still think. Kerrigan then states, “That [my assertion] is not true, and that I understood their position.” A2: Yet, they are clearly contradicting themselves here. I understood their position as they have taught it. They continue to fail to recognize it is faulted and contradictory to the plain reading of this passage. Q1: Are John’s assertions about your view that elders = ecclesia really a straw man? Check what is taught at these time frames about the accusation John is straw manning the positions of the elders. Kerrigan claims they have NEVER said that, but in this historical teaching video alone Tracy states it at least three times. First time- 43:44 Elders=ecclesia? Second Time 44:44 Elders=ecclesia? Third Time 45:10 2 or 3 that came with you (total of 3 or 4 people plus accused) Fourth time: 1:42:05 Elders=ecclesia Look at Kerrigan’s historical email about the Franklins. John has used bold text to show where there was concerning ideas. Also, the Matt series that Kerrigan taught through is conspicuously missing the Matt 18:15-34 section which addressed this church function. Q2: Would Kerrigan make that teaching available for public viewing so we all can judge what was taught?
- ” Now Kerrigan asserts to the men concerning my admission that I can be too controlling. A1: I readily admit with my military background that I have done that at times, though I believe I have this under subjection to the Holy Ghost. Q1: Can we hear this audio and all audios that you have recorded of John or anyone else? Q2: Is it wrong of John to “control” or ask about natural or spiritual things in the fellowship if he believes he needs to do so especially if for example, the elders or a member are in error? Q3: When has John ever stated he wants or has rights to ‘power’? A2: There are two categories of “control” John was dealing with spiritual and natural.
- Time 8:21 Kerrigan asserts that concerning these controlling issues, you [the brethren], PROBABLY have dealt with yourself. A1: This is called leading the conclusion of a group. Non sequitur argumentation of the disconnect between the truth of the premise and conclusion. Now, admittedly I have talked with brothers about differing issues regarding their families/children concerning natural things very regularly so they could easily relate this category error/accusation to their experience thus gaining momentum against me and my views on these things as the elders sought to discredit/slander me to the fellowship. However, whether it be a natural or spiritual issue with anyone in the fellowship, I practiced Matt 18 according to my view and in 8 years never brought anyone to the second or third step.
- Time 8:27 Kerrigan asserts, “We have dealt with him, [on controlling issues] dozens of times on these things.” Q1: To clarify what you mean here. Dozens of times I have confessed these things or dozens of times you have reproved/rebuked me on these issues? When you say dozens, how many do you think? Q2: If the former is true, then do I get 70 X 7 in regards to forgiveness? Do I get forgiveness 7 times in a day, if I am regretted the transgression? Q3: If the latter is true, then why wouldn’t you do a Matt 18 with me according to your view these dozens of times? I suppose over eight years of fellowship it may be a dozen and a half times I have needed to check myself on some issue or behavior and apologize to someone.
- Time 8:38 Kerrigan asserts, ”Recently added to Statement of Faith” If there is something you don’t agree with on the SOF, then you can’t be a member of our fellowship. Matt 18 is not on our statement of faith, so there is no problem with John disagreeing. As long as John doesn’t cause division or impose his ‘opinion’ of Matt 18. Q1: Why was John originally prohibited about discussing this with anyone? Q2: Why is it presumed that speaking to others about non salvation issues that disagree with the elders can be viewed as being divisive? Q3: Does this idea quench any growth of members, ideas, discussions, and even the Holy Spirit among us? Q4: Why is it presumed that John would bring people against the elders?
- Time 9:18 Kerrigan states, “Tracy taught on Matt 18 in a church doctrine video and Brother John began to be very contentious in the meeting…in the midst of everybody else he is being divisive. A1: This was not contentions in the sense of the original Matt 18 issue. But about Tracy being able to speak to a young lady who was in sin, “just the two of us” [Time 59:20 in the video]….”I could come to that person alone, without other people knowing what was said, but at the same time people being able to see…” [I think that usually it would be sisters that are aware of sisters coming into sinful thinking/behaviors] Q1: Should whoever saw/realized the sin first, be the first to speak to the sister? Tracy recommends as the second step to: 1. Get some sisters [Time 1:01:20] Tracy now recommends the people you go to might be her parental headship. [Time 1:01:26] Tracy uses Jenna as the example of someone in sin. He states he would, ‘possibly’ go to brother John and sister Nida to let them know what is going on. If it’s someone’s wife, ‘maybe’ they should go to the husband. At [Time 1:02:02] he does clarify only when there is no headship at all would I choose someone else. My disagreement here was not Step 3 of Matt 18[In answer to Kerrigan’s assertion I was being contentious on that issue], but was steps 1 and 2 according to this teaching which I now objected to. At [Time 1:03:07]At [Time 01:06:44] Tracy states in response to my question about doing it publicly or privately, that there may be times he would have to do it privately…time 01:06:59 I confirm that he is saying he could do it privately. [Time 01:08:11] in response to my question are you saying there are times you could privately speak to my children. He states, “If you are looking for me to give you an answer for every situation, I’m not going to be able to do that.” I then state, “I think, if you are going to be talk to my children you are. If you are going to talk to my children you are going to give me an answer for all these situations.” Tracy replies, “Every situation? Even though I can’t know…” You will notice as I am seeking clarification about these things that Tracy is interrupting regularly. I state, “I am not going to allow any private counseling for our children.” Kevin then interjects this may not just be brother Tracy, to which I replied for any man including the other elders, I would have an issue with private counseling for any of my children. During the Q&A time Kerrigan brings up the dispute may be between Eph 4 and Matt 5. He goes on to say: a. get the husband involved in a problem b. get parents for children Yet, Tracy continues down this road now appealing to the spirit of the law not the letter, saying what Kerrigan just reiterated was not iron clad. It seemed no one else minded this inconsistency. Kerrigan asks before the end of the meeting, ‘Why are we talking about this again?” To which I reply, “I want to talk about it again.” I meant to have this discussed in the fellowship to resolve this over 2 year old issue in our midst that I had originally requested. After the teaching ended, I went to seek the Lord in prayer for about an hour. Upon my return, Kevin asked me to join the elders at Kerrigan’s home. I still did not agree with Tracy’s original position on this but I was apologetic about the tension during the teaching. Though at this point I think it was very appropriate, respectful and not sin as I believe I was being accused of by them. As I have stated before this was NOT the same issue as the original Matt 18 issue so it could not be a continued original dispute of contentiousness as Kerrigan originally accused from audio Time 09:18. What I mean by that is, this had to do with appearances in what could have been a Matt 18, but with minor or major children who are under the authority of the parent. After this apology, I went before the entire fellowship on my own will to confess that I was out of order in the teaching. Video Time 1:37:15 Tracy states if someone sinned against you, then you need to deal with it. Q1: For the elders, has there ever been times that people[including wives] have come to you about situations they have not first dealt with themselves and expected you to handle it for them outside the Matt 18 model?[Time 1:38:00] It sure seemed any ‘contentions’ I had during the teaching were resolved. I also clarified my Matt 18 view which I believe. I asked Tracy, “Would you agree with [asking questions] on every level of the Matt 18 process?” He stated, “ Not only it is it allowed, but is encouraged to ask questions.” This would be in contradiction to their view as evidenced by what has happened with the Franklins, other families and our shunning. [Video Time 1:42:10] Tracy speaking, “Step 3, get the entire eldership involved….[42:22] ….Elders have to make a judgment call.” Q1: Where is this idea in Scriptures regarding the Matt 18 process exactly?
- [Audio Time 9:50] Kerrigan says, “To do what he is doing now, John has to repent of his repentance at the [original or follow on] meeting/s afterward. A1: This idea propagates that thinking and understanding by both the elders, myself, and the membership is and will be continually stagnant. This of course is ridiculous and not well reasoned at all.
- [Time 10:51] Kerrigan states, “That the new belief that if we [the elders] don’t believe something that is not in agreement with that, we are not to go and spread the disagreement among the fellowship.” He references the earlier meeting that where they state they haven’t changed their mind, and don’t perceive that they will ever change their mind.. Q1: Isn’t this a contradiction to what you all stated to John about being prideful when he stated he would not change his mind on these disputed issues during his call to repentance and Titus 3 rebuke in front of his home? Q2: Where does the Bible teach this legalistic hindrance of theological searching and study?
- Time 11:15 Kerrigan states, “ John emailed us concerning these things again requesting a meeting.” See email response from Kevin to me dtd 5/30. Kerrigan states we have already discussed this with you[Matt 18], we’re not meeting with you again. A1: If you look carefully in the email there are many issues I brought up not just Matt 18. Kerrigan presumes, “John didn’t like that, he didn’t even reply to the email.” A2: Wrong presumption, I was praying seeking the Lord as this had come to a spiritual head in my heart and mind and how to proceed.
- Time 12:13 Kerrigan states, “John did not need clarification of what we meant by Matt 18. He knows what we believe. Doesn’t he have to know what we believe in order to disagree with it? It’s not a matter of him misunderstanding. It’s a matter of John wanting power and control where he has no business of power and control.[bald assertion] It’s a matter of him wanting to act like an elder, when he is not an elder. We had already told John we were not having a meeting about this, so we went to talk to Josh and Dan. Q1: Why do you think that the thought of you telling me that you would not meet with me in previous discussions/correspondence, allows you to disregard the spirit and letter of my formal request for a meeting? To go and talk to the witnesses I testified to without my presence, violating the spirit of my LETTER OF FORMAL REQUEST is rude and disrespectful to the very transparency by which I was trying to reconcile these issues with the three of you. A1: Your labor with me on these matters has been two meetings which did not total two hours, three teachings, and a continual rejection to discuss these matters with me or with the whole church which was my original request by email in Aug ’12.[see historical email] All the while telling me I could not talk about it with anyone in the fellowship which would bring discord according to your view. Q2: Do elders have business in power and control in discussions of all the members? Q3: If I wanted power and control why did I keep refusing the very vehicle by which I might gain it, ie your requests for my eldership? Q4: Are Christians allowed to ask elders questions until they are satisfied with the answers? Q5: In your assertion that I wanted to ‘act like an elder’, isn’t that illogical in the sense that I am already older than all of you naturally, and have at least the same amount of time in the faith spiritually, though I may not have the title/position in the RFF fellowship? Q6: Do you all think you have treated me as a father in all these matters? 1 Tim 5:1 Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, NKJV This is the primary translation you promote for study.
- Time 13:22 Kerrigan stated in regards to the meeting with Joshua, “John was trying to have a Matt 18 with us.” A1: What I was trying to do was avoid a Matt 18/1 Tim 5 with you all by bringing these impartial witnesses of inquiry in what I see could lead to the second step in that process to bring the three of you to repentance on these issues. In this accusation, the elders reveal another misunderstanding about Matt 18 in that, it seems they think the second or third witness must be accusatory vs. seeking clarification/reconciliation of matters. This is why they asserted to the two witnesses that this meeting I was desiring with the impartial witnesses on Saturday was extrabiblical. Actually, the contrary is true. Remember, neither of them had accepted what I was saying was true. IF: the elders didn’t repent AND: one or more witnesses agreed the elders were wrong. Then of course I/we would have our duty to conduct Matt 18/1 Tim 5. IF: the witnesses agreed with the elders then obviously they would remain in fellowship I would be rebuked by them all. I would then part company with RFF my conscience cleared as much as possible with me in these issues. I would hope they would would give full disclosure to the fellowship from the elders/witnesses why that happened. Q1: Do you have an audio recording of your meeting with Josh G. from 6/11/15? Q2: Do you believe that elders could be subjected to a Matt 18/1Tim 5 rebuke in front of the ekklesia/church ever? If so, what does that look like? Q3: Could a member of RFF, after discussing a point of disagreement with the elders, bring a witness to hear the dispute between the lot of you?
- Time 13:28 Kerrigan states, “Josh G. [ 1st witness] knew we weren’t in sin. …John was lying to him about what we did believe about Matt 18. Dan didn’t know it would be a Matt 18. A1: As I gave my testimony to both of them, I clearly explained several times: a. I didn’t believe that the elders think they are in sin b. To me what the elders were doing was adding to God’s Word, thus it is sin to me[see Rom 14, Rev 22:18-19]. c. that hearing both sides of the matter might bring clarity to the situation that I may remain in fellowship with RFF d. My conscience was bearing witness against all three of the elders. e. I was asking them to hear my testimony, yet it could end up that they would disagree with the elders which could lead to a Matt 18/1 Tim 5 to the elders. Q1: Which is it, Dan knew it would be a Matt 18 or not?
- Time 14:33 Tracy asserts, “Dan stated he would be a witness, but didn’t understand why in a Matt 18 model against us.” Q1: Do you have an audio of the phone call with Dan from 6/11/15? The elders called Dan after he had been sleeping for a period of time getting ready for to go to work at 2am. He stated to me he couldn’t refute anything they were saying. Q2: Why were the impartial witnesses I had testified to, subjected to this unbiblical inquisition imposed by the elders? Q3: Were either of the witnesses afforded the opportunity to ask any questions about these matters that I had brought before their hearing? Kevin asserts what I was doing was an unlawful, unbiblical Matt 18. Q4: Kevin, why was it unlawful according to your view? If you all knew I was possibly trying to arrange a Matt 18 with you all, why wasn’t that the question for me the night you all rebuked me in front of my home and rejected me as divisive?
- Time 14:53 Kerrigan asserts, “He[John] was trying to get them to be the two or three witnesses. A1: Not my desire to have to rebuke you in front of the whole fellowship as you all seem to be implying. But, according to my view, it was necessary to do so as you were/are overreaching your authority if you did not repent.1Tim 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
A2: The word receive in the G3858 paradechomai par-ad-ekh’-om-ahee From G3844 and G1209; to accept near, that is, admit or (by implication) delight in: – receive.The two witnesses that heard my testimony were warned multiple times in my original testimony not to accept or admit what I was telling them was true. But, to seek the truth from the elders for themselves and decide or ‘accept’ at that time whichever view they believed to be true.
Q1: Why wouldn’t I act as my brother/s keeper, if I believed you all were in error?
- Time 15:00 Kerrigan stated that Dan was flabbergasted, saying, “I didn’t come here for this.” A1: Context is everything. I believe Dan was not understanding the interrogation by the three elders. Dan Ruchinski has made his testimony on these matters available to others, CLICK HERE: Kerrigan states , “John has succeeded in bringing some division…Dan was originally supposed to be at John’s house right now, he’s not there… Dan’s not coming back to our fellowship because of what John did.” Q1: Are you sure those statements are true? Q2: Why do you suppose it is what John did vs. how the elders reacted to John’s testimonies about you that has separated Dan and Joshua for that matter?
- General Answers Commentary: The accusation that I ‘setup’ Joshua and Dan to try and do a Matt 18 on the elders is false in the sense that I was not desiring that at all. I was struggling over this and sought the Lord how to bring it to light for the fellowship so that their blood would not be on my hands. From my point of view I had spoken to the elders many times about this and obviously they were not willing to change. So, it makes sense in a Matt 18, 1 Tim 5 sense that I gather a witness or two to explain my testimony. I asked God and he pointed me firstly to Joshua, then to Dan to share my testimonies of what I had been going through for the last three years. After some days of prayer and listening to my audio testimonies Joshua and Dan stated they were ready to set a meeting. From their point of view [Joshua and Dan’s], this was a meeting of inquiry to establish the facts of this case. Joshua and Dan have not received an accusation against the elders, as I have clearly outlined which is why they wanted to meet with the elders to hear their point of view. I had arranged the formal meeting that the elders might repent of their private interpretation views on Matt 18, secret elders/counselors, and Rom 14. If the elders did not repent then I would have submitted my resignation of membership in RFF. It would have been semi-private, there would have been a clearing of my conscience on these matters toward the elders and RFF. Joshua and Dan were told that if they agreed with the elders positions after the meeting I would understand and they obviously would remain in fellowship with RFF. I have no problem with that as I believe in free discourse/thinking/conduct in the Christian walk. If either Joshua and/or Dan had agreed that you all needed to change your mind/repent after hearing your views, then we would have been forced to do our duty of initiating a Matt 18/1 Tim 5 rebuke of all three of you in front of the fellowship.
- Time 15:35 Kerrigan reads from Titus 3:10-11, stating, “To tell you where we are at now…Titus 3:10-11 Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. Time 16:04 Kerrigan states, “…John has been warned four or five times. We’ve gone above and beyond with him…. Q1: When did you warn me four or five times about being divisive exactly? Q2: Did you ever use those words or types of words to warn me of my coming Titus 3?
- Time 16:09.. trying to get him to stop doing….potentially doing going down this path.. That John has chosen to go down the road of divisiveness… in calling us sinners…We have rejected John, and that rejection is not temporary, this rejection is final. …If he[John] repents…he will not be allowed back in our fellowship. …We could call him a brother at that point but he would not be allowed back in our fellowship and neither would his family. Because of this divisiveness…this is not a Matt 18 situation with John. Matt 18 could be a general sin against an individual, but [Q1: where does the Bible say this?] ….John is being divisive…he is trying to cause division. He’s being successful…sowing discord among the brethren. God hates those that sow discord among the brethren. He’s warped, shown that he is warped..in the things he is saying and doing showing he is self condemned. That’s where we are at in this point in time…calling John to repentance on these issues, praying he will come back to the knowledge of the truth. We’re glad Joshua G. [1st witness] was not ignorant of what was going on, that John was being deceptive. [Joshua G. even attended this accusation meeting, as he had not completely settled the matter from his view] [Q2: Joshua said that John was being deceptive to the elders?] So was Dan, of course Dan is not coming back as of right now. He [John] has been warned over and over again not to be divisive, indirectly through teachings, directly by private meetings with him, and him repent of it, through emails a few times. It has been four or five times. Titus 3:10 You don’t even have to wait for someone to be divisive to reject him. We could have rejected him three times ago. John was saying he was going to be divisive…A first and second admonition we could have rejected him… A2. I am at awe and wonder of all these times they have met with me to warn me about my divisiveness. Why did they not just do a Matt 18 with me at any of these points? Why not just bring me before the fellowship with the accusations of divisiveness at any time?
- Time 18:45 Kerrigan states, “Of course, about John bringing accusations against us, he has no foundation…not one email, one audio recording, not video recording..that will prove to anybody that he believes what he says we believe.” So, he doesn’t have a witness, all he has is himself. So to bring accusations against the elders to even bring an accusation…John’s word against the audio recordings, video recordings we have, emails we have…We’ve been completely blameless when it comes to John. Q1: Have you shared these audios and videos with the fellowship? Since you constantly refer to these recordings to accuse and blame me would you now publicly share all audios/videos of me to let the truth stand for itself among you? A1: I have many other witnesses; 1. God’s Holy Word 2. the Holy Ghost 3. I now have many more witnesses now who agree with my positions as I have explained them. I now ask the elders of RFF to openly discuss these issues and evidences you have against me to any and every born again believer who is interested in judging the matters for themselves. Q1: Why have the elders told local believers about the shunning and when asked how I have sinned, Kevin Lovell has replied, “It’s none or your concern as it is a ‘private local church matter’. ” Q2: Kerrigan you have told me you don’t have recordings of me, is that true or not? [In our first property meeting call you claim that was a lie when I asked if you have been recording me for three years.] Q3: As of 09/07/15 it is reported by Reggie Wade in a discussion with Dan that the men of the fellowship have still not heard the audios or seen the emails. This is after three months of me asking them to release them for review by the men of the assembly.
- ….[We] Finished talking to Dan, went to talk to John, .. his wife and children went inside. John had his audio recorder in his hand. He wasn’t having it…[hear audio recording of elder rebuke to John CLICK HERE]. Elders stated,”We’re not coming to the meeting” Then John was rebuking us calling us sinners, kicking us off his property. A1: Elders left out quite a few things, like; 1. the presumption that they could come to my home for an unscheduled meeting at 9pm at night and rebuke me as divisive man and shun me. 2. They could destroy the possibility of a hearing of the matter with two impartial witnesses of inquiry that every word might be established the next Saturday morning as I formally requested. 3. They could call me a sinner in this meeting, but I couldn’t call them a sinner for: a. false accusations b. extrabiblical reactions to my meeting arrangement c. stating I was straw manning their position which I have proven is a lie d. Kerrigan revealing they have audio recordings of me which I didn’t know about, telling the men about those recordings, accusing me from those recordings, then denying to me later he has ever recorded me, then not allowing the men of the fellowship to hear said recordings. [Can the pontification get any better than this?]
- At time 20:19 Tracy states, “….there is a history behind these things, history of divisiveness, being divisive twice during Tracy’s Matt 18 teaching and then again being divisive by getting Joshua and Dan involved, not telling them the whole story. [Bald assertion] Using them against us, at the same time he was saying, “I’m doing this to bring unity to the church… there is already unity in the church. [Q1: Was John united in these things?] This view on Matt 18 is not something that would keep him out of the church [Q2: Was John allowed to talk about it to elders or discuss among the church members? Q3: If not, then isn’t that keeping ‘me’ or unity out of the church?] It’s not something that would cause division in the church…there is no disunity in the church of this issue. Kerrigan states, “No one else even disagrees with us on this.” [A1: If the men of the fellowship understood this biblical position they would very likely reject your overreaching authoritarianism] Tracy continues, …Kevin interrupts …he’s coming to ensure that we all remain unified as RFF, to bring all of us to agreement according to the plain reading of Scripture. [A2: Truth! this was my intention three years ago at the original meeting] Kerrigan: So, he wanted agreement with his position Tracy: We went to him to let him know that he is divisive…and he needs to repent. Then John rebuked us by telling us to repent, where else do we see this happening? [A3: Tracy compares this interchange to preaching on streets implying I am in sin by rebuking them from my position. Category error and red herring strategy]
- Time 22:50 Tracy brings up Kerrigan’s straw man accusation which has already been shown to be in error earlier in this paper. John stated he has been trying to correct you[the elders] for three years. So his real motive is now revealed, it is not that he doesn’t understand but that he has been trying to teach the elders. [A1: do you mean it is a sin to try and correct brothers and/or elders?] Kerrigan states, “Don’t fall for the lies that he doesn’t understand.” The only way he doesn’t understand is if he has dementia. He’s just lying about it. John has a history of having problems with authority over him, how do I know that?…. A2: I[John} was a man of authority and a man under authority for 21 years in the US Navy and then 6 years in the U.S. Postal service. Then I have served almost 8 years under the founder of Pinpoint Evangelism and his church. My problem has been that you all are unlawfully adding to God’s Word in these matters which are the standards of the Christian walk.
- 24:15 Kerrigan states, “He thinks he’s more qualified.” [A1: Kevin uses my past confessions to discredit me, then states I am double minded unstable in all my ways. ] That has a lot to do with this as …A2: You all accuse me of being double minded for disagreeing with you on Matt 18. The two times that I got to speak to you on these matters in any depth, the two/three of you persuaded me to your position. Then afterward, the Holy Spirit would convict me that what you are teaching is wrong. Then I would return to clear it up. Yes, I was double minded in the sense that I kept changing my mind after speaking to you because of your confusing stance of inserting information into the Bible with Matt 18, splitting brethren ignoring Rom 14, and secrecy.
- 25:50 Kevin states: Total unbiblical scenario of putting Joshua and Dan in front of us to question us on something while he answers their questions. [Q1: The elders are above questions from the men of the fellowship when seeking an inquiry of clarification of views?] …to involve them in such a thing…clear cut scheme of the devil, why wouldn’t he go to you two? (Reggie&Von)[appeal to authority from their view] [A1: Because the Lord led me to Joshua (ten years as a Christian) and then Dan (ten years as a Christian).] Kevin states, “He brings the new guys into it because they weren’t there for the Franklin shunning. ” [bald assertion, ignorant conjecture] Reggie states, ” We came right after this situation, so we know. [according to what the elders have told you so you really don’t have eyewitness testimony. But, I, my wife, and children do have that eyewitness testimony concerning the Franklins]
- 27:15 Kerrigan asserts that I went to the two guys who knew the least about his[John’s] past and try to bring them into it, trying to make them into witnesses. [more character attacks]
- 28:05 Von asked, “What exactly was the disagreement about?” [A1: Even at this point Von doesn’t get what the dispute is about.] 28:16 Kerrigan finally starts to explain the dispute in some open terms. He states that John: 1. ..wants all the details. 2. He can decide whether he thinks they [the accused] should be rejected. A1. No sir, I didn’t want these things for myself but for the whole church body, per the original email Aug ’12. A2. In properly conducting this church function the assembly is empowered to good judgment, while the elders would continue to act as members equally in these matters being servant leaders to the whole.
- 29:02 Von states that would bring division, nothing but division among the whole church because some would side with them, some with the other, etc. Elders confirm this understanding. Q1: How do you know that would happen? Q2: Even if it did result in a split would that be a bad thing if members could or would not come to agreement? Suppose they were already under conviction to a different view? Q3: If there are doctrines which can’t be reconciled among members, why couldn’t it be amiable to split in this fashion without all of this drama, shunning, family breaking, and nonsense?
- Joshua Lovell. states, “especially if one family is really close to another family…Kerrigan interrupts, That’s the issue, that’s the issue with John! He was close to them, his children were close to theirs… He didn’t like the Franklins being shunned. A1: I didn’t like the Franklins being shunned in the manner they were treated. A2: I don’t deny they were closer to us than others, but my actions were clear in responding to the immediate and future situations in that I respected the elder’s direction concerning them though I did not understand what was happening initially. Q1: Why do you presume I or the members of the fellowship wouldn’t stand on the Word of God regarding the Franklins once I/we understood that they were in sin? Q2: What other sins were they or anyone else involved in with the Franklins? Was all the information presented to the church? Q3: Did the elders ever tell Angela Franklin that should had the freedom to speak with the ladies about fashions?
- 29:38 Kerrigan states, a week later we met with John. Kevin gave him a scenario that if the church had thousands, how would this work out? Where do you see people taking a vote? I conceded at the time that this would be impractical. A1: Practicality or pragmatism is not the standard of truth, God’s Word is..
- 30:00 Kerrigan states, “If it is not practical in every situation it is not absolute, we prayed about this for months.” Kevin states Matt 18 is a framework… A1: if that’s true, then, they violated the framework by changing the frame from bring it before the church, to …3rd step, now the elders take over.”
- 31:29 Kerrigan states, “John still did not come to agreement with our position, obviously he still hasn’t.” He was willing to go forward. He was understanding of that and we haven’t been????
A1: I accepted your premises at the time, but this issue was never stagnant for me.
- 32:00 Kerrigan states, “We haven’t been through a Matt 18 since then, not once.” A1: Here is a list, since the initial Matt 18, of families or individuals who have ‘left’ the fellowship for various reasons: 1. Franklins family of eight, in KY still having fashion/theological issues with other Christians 2. Holbrooks family of four, returned to OH, believing ‘biblical unitarianism’. This after Sean was attempting for a year to discuss this with all the elders. 3. Vromans family of nine, in Ky in another small fellowship. They departed over a strict interpretation of Divorce and Remarriage which Kerrigan would not deal with them about. 4. Yates family of four in known sin, left the fellowship, just contacted. 5. Isaiah Lovell left the faith, and went to CA where he has been in continual spiritual and natural problems. 5. Rices family of two (not local) cleared their reputation with RFF after 7 hours of interrogatory phone calls from the elders. 6. McGlone family of eight 7. Josh G. family of six in fellowship w/us They left due to the partiality of the elders 8. Ruchinskis family of four was in fellowship w/us and has departed to TX for family reasons. They left over partiality of the elders as well. So, including children of these saints or former saints, RFF has lost, shunned away, or neglected 46 souls. When I rebuked Kerrigan about this number in a recent phone call, he was speechless. He and all the elders should be terrified of what has and is happening among their membership. As I have almost continually stated throughout this dissertation, I believe the Matt 18 model misapplied is a primary reason for this disparaging problem. A2: They pronounce they have not had one Matt 18 since the first one three years ago. What they have done is replaced Matt 18 which is to seek transparency and reconciliation on matters with Titus 3:9-11 and apply it to anyone who disagrees with their legalistic wranglings.
- 32:13 Tracy brings up disagreement about associations [Rom 14]. He asserts, “John had a problem about being separated from certain preachers, Ruben, Jed, etc. “ He doesn’t like the idea of not preaching with them. A1: Though I agreed with them on this issue in the short term, my conscience has borne witness in regards to Rom 14. I reject those ideas because they are legalistic. I still personally wouldn’t preach with certain preachers, but that doesn’t change the matter of being able to decide individually concerning these types of doubtful matters. I would not tell Kerrigan, Jesse, or anyone else who they couldn’t preach with as I believe that is a matter of preference according to the Spirit’s leading and not regulation. Paul may not have preached or approved of every preacher, but that the Gospel was preached he rejoiced! Php 1:15-18 , Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. Luke 9:49-50 Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”
- 34:09 Kerrigan states we did not tell him as a fellowship that he couldn’t preach with other preachers, but that was a Pinpoint policy. Q1: IF that is the case, why were the other elders involved in counseling me and directing me otherwise? It was months later that I was told this was a Pinpoint policy not a RFF one. Q2: Why did Tracy continue to make comments like, “You shouldn’t like what he[Jesse] does on FB, Jesse Morrell Is a sinner, etc” Did Tracy rebuke him personally?
- 34:27 Kerrigan states, “I told him that he[John] wasn’t preaching with Jed Smock, Ruben Isreal, Jim Gilles, and even Jesse Morrell. These are issues, I told him.” Q1: Who gave you the authority to do that according to Scripture? Q2: If you saw it as a stumbling block to John, why not get the block out of his way? Q3: Have you spoken to each of these men individually calling them to repentance as you understand their sin at that time? Q4: Have you brought an impartial witness to them as the second step of Matt 18? Q5: Have you brought any of them before a group of believers to rebuke them that every word may be established that you may care for their souls and they would repent of the ‘sin’ according to your view?
- 35:01 Josh Lovell states, “Does he disagree with what you actually believe or the strawman he has made up in my own mind about what you believe?” A1: Already disproven previously in this paper with Tracy’s video. It is not a straw man to assert the elders believe and teach the elders = church for Matt 18. It is exactly the concept put forth in, “…third step, the elders take over.”
- 35:13 Kerrigan states, “He’s not deceived about this, he knows he is making it up, he’s lying” A1: More accusations without foundation.
- 35:32 Kerrigan falsely asserts that they have never taught ekklesia = elders. Tracy confirms the men’s understanding of what they have taught. Von repeats what the elders have taught. He stated, “We’re trusting the elders have done all the work…” Q1: Why aren’t the men of the fellowship required to do some spiritual work here in Matt 18 judging according to Scripture? Q2: What verse supports what is put forth in these ideas?
- 36:32 Kerrigan asserts that I have good understanding of many complex things and that I disagree with their positions so how could it be I don’t understand it? A1: I offered the simple understanding of elders = church. They deny they have ever taught that, but that is exactly what we see in Tracy’s teaching above in all practicality. A2: My greatest lack of understanding is how three men of God could be so fooled to think they can add anything to God’s Word even if they think it’s practical or best for this scenario. Who cares what any man thinks which is obviously and logically contrary to the Words of Jesus Christ regarding a very sober and important function of the church?
- 35:46 Kerrigan asserts ekklesia = elders idea I have come up with is a bold faced lie. Tracy states, “It’s not in any of our teachings, nor videos, not in any of our dialogue with him.”
A1: video link from above HERE. A2: In my simple response of ‘elders = ekklesia’, I revealed the problem with the concept they were putting forth and they did not like me drawing that conclusion because it amplified the error.
- 37:03 Kevin starts assertions about me being warped.
- 37:20 Kevin asserts, “Flat out disobedience to clear instructions [from the elders]” Q1: Why wasn’t Matt 18 conducted on all these dozens of problems you have had with John? Q2: Did any of you ever approach John with a Matt 18 issue? Do you have any Matt 18 meeting audio recordings of John? Q3: Where does the Bible instruct elders to force doctrines or beliefs which are contrary to the simple public interpretation and understanding of the same? Q4: Where does the Bible instruct the elders to forbid any discussions between members on any issue? 1 Tim 4:16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
- 37:53 Isaiah’s fall into sin paralleled to John but not to the same degree. Q1: Why wasn’t Isaiah the son of an elder and a worship leader for over a year, brought before the fellowship? Q2: If Isaiah would not come, why wouldn’t all the men of the fellowship go to him? Q3: How do you compare these two things in good conscience? Q4: Maybe we could get testimony from him now that he is in majority.
- 38:35 Von asks the question about Tracy teachings…was John attacking toward Tracy. Kerrigan affirms the attacks and issues John had with Tracy. Tracy states John never submitted to me…[dogpile!!!] Reggie states, “I noticed he talked to you different…etc” A1: Look at the video for yourself to decide, whether I was attacking Tracy or simply trying to bring clarifications to my understandings in any of the dozens of fellowship teaching videos which he did are on RFF’s website.
- 39:29 Kerrigan gives a testimony of John ‘yelling’ at Tracy that he didn’t even think he should be an elder. He states it got resolved to some degree, but not really because it happened several other times. Q1: What other times? Tracy states John was being overly critical, over and over and over again…we are just going to be blind to them. Q1: Why wasn’t I brought before a Matt 18 in these over and over and over again offenses against you Tracy?
- 41:16 Kerrigan asserts, “Rejecting him completely is for his own good. It’s obvious the temptation is not going to go away. “ A1: If this is true what you are saying, how do you prove that? A2: Who gave you elders the authority to do make this decision without a fair hearing?
- 42:16 Kerrigan, “If you can’t submit to God’s leadership, you can’t submit to God.” Q1: Where does the Bible state that we should submit when the leadership is in error according to our own individual understanding?”
- 42:50 Tracy, “Not coming back to this fellowship is good for him as well as protecting the fellowship.” A1: Where does the Bible say this about not reconciling a brother according to your view? Jam 5:19-20 A2: Doesn’t all of this suppose that John wouldn’t repent according to your view?
- 43:15 Von brings up the concern of, “What if John goes down there and fools the brothers there in NC?” To wit Kerrigan brings up, “The brothers have had enough experience with him down there they know the issues that John has had.” If John were to make a public spectacle of his lies…we’re not doing any video responses to that. A1: The brothers from NC, came up here at my request the weekend after you rejected me to try and bring resolution. Why didn’t you meet with them? A2: That’s too bad that you won’t defend your positions publicly if you have the truth in these matters. A3: I welcome an open public hearing of the local, regional, and worldwide church on these matters in order to: 1. clarify your positions 2. reconcile the saints 3. edify other home churches 4. to see the Lord glorified in all things. 5. To see our son in law and daughter restored to a relationship to us.
- 44:06 Tracy states the NC brothers, also know us…Kerrigan states that he has known the brothers for years before John…A1: speechless at this delusion. Kerrigan met them about a month before I did, though I am unsure why Kerrigan needs to get some relationship bling with the NC crew.
- 44:49 Kerrigan feels emotions and weeps over Nida and the children.
A1: This was pathetic.
- 46:25 Joshua Lovell asks if it is okay for Daniel or the other children to come to RFF when they are 18? Kerrigan states, “Sure that is not a problem.” Q1. If these children decided to come and John had still not repented according to your view, wouldn’t they have to shun their father and mother as Jenna and Joshua have been influenced/required to do? Q2: Would this be honoring to their mother and father as God requires them to do? Q3: If this is solely Joshua Lovell’s decision to shun their mother and father, why aren’t the elders stepping into the situation to guide Joshua in a right understanding according to the Bible? Q4: Even if John were in sin, how should Joshua relate to his new family of eight especially in regards to his wife’s earthly/spiritual family?
- 47:18 Kerrigan asserts John’s wife and children are oblivious to these things as far as we know. A1: Nida knew about two weeks before I released the formal request for the meeting. She also had knowledge of all these spiritual conflicts the elders were creating with their traditions going back three years.
- 49:00 Tracy states, “…If there is true repentance he would never bring this up again…” A1: This would make life much easier for the elders of course. But, the conflict in my conscience was from the Holy Ghost and the Word of God. This is exactly how traditions of men, which Jesus preached against get started in assemblies.
- 49:21 Kevin explained these things to Joshua the night before…there’s a possibility…the only relationship that Joshua could have is to call his father in law to repentance. If there was any relationship would only be to call him to repentance. Only for that purpose and nothing else…I don’t know how that would work that out. [Q1: Kevin, why are you so obviously influencing your son, when you all claim this is Joshua and Jenna’s decision alone? Q2: Where does the Bible say these things? Q2: Why wouldn’t Kevin allow his grown son come to the meeting ‘cold’ to hear the matter in front of the other men before priming the pump so to speak? Q3: Did John involve his son in law, Joshua Lovell in these matters before the meeting he was requesting with the witnesses of inquiry with the elders? Q4: Kevin, do you realize the long term effects you have cultivated between two families that were just joined in marriage? Shame on you Kevin Lovell, I hope you repent and bring the others with you.
- 56:00 Kerrigan asserts, “We all know that John has an issue with temper.” A1: If this is really a problem as you all have described, why wasn’t John Matt 18’d or Titus 3’d years ago? Also, is speaking sternly or correcting someone considered an issue of ‘temper’? A2: If John was recognizing these occasional issues, confessing them, and turning from them, why are they continually brought up to discredit John in this situation? A3: Is righteous anger is allowed in the Christian walk? A4: We’ve never seen Kerrigan get angry have we?
- 58:40 Kevin asserts John would not have a meeting. A1: I repeatedly stated in the Titus 3 accusation audio that I would meet with them the next Saturday morning and they were not willing. …He wanted us to have a meeting with Joshua and Dan, and we refused to have it. A2: So, here was an occasion the elders could have met with John as he initiated this whole process and could have resolved this simply by humbling themselves and meeting for inquiry. A3: By this point, why wouldn’t I want someone else to hear the matter as I believed it to be sin?
- 58:54 Kerrigan states, “Because he wanted to have two witnesses to bring false accusation against us.” A1: No, this was a meeting of inquiry plain and simple. The question is, are the things that I have testified of false according to the history of this and the plain reading of God’s Word? A2: To answer the elders objection that where is this type of meeting seen in the Bible, it is in Matt 18, second step.
- 59:19 Kerrigan asserts, “There is sufficient evidence that Jimmy and Marvin are involved…they have been liking his posts[on FB].. It wouldn’t surprise me if he went down there and became an elder of their fellowship. A1: Your presumptions are incredible, wrong, and fallacious. I have prayed about going down there to be an elder as you had advised in a casual talk we had one day at your fence some six months or so ago. Q1: How is liking posts about church servant leadership ‘evidence’ that they are involved? In fact, I worked to ensure they did not become involved as they saw you inexplicably remove me from Pinpoint Evangelism, etc… Q2: Do you deny advising me I should go down there and be an elder? If you admit that, then you must have believed I was qualified to act as an elder just a short time ago. Now, all of a sudden John is trying to act like an elder when he is not qualified to be an elder when he is not qualified according to you.
- 59:46 Joshua L. brings up the wedding planning meeting: Kevin’s and Joshua’s accusation is that John said, “He wasn’t an elder because he didn’t want to be.” To wit, John was brought outside and rebuked. A1: This assertion is true. However, what is the context of John’s statement? Kevin was trying to force all three elders into the wedding ceremony. I adamantly did not want Tracy to be a part of this as a personal and spiritual matter. Kevin made this situation an ‘elder’ issue thus lording the decision about a personal matter over the situation. In speaking to Kevin outside, I corrected what I misstated, which was that I didn’t want the eldership because God constrained me as I had explained in the elder nomination meeting. Nothing was ever said by them at that time that they believed I was not qualified for the position.
- 1:00:27 Kevin begins to speak of the spiritual cloud over our home and the source of that was from John for a year. Q1: Why wasn’t John dealt with in a Matt 18 manner here? How could you come and have fellowship, worship, prayer, give smiley hugs, say you love me, and have intimate time together for a year all the while believing I was the source of a spiritual cloud over our home and fellowship? Q2: Wouldn’t this qualify as a personal sin which should bring a Matt 18 process upon John?
- 1:01:12 Kerrigan blames John for him becoming so discouraged that he thought he would resign his eldership just because of John. Totally opposite of Heb 13:17. [A1: Why didn’t Kerrigan have the courage to come and confront John on his continual discouragement that almost led him to resign? A2: Why not do a Matt 18 with him during that season? A3: Wouldn’t this qualify as a personal sin?]
- 1:02:18 Kerrigan asserts concerning my becoming an elder this last time was because I was not qualified. I was told by them that no one else would be needed because three elders was enough. A1: They did not tell me that I was not qualified, only that they were in agreement with what the Lord had told me in constraining me from accepting this nomination. Answers in Historical Narrative:There were three opportunities and perhaps a fourth for me to become an elder at RFF according to the requests of Kerrigan and Kevin. Each time it was offered to me I refused for various reasons except the last two. First time I refused when the church govt was established about 4-5 years ago because I didn’t believe I was apt to teach. Second time, maybe 8-10 months later, I refused because I didn’t believe I was being moderate/temperate enough with my family during that time. Third time I was asked, my conscience was clear and I considered it for a month or two. Tracy was seeking to be considered for that as well at that time. Tracy was selected and I was not informed of my ‘status’ either way at that time. This did bring a temptation to be jealous for me initially as I thought he is/was a novice, with so few years as a believer and not being a man with a family. To his commendation, he studies very diligently to show himself approved, yet he has several disqualifications according to the Bible and my view. His selection was announced and they laid hands upon him for the anointing of the office. There was no explanation as to why I was not selected at the same time. I accepted that the Lord was leading Kerrigan and Kevin on these issues. I was praying about my own nomination/selection and the elders asked to meet with me. The Lord had led me to deny the nomination again, though as I explained to them I believed my conscience was clear on the matter but for reasons I didn’t clearly understand the Lord constrained me. The elders were overjoyed that the Holy Spirit had spoken to me, because they believed that three elders were enough though they thought I would be considered again in the future. I agreed with that because I realized that our fellowship did not spiritually need a fourth elder. They did not at any time tell me they believed I was NOT qualified as they accused in the accusation meeting. The fourth opportunity came just some 6 months ago when I had joined Jimmy Miller in the ministry of Global Mission for Children and Global Mission Telecom. Kerrigan and I spoke at his fence. Without prompting, he discussed with me about being patient for future eldership, which might include the new group that had formed in Tampa. In conclusion, all the elder’s assertions that I was not and am not qualified to be an elder is very confusing in light of their continued and repeated requests for me to do so.
- Time 1:02:32 Kerrigan asserts, “He still had issues with temperance.” …Think about the mess we’d have if he was an elder? A1: Why wasn’t I informed of that inhibiting issue or Matt 18’d according to the elders view? Tracy then states, “He would try and rip this fellowship apart. He would say he is in authority, him against us, can you imagine being in a fellowship where you have elders against each other? A2: Are imaginations how we are supposed to judge and think of situations and each other? A3: From this view no elder could or would be in conflict with another, is that what the Bible records?
- 01:03:00 Kevin states, Praise God the Lord is the head of the church. A1: Amen! Kerrigan then states, “… amongst us[elders], we’ve never had a problem, not once. A2: This is exactly why you may have a problem bigger than you think, it’s called ‘yes man syndrome’ or sychophatic grouping.
- Kerrigan states only a week ago coming home from the Blue Plum festival, John was confessing his intemperance. A1: Kerrigan misunderstood what I was saying. I was speaking about my studying of the word temperate which means moderate and that in examining myself that I was in agreement with my past confession. Q1: Why do these admissions/confessions by John seem to be used as a bludgeon to humiliate/discredit in a continual personal attack against him at this meeting?
- More thoughts on these matters>>>>Assuming I didn’t have a problem with your teachings because I didn’t ask questions is an error. Thinking sometimes develops over time. Also, I was under orders not to speak about these things, particularly Matt 18. It seems to me, that you all seem to think a voice of dissension about a matter is a problem when it actually can be a help.
- >The accusation that I was trying to sow discord among the brethren is false. This can be heard from the beginning of my audio recorded testimonies to Joshua on 5/30/15, for part 1 CLICK HERE for Part 2 CLICK HERE I explained to both Joshua and Dan in my testimonies that I was not trying to sow discord or division, but sow the truth about these matters. If I was trying to sow discord, I would have gone to each individual member of the assembly planting seeds of division almost three years ago. The elder’s spiritual overreaction to my email requesting a formal meeting is a major point of interest in and of itself . I believe this is the actual divisiveness. Calling a meeting of all the heads of household the next Saturday to accuse me without me there to defend myself is divisive, deceitful, and discordant.
- >Ironically, if the elders had attended the meeting I tried to arrange, this may have been discussed, my conscience would be clean in regards to all the members, and the elders would have been reproved publicly at least with two impartial people observing the event. I would have resigned my family’s membership if the elders did not repent of these views. Lastly, if were able to have free discussions on , these non salvation issues had been allowed in our fellowship in the first place, I believe, none of this would have happened.
- >I couldn’t ask questions from my point of view during Q&A time of teachings due to directions from elders to not talk about Matt 18 around people in fellowship.
- >Number of people involved increases in each step of Matt 18 process.
- Thoughts not talked about:>>> In God’s wisdom, perhaps God thought it best to have a certain number of rebukes before the church rebuke. By adding a rebuke from the elders before the church rebuke, or giving more opportunities than the 3 step process, we are going against God’s wisdom.
- >Thought not talked about: In God’s wisdom, perhaps God thought it best to have a certain number of people 2 or 3 at the most, involved in Matt 18 system before it comes before the whole church/ecclesia.
- >Thought not talked about: In God’s wisdom, perhaps God thought it best to have the ecclesia do the judging of the accused to give every ‘level’ of believers the opportunity to exercise good discernment/judgment, thus building the members of the body. 1 Cor 6:2-5.
- >Thought not talked about: In God’s wisdom, perhaps God thought it best to have the accused face the spiritual and natural pressure of the whole group [ekklesia] come upon the accused vs. just the two witnesses or the three elders of RFF [in our case].
- >Thought not talked about: In God’s wisdom, perhaps God thought it best to have a hearing of this sort, that even the accused might be able to share his testimony before all that he might be cleared of false charges if he were being set up for a spiritual ambush. Then the false accusers are now standing in the light of the ekklesia’s judgment.
- >Thought not talked about: In God’s wisdom, perhaps God thought it best to have the power of this issue in the hands of all, that the ‘leadership’ may not be tempted to think they can rule or lord over the sheep like the Gentiles.
- >Tracy states in his video that, “Lower level brothers (could be immature) are encouraged and preferred to be involved in step 2. Q1: If they can handle step 2, why not step 3 also?
- >Who would do Matt 18 with elders if all elders or even one were under accusation? What would that look like? Is this why John tried to convene a semi private meeting with neutral witnesses seeking to have both sides of these issues heard after he had done step one of Matt 18 many times? In his testimony to Josh and Dan, he communicated that if the elders did not repent he and his family would have to leave the fellowship he believed it to be so serious.
- >Did John communicate in those testimonies that he did not desire to see anyone divided off the fellowship but that the whole fellowship would at least have a chance to hear the truths of these three issues that he had been constrained from speaking to anyone about for three years?
- >Due to other mysterious departures by people from the fellowship without the fellowship’s first hand knowledge [Franklins, Holbrooks, Vromans, Isaiah Lovell, Rices(not local)], would it make sense that John would desire to ensure someone knew the circumstances of their departure if the elders did not change their mind about their views?
- >If John was trying to clear his conscience on important issues that he believed would help to ensure that the fellowship remained united why did the elders seek to subvert the formally requested meeting and the manner in which John requested the same?
- >To answer the group accusation that John has a temperance problem.
There are two main issues related to my occasional intemperance with the fellowship, though I accept full responsibility for them at the times they happened and made apologies. One was the spiritual frustration of being denied resolution on the Matt18/Rom14 issues with the elders for three years. The second issue was natural issues related to problems of how people and their families were conducting themselves at fellowship in our home. With the pressures of the home fellowship meetings and the pressures of this situation I was on edge at times. I think the elders do say one thing toward the end of the meeting that I completely agree with. Hosting the fellowship had become a burden or stumbling block to me personally. I think this was due to: 1. lack of parental oversight of children. So much so that I asked to have all the families sign release of liabilities for accidental deaths or injuries. 2. Lack of consisternt care in cleaning up after themselves and their children. 3. Lack of care for our home. 4. Lack of interest in making repairs to things that were broken or worn out over the years. 5. Lack of care by the elders in meeting promised monthly monies which would help offset the costs of septic cleaning, electrical. paint, etc. We have hosted the fellowship since Jan ’08, starting with two families. No one has ever volunteered their home that I am aware of or remember to give us a break except a few times in the beginning with the Skelly’s. Practically, it would have been difficult because of the size of most of the homes of our fellowship members. Interesting to me that Kevin stated during the accusation meeting that there was a ‘dark spiritual cloud’ over our home and that the source was John. Why not start meeting somewhere else then? If Kevin was so oppressed why did you continue to come, give me hugs, smile at me, etc like everything is fine? Why not do a Matt 18 on me and my family for all the sin that was causing this cloud that he imagined? Is it possible that you did not have a place to meet and that’s why you didn’t confront me properly?
- >In response to the ‘dozens’ of times I have been corrected on this issue. I want to make sure that it is clear, are we talking about intemperance or the Matt 18 issue or both? I have possibly tried to talk to you about these Matt 18 things dozens of times. But, mostly you all have stated, “We have already talked to you already about this, we’re not talking about it anymore.” These were non answers to my sincere convictions and corrections about what I consider a very important church function. On top of that, you all tell me I can’t talk about it to anyone in the fellowship even though you all claim it is non salvation issue. This creates a spiritual conflict within anyone who may be faced with it. As I understand you all didn’t have this Matt 18 premise on the ‘What we Believe” page because it’s not a salvation issue. If that is so, then by deduction then you must be saying everything on the, “What We Believe” page IS salvation dependent. How does it make sense that we can’t talk about an issue in the fellowship that is in this non salvation category or any category for that matter? Do you deny you have prohibited me from talking these things out with the brethren? Why couldn’t brethren talk about any issue including salvation dependent issues without the oversight/approval of the elders? [See Informal Meeting Request Email]
- Perhaps the most grieving horrific atrocity of this whole spiritual mess is the direction and/or influence by the elders for our newly wedded children to shun our family. Joshua Lovell is easily influenced by his dad and Kerrigan Skelly. This is understandable but he needs to mature into manhood in this situation. Kevin’s maneuverings in regards to his son are obvious and painful. Tracy is not even qualified to direct them in any matters, but especially when it comes to family relations. Has anyone considered the stress that is being placed upon them as a couple torn from one set of parents which live a mile down the road? Has anyone considered the consequence of this stress upon our daughter Jenna as she has been divided from her mother, siblings, and myself? How about the stress, resentment, hurt put upon my wife and children? Josh have you considered how this will affect your relationship with her, really and honestly? What if the other elders directed you to shun your parents? Would you be so quick and willing? With the recent announcement of their pregnancy, has anyone considered how this stress may affect her and the baby? May God help us! CLICK HERE FOR VOL VII