In Case You Googled Us – A Response

Posted on by kevinjandt

If you insist you are not a cult, there’s a good chance you are a cult. That’s precisely what Grace Fellowship has done in their most recent attempt at answering their critics. As one dear friend pointed out, “Thou dost protest too loudly?” Yes, that is precisely what thou dost. There is no need to go line by line (as they’ve said would be done). Each of the points in their article has been addressed many times, and they have been attested to by multiple witnesses. But just for fun, allow me to make one point.

Here is the quote from the GFC article:

For the first few years after all this commotion began, Grace Fellowship Church made earnest attempts to reach out privately to our accusers to attempt resolution. This included reaching out to former, excommunicated church members (and where applicable, the leadership of their current churches), as well as some of the internet meddlers. In more than one case, we’d even gone so far as to offer to fly pastors of other churches out to meet us—at our own expense—in order to sit down together and examine these matters (see 2LCF, Ch. 26, Par. 15). All such attempts have been rebuffed.

The background is important. I met with Mike Reid multiple times (four to be exact), followed up with an email to confirm my thoughts, and spoke with the elders on one other occasion about legalism and our growing discomfort with the church. Then we left. We left knowing it wasn’t going anywhere. That was obvious. It was apparent to me, my wife, and the countless others who had previously left the church.

We wrote our departure letter and then had a few written exchanges. Within a few days, we were excommunicated for leaving the church. For almost two years, we never publicly criticized them. We didn’t comment on Facebook, nor did I write blog articles naming them. However, I wrote a series on a book called, Churches That Abuse, here. We received more than our fair share of communication from Mike Reid. He sought to reconcile, and we said we would, but I had to understand what it was he was trying to reconcile. He would never say, so we didn’t meet. In July of 2019, we moved to New Mexico. September 30, 2019, I wrote the first article naming them, here. This was over a year and a half after we left.

They say all such attempts (at reconciliation) have been rebuffed.

On December 6th, 2018, I said this in an email.

Mike,

Jen and I have discussed your message, and we are willing to meet.

However, we are not certain we understand what you are wanting to discuss in our meeting. Before we agree to anything, can you please email and tell us what exactly you have in mind to address?

Kevin

He wouldn’t directly answer the question, so we declined. 

I responded to him in an email with this: March 21st, 2021. This provides context as to just how long all this was going on. We sought on numerous occasions to meet with them, but it was always on their terms, and we would not have anything to do with standing in front of a firing squad.

 According to your note, you have made an offer before to meet with the elders of Heritage and us. While this is true, you have failed to mention our offer to meet long before that. I’ve copied our email correspondence if there is any confusion about the time frame the last offer from us took place.

At the very top of the email chain (dated 07 Dec 2018), we offered to meet, and we asked you twice the purpose for our meeting in that text message exchange, but you evaded and avoided the question by continuing to repeat the statement “for my cause in the matter” which in no way indicates the purpose for our meeting. Additionally, we extended an offer previous to that exchange in a letter that I wrote to you (dated 05 Nov 2018), but we didn’t get your response.

I’ve attached both of these documents for all to examine, and I’ve highlighted (07 Dec 18) where I said we would meet or work toward reconciliation and peace; I count 5 or 6 offers in that one exchange. I also pointed out that we need to deal with the root cause of our leaving in that email exchange. I have highlighted some of those crucial elements in these correspondences.

According to your website, gfc still claims to be a Confessional Church, citing the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (gfc’s confession).

In chapter 26, paragraph 15 says this:

Paragraph 15. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification (this applies to us as it relates to you); or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures (You censured us by excommunicating us causing injuring to our reputations and future) not agreeable to truth and order (It was an unbiblical excommunication): it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together, do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned;29 howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted with any church-power properly so called; or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons; or to impose their determination on the churches or officers. 29 Acts 15:2,4,6,22,23,25 30 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 John 4:1

While you have attempted to say that gfc must adjudicate, that is not what the confession teaches.

They have maligned and distorted the truth (some might say bald-faced lies) to suit their own needs more times than I could possibly count, and their whole “non-response” article is loaded with examples of this distortion. I’ve never known of churches to write up something like this, even the most cultish of the cults. Normal places don’t have to defend their practices and then insult others to build themselves up. I have been firm and pointed in my criticisms, that is for sure, but this response tells me they are exactly what they claim not to be (a cult).  But I’ll allow those genuinely seeking both sides to decide for themselves. I’ve linked it here, but I’ve also copied the text below in case they ever remove it.

We recently compiled a list of over 100 names of those who have been spiritually or mentally damaged by Grace Fellowship’s leadership, there are more. These are real people who left the church under duress. We hope and pray they are now in healthy churches. GFC is not a healthy church.

If the leadership of GFC would go back and begin to clean up their messes and repent of their harshness and authoritarianism, to name a few, we would gladly meet with them to discuss all of these things. We would never go back into the lion’s den and stand in front of them all and allow them to abuse us some more. We continue to hope and pray that they will repent of their ways, get right with the people they have hurt, and most of all, get right with the Lord for the damage done to the body of Christ.

Lord have mercy on them.

Kevin

The Grace Fellowship Article – Titled: In Case You Googled Us, linked here: as well as copied below.

Start Here:

Dear Reader,

If you’re reading this page, there’s a pretty good chance that you’ve come across some of the content out on the web containing various accusations made against our church and its leadership over the last several years. It’s also possible that you’ve been visiting our church for a while, and you’ve been sought out via social media by a particular couple who were once members of our church, with the intent to discourage you or scare you away from associating with our church any further. Apparently, in the minds of some, we’re like a cult or something.

While it remains our principled position to limit our interaction with those who revile our church and spread false narratives, we thought it may be helpful to take the time to address a couple things for the benefit of the type of reader described above. 

Why No Public Response?

First, we understand that to some folks the absence of a response from our church to these things over the years could be interpreted as some kind of tacit acknowledgement that the allegations are true, and we have no defense. From time to time, the question arises, “If all of these allegations are false, why doesn’t Grace Fellowship Church respond publicly to all these allegations to clear her name?”

The answer to this is very simple. We do not recognize the court of public opinion to have any authority or standing as relates to adjudicating the affairs of the church. Sadly, in the social media-frenzied age in which we live, the internet is filled with all types of trolls who sit at keyboards all day and think it’s their Christian duty to render an opinion about everything going on under the sun—including giving their opinion on matters of church discipline in churches across the country which they aren’t a part of, involving people whom they’ve never met, and facts that they are in no position to know. Many such people go on to become self-proclaimed “discernment bloggers” who make it their so-called ministry to go around sticking their nose into ecclesiastical affairs they have neither the authority nor the information to adjudicate. They are theological ambulance chasers, hoping to garner attention by “exposing” the evils of this or that church and “protecting God’s people from wolves.” In reality, however, such men don’t know the first thing about caring for God’s sheep or loving the church, and wouldn’t know what a wolf looked like if it was staring at them in the mirror. Truthfully, such men and/or women are nothing but meddlers and busybodies. The Bible has quite a bit to say about these kinds of people, and we would urge the reader to consider this (1 Tim. 5:13, 1 Thes. 4:11, 2 Thes. 3:11, 1 Pet. 4:15, Prov. 20:3, Lev. 19:16).

To summarize, we believe the Scriptures give pretty clear instructions that we are not to feed the trolls. So if you’re waiting for us to give a detailed defense concerning every false allegation, half-truth, twisted truth, one-sided narrative, or flat out lie that’s ever been brought up in a blog or on a podcast about us, we’re afraid you’re just going to have to keep on being disappointed. The internet at large is not owed an explanation or accounting for how a local church conducts its affairs. We maintain that God has given the authority and responsibility to each particular church congregation to adjudicate its own affairs in the fear of the Lord and in obedience to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 5:4-5, 6:1-4. See also 2LCF Ch. 26). Social media keyboard warriors don’t get a seat at the table here, no matter how badly they want it or think they deserve it. That isn’t how church discipline works (see Matt. 18:15-20).

In addition, for our church to offer up our side of the story in each of these cases would require publicly divulging personal details about the lives and conducts of the accusers, which would publicly expose their sins and cast them in a negative light. We are unwilling to do this, even despite their willingness to revile us. We will not return evil for evil in these matters (Rom. 12:17-21). So far as it depends on us, we prayerfully hold out hope in the Lord for reconciliation with the parties involved, and we are perfectly content to wait upon the Lord to do such a work.

As a Reformed Baptist church, we believe in the autonomy and authority of the local church. We believe in the authority of God’s Word. And we believe in the biblical models for conflict resolution, church discipline, and reconciliation. We continue to extend an open, outstretched hand to anyone willing to be reconciled to us, but this reconciliation will only come through the mediation and adjudication of the church, not podcast debates and blog wars.  

Judging a Matter

Second, while we won’t be publishing any sort of response to any of the specific allegations found online concerning our church, we would encourage you to remember that the Bible gives several cautions about judging a matter based on one side of a story (Prov. 18:13, 17, Deut. 13:14). Simply put, dear reader, don’t be so naive as to believe everything you hear or read on the internet. We would invite you to learn about our church and our doctrines by visiting with us, personally, rather than by listening to chopped up, out-of-context audio clips of our pastor pieced together by strangers on the other side of the country, or by listening to long hours of podcasts put together by discernment bloggers giving platform to the grossly exaggerated, one-sided narratives of former members with an obsessive hatred against us. If you think you’re getting an unbiased view of the facts from these sources, then we know a Nigerian prince who would like to talk to you about an inheritance coming your way. 

Why Now? 

After remaining publicly silent about these things for years, some may be wondering why we’ve chosen now as the time to say something. You may also be wondering why you’re detecting a slight touch of sarcasm as you read this. 

For the first few years after all this commotion began, Grace Fellowship Church made earnest attempts to reach out privately to our accusers to attempt resolution. This included reaching out to former, excommunicated church members (and where applicable, the leadership of their current churches), as well as some of the internet meddlers. In more than one case, we’d even gone so far as to offer to fly pastors of other churches out to meet us—at our own expense—in order to sit down together and examine these matters (see 2LCF, Ch. 26, Par. 15). All such attempts have been rebuffed. It’s clear to us that our accusers are only interested in duking it out in a social media cage match, and will entertain no other outcome than the immediate dismemberment and disbanding of our church. 

Perhaps most alarming is the stunning disregard for biblical ecclesiology exhibited by self-promoting internet “pastors” who honestly believe they have the authority to lord over a church hundreds of miles away on the basis of hearsay. We confess boldly in the Lord that such men ought to be ashamed of themselves. 

While our initial disposition was to sincerely, soberly and prayerfully attempt to engage with our accusers, their long track record of hard-hearted indifference for the damage they are doing to the bride of Christ has left us with no reason to take them seriously, and we’ve resolved to obey the apostle’s command to give them no further attention (Tit. 3:10-11). And frankly, the Lord has taught us to laugh a little. He who sits in the heavens laughs at the schemes of the wicked (Ps. 2:4), and we’ve come to learn that sharing in His humor is sometimes the best thing for our souls. While our hearts remain filled with sorrow over the hard realities of persecution and grievous division in Christ’s church, we are confident that the Lord continues to build His church, and His great promise that the gates of hell will not overcome it causes us to remain as cheerful as ever (Matt. 16:18). 

Unfortunately, due to our church’s relatively low internet presence (we have a pretty bland website that rarely gets updated, and we aren’t active on social media), our revilers have been able to do such a bang up job in producing and promoting content against our church that their stuff tends to come up front and center whenever someone Googles our church. We have to give credit where credit is due here. They have soundly beaten us in the SEO game, which means whether we like it or not, visitors and prospective members tend to stumble into this mud regularly, so we have to keep dealing with it. 

In fact, we fully anticipate that even this very writing will be received by our revilers as blood in the water. As soon as they pick up the scent, we expect them to waste no time pouncing on this article, carefully analyzing every word to see what they might use against us. But this does not surprise or dishearten us. It’s the sort of behavior the Scriptures teach us to expect. When Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be wolves, he was sure to emphasize that they would be the grievous, savage type (Acts 20:29), not the kind you’d find in a Disney movie. But this article isn’t written for them. Our hope is that this writing might offer the judicious Googler a little insight into our perspective before forming an opinion about us. 

Okay, but Seriously, How Weird are You People?

One of the overarching allegations about our church is that we’re “cultish.” Supposedly we’re all being led astray by a horrible, villainous pastor who rules the church with an iron fist and micromanages every aspect of the personal lives of every congregant. Frankly, as a congregation, we hold these assertions to be—if we may speak so plainly—pretty dumb. We’re certainly prepared to grant that our church is a little weird, but only because we’re black coffee Calvinists, and we still use paper hymnals (campaigns to convince the elders to move to a 1990’s overhead projector have thus far been unsuccessful, but we’re slowly grinding them down). 

In seriousness, we at Grace Fellowship Church take the gospel and the doctrine of the church very seriously, and we do so in an age where these truths are being greatly assaulted even within many evangelical circles. To many Christians, church is a thing you go to on Sunday when you feel like it, rather than something you’re a vital member of (1 Cor. 12:27). To many Christians, being a member of the body of Christ is an ethereal concept, rather than a reality to be lived out in the context of a real life congregation. Many Christians are largely unknown in the churches they attend. Many have never even met the men whom they consider to be their pastors. 

We believe this ought not be so. We take seriously God’s design for individual Christians to be joined to particular churches, to be in fellowship with particular brothers and sisters, and under the pastoral care of particular men appointed by the church as elders. We believe no Christian is meant to live their life in anonymity or seclusion apart from the love, nurture, and fellowship of the local church (Acts 2:41-47, 14:23, 20:28, Rom. 12:4-5, Col. 3:16, Heb. 10:24-25, 13:17).

The difficult thing about real fellowship is that it involves being close enough to people to sin against them and be sinned against. It also means having our own sins exposed. This indeed can be uncomfortable, but we hold that it is simply God’s good design for the continued growth and sanctification of the Christian, as we live out the Christian life together, and God continues his good work of transforming each of us more and more into the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29). The New Testament is filled with exhortations for Christians to forgive one another (Eph. 4:32), bear with one another in love (Col. 3:13), bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2), to strive for unity (Phil. 1:27), etc. All of these commands presuppose that we’re going to be up in each others’ grill sometimes. And we say, “Amen” to all of it. 

If this sounds cultish to you, then we’re happy to be guilty as charged. But in a world where church life has been largely relegated to a Sunday morning TED Talk, you’ll have to forgive us if we don’t take the charge too seriously. Besides, there are plenty of other Reformed Baptist and even Presbyterian churches with whom we fraternize that receive the same kinds of insults, and we’re pretty content to consider ourselves to be in good company (1 Pet. 5:9).

Fear Not the Chained Lions

In his classic work, The Pilgrim’s Progress, John Bunyan paints a brilliant allegorical picture of the Christian life. One scene in the book has to do with the Christian coming into the church. Following his conversion, Christian (the main character) finds himself ascending a hill called Difficulty. At the top of the hill is a palace called Beautiful (representing the church). As Christian comes to enter the great house, he is met by two lions blocking the way.

“. . .[Christian] made haste and went forward, that if possible he might get lodging there. Now, before he had gone far, he entered into a very narrow passage, which was about a furlong off the porter’s lodge; and looking very narrowly before him as he went, he espied two lions in the way. Now, thought he, I see the dangers that Mistrust and Timorous were driven back by. (The lions were chained, but he saw not the chains.) Then he was afraid, and thought also himself to go back after them, for he thought nothing but death was before him. . . “

Readers have long wondered what exactly Bunyan meant to represent by the imagery of the two lions. Many believe that these represented the powers of civil government and the state church which, in Bunyan’s day, were persecuting Christians to discourage them from joining local churches not sanctioned by the Church of England. Regardless of the specific interpretation, what we know for sure is that these lions represent forces which serve to discourage Christians from joining themselves to Christ’s church. These lions served to scare travelers from going any further, and instead to force them to go back.   

Sadly, we observe that many such lions exist in the world. There are many people—professing Christians, even—who make it their aim to stop people from venturing into the safety and nurture of a local church. Some of these lions come in the form of arrogant internet trolls like the ones we described above. Some of them come in the form of former church members or apostate Christians who through their unbelief and hard-heartedness have given themselves to such disgruntledness that they now make it their life’s work to oppose and ridicule the churches they once called home. Our church is hardly the first to endure this kind of thing, and we won’t be the last.

So we’d leave the reader with this encouragement, from what came next in the story:

“But the porter at the lodge, whose name is Watchful, perceiving that Christian made a halt as if he would go back, cried unto him, saying, “Is your strength so small?” Fear not the lions, for they are chained, and are placed there for trial of faith where it is, and for discovery of those that had none. Keep in the midst of the path, no hurt shall come unto you.”

Whether you end up deciding to visit our church or not, we exhort you in the Lord not to be scared by the lions. Trust in Christ, and join yourself to a local church. Your soul needs it. Don’t let the internet trolls rob you of the nourishment and grace God has for you through the means of the local church. 

The Lord hates a false witness who breathes out lies, and the one who sows discord among brothers (Prov. 6:19). We continue to pray fervently that those who strive to tear apart the body of Christ will be granted repentance. The Husband will not fail to avenge every offense committed against His beloved Bride. Let those who fear the Lord take heed and tremble. 

May the Lord Jesus Christ be glorified through the sanctifying of His people. May His churches be filled. May the earth be filled with the knowledge of His glory as the waters cover the seas. 

May the Lord bless you. 

Warmly and Sincerely, 
The Members of Grace Fellowship Church

May 14, 2024

Making Sense of the Senseless

Posted on by kevinjandt

We live in an unfair and complicated world. The more conveniences we have, the more difficult it gets. As an example, how many user names and passwords do you have? I know I’m not supposed to use the same one, but how many can a guy remember at once? I never had them as a kid because I never had so much at the tip of my fingertips on the World Wide Web, but that is one small example.

I’m involved in a ministry that I never anticipated. I won’t bore you with details. I’ve spilled enough virtual ink that you may know if you’ve read me over the past five years. For those that don’t or just stumbled upon this, the crux is that I and we, by default, have found a home ministering to those who have left or are in the process of leaving spiritually abusive churches. It wasn’t my first choice. I landed in this by dumb luck, and if you are a Fundy, I meant to say dumb providence.

The most recent issue that confronted me is nearly unthinkable. Looking back, it doesn’t surprise me, but this one surprised me. A man I knew once in my life decided the best way to deal with his life was to end it. While processing this tragedy, I’ve had several conversations with those who considered the same exit strategy but gratefully did not. I’m betting if I had time with many others who know the situation intimately, they would confess at one time or another that they also considered it a possible route. 

Although this is my third article on the subject, it is a struggle to say the right things and avoid the wrong. See here, and here. It’s tragic, yes, that’s obvious. The word tragedy is probably too common, and the meaning has morphed to describe something that should have never happened. I agree with the standard definition. One of the Merriam-Webster definitions says, “a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror.”

Here is a definition that fits, at least on a small scale. We have a protagonist, that is the man who ended his own life. We have a superior force. That is the one in question. He is a superior force in the lives of those he rules over. They bend to his wishes, and they bow to his needs. If he declares or intimates that one is unworthy, then it is so. And, of course, we have a sorrowful and disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror. Our protagonist is gone. Our superior force is still ruling.

Looking back on all this, it only makes sense that it would happen. The superior force can cause the protagonist to believe untrue things about himself. Suppose the protagonist confesses that he has come to believe in the Lord as Savior. We see a significant change in his life. Of course, there is a stage-cage period where he follows the company plan to evangelize all his friends, family, and co-workers. He’s overly zealous, of course, but then he starts to settle down. Was this the beginning of the downward spiral? Wasn’t he constantly after them to convert or suffer an eternity in hell? Or was it worse than that? Perhaps he had some sin in his life. Sin, of course, is the mortal enemy of Christianity. In the circle our protagonist runs, sin is forbidden. Any sin that gives a forward-facing node is bound to attract the superior force’s attention and foot soldiers’ attention.

Naturally, this sin must be dealt with. Sometimes, it is done through private conversations or the reporting of the sheep. In nasty cases, it deserves a visit to the superior force’s headquarters. Not only was the superior force present, but so were his aid-de-camps. Perhaps our protagonist even has his closest confidant involved, and maybe they see the sin as well and either give a report back to the superior force or are directly involved in calling it out. Either way, our protagonist begins to feel helpless. Eventually, if it goes on long enough, he loses hope.

These societies create a dependency state and crush the spirits of even the strongest. This man was strong. He was committed to the care of those he loved, and above all, I have no doubts he loved the Lord, and he is in heaven rejoicing that the Savior would even save a man who was a sinner such as he was.

How do we make sense of this? As the title says, making sense of the senseless. I don’t know. It is unclear at this time. I can’t reconcile all of it in my mind. I’ve heard many things. I’ve spoken to some people. I know the pain this has caused. Above all, those who loved our protagonist the most want answers. Someday, there will be answers. Eventually, the superior force will have to answer for those under his authority because he is fond of saying that it would not be profitable for you if they did not listen to him.

While we hear of places like this and read about them from time to time, rarely does this much chaos come out of one place for year upon year, about 15 years of it. I don’t say and write these things to ruin the superior forces’ reputation; he did that alone. I just said something about it.

In all the chaos and this mess, there is one place we can turn, and that is where I have no doubt our protagonist turned in his darkest hour. The Lord Jesus Christ is a merciful savior. He will bind up the wounds, and he will heal us. His grace is far greater than our deepest sins. In this, we can have the greatest hope. He conquered sin and death so that we may truly live.

Suicide is not the answer, but it is also not the unforgivable sin. I appreciated the words of the woman in this podcast, she describes it very well and the feelings of hopelessness, but all can be overcome by speaking with those that understand and those knowledgeable about these abuse patterns. If you ever feel helpless, please know we are here to help.

A Response to Ryan Peterson’s Funeral “Sermons”

Posted on by kevinjandt

The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them (Ezekiel 34:1-4).

This article is a follow-up to my open letter to Ryan Peterson’s friends and family. In that letter, I desired to offer comfort and hope that Ryan’s life was properly and lovingly acknowledged. It is my deepest and most sincere desire to highlight the goodness in Ryan. The goodness that flowed to him through his relationship with his Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, I fully believe Ryan was a Christian, and as I said in my first article, that was not contingent upon his confession of sin or lack thereof but only on the work of Christ.

While I desire to be kind and gracious, what I heard from these funeral messages was grievous and unnecessary. It is the tone and tenor of which these grotesque examples of sermons were preached. It was as if they had no life experience with Ryan and didn’t believe him to be a saved man, although they didn’t dare to come right out and say it. What they did was hint around the topic and leave the audience wondering what egregious sin had taken over Ryan to cause him to end his life.

There was an agenda to this funeral service, and the only desire from those leading was to make their points with as much rigor and demand as they place on the lives of their congregants on a day-in and day-out basis. The Christian life was never designed to be under authoritarian rule. If you picked up anything from those sermons, I trust you saw the authoritarian and hostile environment GFC represents.

God has something to say about those who rule harshly, and the passage above was a firm rebuke to those shepherds of Israel who had a self-focused agenda. The passage needs little to no explanation. As for those who had to endure these sermons, I want to point out a few things about what the passage says: “The weak you have not strengthened (verse 4).” When you went to the funeral of Ryan Peterson, were you weak? Did you feel sick, injured, and lost? Was there a great loss to your soul?

Perhaps you thought you would hear good things about Ryan and his life that would strengthen or lift you, but it didn’t. It only felt condemning and harsh, “with force and harshness, you have ruled them.” What type of encouragement was this, and what was it designed to do, or who was it designed to serve?

Well, it certainly didn’t bring grace to the hearer. Despite Mike Reid mentioning he was a pastor at Grace Fellowship Church, grace was never mentioned again. Grace should have been the central focus; instead, it was sin.

The topic of sin is a popular one at GFC. It is THE topic. A great deal of time and energy is devoted to rooting out the sins of the congregation. This can be done through preaching, as you just experienced, personal interaction with the pastors, or via the admonishments of the other congregants.

It is a difficult society to reside in if you have sin, which we all do (1 John 1:8-9). These sermons were a looking glass into a society that has left countless people on the brink of hopelessness as they continue to muddle through another joyless day. You are only as good as your last interaction. They seem to forget that our worth is in Christ, not in behaviors and actions. Listening to Tyler preach, I wondered the point of bringing up Ryan’s sin and why this was so important.

I hate to refresh your memory on what he said, but this is warped and twisted thinking of a man who should seek to expound the glories of a Savior. Tyler said, “In the last four weeks, there have been hidden sins discovered that Ryan had kept from everyone for quite a long time.” “The weight of unconfessed, hidden sin will destroy anyone.” [1] (30:50).

Then he makes a disclaimer. “If anyone hears this and is shocked, and it makes them think differently about Ryan, it shouldn’t because the Bible says no one is good.”

I wish I could say I don’t understand what he is trying to say. The message here is loud and clear, having spent much time with these people. For the disclaimer’s sake, this is only my opinion, as is the rest of this article, but Ryan’s memory deserves better than this.

In modern parlance, Bolkema is deflecting away from the responsibility they, as “shepherds,” bear. It’s not anyone’s fault, but Ryan’s because of his sin. His sin killed him. He was hiding it, and it destroyed him. It leaves me so empty and hollow inside thinking that this is how they cast dispersion onto Ryan and relieve themselves of any role they may have played in Ryan’s frame of mind, of which nobody truly knows except for him and God.

Here is the problem for them. They have no category for any mental illness, mental collapse, breakdown, depression, or a short-term imbalance in the brain. In GFC theology, the only answer is sin. Studying the brain and the science involved in knowing the countless scenarios that can bring a person to such an end is not a simple, black-or-white solution (See Tony Miano’s post below). It is shameful they said that Ryan decided to abandon his family, but this puts the focus on him and draws it away from them.

As one pastor I spoke to said, “You don’t minister to the living by kicking the dead,” and that is an awful burden for all those who loved Ryan to have to bear. In medical terms, this is a case of malpractice and misconduct. It is a gross case of misdiagnosis. You would think that showing grace, mercy, and compassion to those left behind and an invitation to search out the God that sent His Son to die for sinners might offer a more compassionate approach. Still, you have Mike Reid preaching the message he has preached for fifteen years: sin, judgment, and condemnation.

Who preaches a message like this, at a funeral no less, without believing these people need to be clubbed over the head rather than shown that Christ is a loving God that offers forgiveness from sin and rest from a weary world? Can the message of salvation be preached without berating and belittling?

Why can’t they say that we know Ryan was struggling, but we saw evidence of faith in his life, and we have complete confidence that he’s with the Lord?

Why?

Because sin is so important to their theology, Forty-one (41) times, Reid says the word sin or a derivation of the word in his “sermon,” now, to be fair, about six (6) of those discuss Christ as not having been a sinner, but that is still thirty-five (35) times he is discussing sin. He also uses the word wrath fourteen (14) times, condemn or condemned nine (9) times, and judgment four (4) times.  And keep in mind this was only a 15-minute sermon.

In contrast, he only mentions grace when he states he’s a pastor at Grace Fellowship Church. He uses the word mercy three (3) times (outside of the song they sing at the end), and forgiveness is only mentioned once. He uses the word love three times in the context of God’s love.  

This imbalance could not be more obvious. If I went back through all the years of Reid’s preaching nothing has changed. The imbalance here is unbearable and the primary reason we left and so many others left through the years.

In his excellent work, The Whole Christ, Sinclair Ferguson writes, “In essence [legalism] it is any teaching that diminishes or distorts the generous love of God and the full freeness of his grace. It then distorts God’s graciousness revealed in his law and fails to see law set within its proper context in redemptive history as an expression of a gracious Father. This is the nature of legalism. Indeed we might say these are the natures of legalism.” [2]

In one sentence, Ferguson mentions grace three times. The gospel is good news, but one would be hard-pressed to walk away from those sermons, having received this as good news. For anyone who would listen, it isn’t easy to endure these men’s preaching, demeanor, and tone, which tragically hinders the good news.

Sinclair Ferguson highlights how important tone can be to preaching, “[T]he same reality was noted in the life and ministry of Robert Murray M’Cheyne. It was perhaps most movingly expressed in a letter that lay unopened on his desk on the day he died at the age of twenty-nine. A correspondent writing to thank him for a sermon he had preached commented that it was not merely what he had said but the manner in which he spoke that had made an indelible impression.” [3]

It is hard to miss the “tone” that emanates out of the mouths of Reid and Bolkema. It rarely, if ever, appeals to the conscience in a way that exudes love, care, and compassion, but its focus is the legal demands of the law and a heavy conviction of sin. That is not to say sin has no bearing on the life of one coming to Christ, but for the ministry of GFC, it is an ever-present formula presented to the congregation in a fire-hose manner.

Someday, I pray they will see the truth of what this place has done to people. They crush the spirit, wound the soul, and feed themselves rather than the people. I can only guess the food they enjoy is their quest for power and dominance. How can I make such a claim? It comes down to my experience, observations, and what the Scriptures teach us. Several key passages show us the evidence of false teaching. Listen to the words of these verses,

Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matt 7:15—16).

False prophets are called wolves, and what do wolves do to sheep, but kill and eat them, and the fruits of their teaching evidence this. I’ve written consistently about the damage done and specifically highlighted testimonies of those damaged through the years.

Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us back into slavery— (Gal 2:4).

False brothers will destroy Christian liberty and freedoms. External appearances will always judge you, and freedom and liberty will be destroyed.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Pet. 2:1).

The warnings are abundant, and these people will arise from within Christianity, as Paul also said in Acts 20:28. Again, he says these are wolves, and they will not spare the flock. When the flock is scattered, injured, wounded, and left uncared for, that is evidence of false prophets or wolves. Paul likely had Ezekiel 34 in mind as he said these words to the Ephesian elders.  

The leadership of Grace Fellowship has a long and illustrious track record of this behavior. For those affected by this place, you are left to pick up the pieces, you will someday want answers, and I write as one willing to try and help answer them. Those calls, emails, or messages have, will, and do come. I have responded to many of them, and I pray someday, there will be answers that can help you cope with the damage that has been done.

It is not a healthy environment. It is not a place where you can take rest and comfort. It is rightly called a high-demand group for good reason. They will demand a lot from you, they will take a lot from you, and the only way NOT to be a victim is to speak out. I pray that anyone who reads this will understand my desire to expose such evil and call it what it is.

In Christ’s love, for Christ’s true church.

Kevin

[1] https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1113232254135642

[2] Sinclair Ferguson, The Whole Christ, Legalism, Antinomianism, & Gospel Assurance—Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 95.

[3] Ibid., 228.

The “Art” of Shunning

Posted on by kevinjandt

Resolving conflicts that arise between believers in the church is outlined in Matthew 18:15-19. It is a straightforward passage that takes the Christian step by step through conflict resolution. The emphasis here is that sin is involved, or at least it is perceived to be involved. That is stated clearly in verse 15, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” I say, “perceived” because the one receiving the going-to, may not see things in the same light. The passage continues, “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” Meaning, it’s all over, and once, you aired your grievance, he heard you, and you resolved the conflict.

The next step involves witnesses. I won’t outline the whole passage, but if the conflict is not solved between the two believers, we are instructed to involve others. They will help decide if there is an issue that needs adjudicating. Assuming these are non-partial, non-biased individuals it is intended to help make sense of the situation and help the sinning one see the error of his ways.

The final step says, “tell the church” And if the unrepentant does not listen to the offended brother, if he doesn’t listen to the two or three witnesses and he refuses to hear the church then he is to be as a Gentile and a tax collector. Other translations use the word “heathen,” or “pagan” in place of Gentile.

In the context of our passage in Matthew 18, the reference becomes clear that Gentiles and tax collectors are non-believers. Generally, this is a conflict between two lay people if I can use that term. The Bible provides instruction in other areas if there is a leader in sin and how to deal with him, the key text here is found in 1 Timothy 5:19 through 21. I won’t deal with that in this post because I desire to explore the concept of shunning as it relates to the end process of Matthew 18.

Specifically, I want to deal with how fundamentalist and authoritarian churches use shunning as a punishment for “wayward” church members. I have written on this topic before discussing the excommunication process that we experienced at Grace Fellowship over 5 years ago now, so I won’t rehash the same ground, but please feel free to read up on that if you are inclined, it is posted here.

Shunning is punitive for these types of “churches.” You see it in places like Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and certainly in fundamentalism. (I’ll lump authoritarian, abusive churches under the umbrella of fundamentalism for our purposes today). The shunning plays itself out in different ways. Let’s suppose I’ve been excommunicated from a fundamentalist church like GFC (which I have). We were heavily accused of NOT practicing Matthew 18. I had four conversations with the pastor and one conversation with the elders, and I wrote an email after one of the conversations with the pastor outlining our concerns about legalism at the time before we left.  

We expressed our concerns, we knew from the conversations that things would never change, we had experienced and seen far more than we needed to see that this was not a biblical church worth investing our lives and the sacrifice of our children, so we made the decision to leave. I knew it would end up where it ended up because, for countless others before us, it ended in the same way. We knew the cost. We were more than willing to pay the price, and of course, there was a price to pay.

One of those costs was being excommunicated as indicated above and the other was shunning. In the act of shunning the members are instructed they shouldn’t talk with us or have anything to do with us except for calling us to repent and encouraging us to “get right” with the church. It all seems archaic and cultic, and it is. The bigger question is it biblical? A case can be made in some respects for shunning, and I’ve written about this before in the previously linked article where in 1 Corinthians 5 the church was dealing with some gross and intentional sin.

Got Questions provides a good commentary on the act of shunning.

In any case, it would seem that extreme forms of shunning, such as considering someone “dead,” utterly ignoring him, or refusing to acknowledge his existence, go beyond what Scripture commands. After all, Jesus said that, when someone is put out of the church, he should be treated as “a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). In other words, treat an intractable offender as an unsaved person. How are we to treat the unsaved? With love and grace. The “pagans and tax collectors” need to be evangelized. We are to love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44).

Matthew 18 should not be used as a coverall to shun. It should be used to invite the disciplined member into a relationship with Christ. If they are Gentiles and tax collectors their greatest need is salvation, not avoidance. But there’s so much more to the topic such as the legitimacy of the discipline, the legitimacy of the pastors, and the church.

Last year we went back to Iowa for vacation and ran into a former member. We actually had a very nice and appropriate interaction with him, but we soon learned he received thirty-nine lashes for his insurrection and betrayal of his pastor for even engaging in a conversation with us without calling us to repentance and urging us to “meet with the elders” so they could beat us up a little more.

Our vacation this summer, once again, took us to Iowa. We spent a lot of years in Iowa and have a lot of friends and it is a priority to see them and maintain those relationships. Jen and I had discussed how to interact if we encounter anyone as we did last year. The approach would be the same. We want to be friendly, maintain self-control but also be willing to have a conversation. You never know when someone is considering leaving.

We did encounter one of the men in the church while we were at a restaurant. We were seated with some friends, and I saw this guy walk in and walked within a foot or so of us. I looked at him and said, “Hi, Brett (not his real name), and he looked at me, sort of grunted, and kept moving. I’ve known this guy for over fifteen years. I wouldn’t call him a friend, he never really was, but we went to two churches together and have had countless conversations. I’m sure he was caught off guard like Peter was last year. In this interaction, however, Brett didn’t engage, perhaps he knew better, perhaps the timing was bad, but if he did engage then he would then be accountable to the leaders. He would be expected to give us a metaphorical beatdown. He hung around the front of the restaurant for a few minutes as he was waiting for his carry-out order and then scooted out the door. Relieved, I’m sure, that I never approached him.

As he drove home, I’m sure he decided not to make the same mistake as Peter made last year and messaged his pastor to let him know we were around. My guess is he didn’t even tell his wife, because she’s more bought in than he is from my perception. Much like our second encounter last year he now has some plausible deniability. He handled Shunning 101 perfectly. Pretend like you don’t even know them. Avoid them. Run from them unless you are prepared to confront and call them to “repentance” for their insurrection. That is how it works, and he handled it well if you don’t want to get in trouble, and if someone finds out.

But the question comes down to Matthew 18’s design. Should we shun and avoid, I say absolutely not. There are times when putting someone out of the church or excommunicating is necessary. In my view, and I think it’s the biblical view, Matthew 18 is designed to win the brother back that has gone through the process of biblical church discipline, has committed a sin that is confirmed, and refuses to turn from it. In our case, and the case of countless others the “sin” is leaving the church. When a church lives in an authoritarian, legalistic way filled with fundamentalist culture leaving is impossible without excommunication and ultimately shunning is the result.

I’ve made this statement many times before, but the only way to leave is to leave. The shunning is meaningless to me, and it should be meaningless to anyone that has been shunned by this type of environment. It is unhealthy and toxic, and you and I deserve better. We deserve pastors and elders that love and care for the sheep just as Jesus loves and cares for us. If a group chooses to shun there is a high probability, they are a cult or at best cult-like in their tendencies. It continues to play itself out time and time again. Beware of how they operate, and you will be equipped to spot them and help warn others.

Kevin

The Need to Control People

Posted on by kevinjandt

I once heard Joe Theismann say, “it’s nice to be important, but it’s more important to be nice.” I understand the sentiment. It’s a “nice” statement. Being nice is not a biblical position, but it is a biblical position to be kind. Kindness has the connotation of virtue, and of being useful. Nice, according to Webster’s 1828 dictionary is softness or delicate. Modernity has told us it’s nice to be nice, but the Bible has a different solution to properly deal with people given the context necessary to deal with them. We can’t always be nice, but we must be truthful and loving, and sometimes love is not received well.

We started our summer vacation and that included a trip to Iowa. Yes, I know, who goes to Iowa for vacation? We have now lived in New Mexico for three years. It was a planned trip, and we had a desire to see many friends. The time spent with them has been sweet, and renewing affections for them and us was unnecessary, the affections have never left.

We also knew there was the possibility of encountering our old “friends” from Grace Fellowship (GFC). If you are new here you can brush up on who they are here, here, and here. In short, they are the church we were members of for nine years. When we left the church, I was serving as a Deacon and we were in good standing. We had never been under any discipline. We attended faithfully (of course that was required) and we gave faithfully and abundantly to the ministry (God loves a cheerful giver as we were reminded of every week). But we were giving to the Lord, not to them, although they were charged with the stewardship, I digress…

In the six or eight months leading up to our departure, I began having conversations with the pastor, Mike Reid, about legalism. The church was going through a lack of joy phase, admitted by the elders, and certainly experienced by our family. As time progressed it became evident, that they had zero intention or desire to make any course corrections. They were firm in their resolve, we might say, to stay the course. The course, of course, was not just legalism. It was far worse and looking back it was hard to imagine just how bad it really was and still is. I expect this post may help shed some light on those skeptics, or the ones that might think it’s time for us to get over it. I’ve addressed that topic as well previously; you can find that article here if you are so inclined.

The week we’ve spent in Iowa has been surreal. It’s a great place. It’s beautiful, it’s green, it’s friendly, it’s almost everything you would want in a place to live, except for the roads, the winters, and the cultish, or dare I say cult, “The Church of Davenport” that we once called home. I’ve not come to that distinction lightly. It took a long time for me to call it a cult. The more I’ve studied, read, and discussed the issue with others far more advanced than me, I can come to no other conclusion. The audio below will hopefully convince you as well.

Since coming to see the beauty of Christ in the gospel I have given myself to seeking the Lord and living as God calls me to live. I fail often. I get back up and seek again. The one thing I’ve never sought to do is be willfully ignorant nor rebellious to His word. I know what the Bible teaches about most major doctrines. I understand many theological nuances. I am well-studied on many topics. I understand my own weaknesses and shortcomings. But I would never knowingly dishonor the Lord through my actions. That is what I’m being accused of doing by writing these articles and appearing on the Apologetics Live podcasts to expose GFC.

What I can’t get my mind around is whether Mike Reid thinks the same thing. I’ve tried to reconcile his salvation with his actions. He has stated that I’ve questioned his salvation. I certainly do urge him to examine himself. Just as he has urged so many to examine themselves.

What I find reprehensible are his actions.  

It is after all, “by their fruits that we will know them” (Matthew 7:20). What are the fruits of Mike Reid and Grace Fellowship’s actions? These are just a few.

He has a poor reputation in the community and abroad. I would say that every church in town knows of GFC and knows how they act. It’s not just that they are active in the open air. I have no issue here, but it is that Mike himself is thought of as being imbalanced. I have personally spoken with several pastors locally, and many others nationally that know of him and know what he does. This alone should disqualify him from ministry.

“Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:7).

He is not above reproach. He has a loose tongue and often says things that are unbecoming of a pastor. Those that have been around him when he is in a casual setting know this about him. I’ve written before about how he asked my wife if “all her parts were still working” while riding in the car with another man. It is disgraceful to say something like this, but then never to recognize just how boorish this is and never come back and say something. “You know Jen, that was inappropriate of me, I’m sorry.” He can’t do that because this would show weakness from a man that touts holiness.

“Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us” (Titus 2:7-8).

I could say so much more, but I’ve been fairly exhaustive in my critiques in previous articles.

The main crux of this article is to highlight our encounter here in Iowa with a man from the church while in a grocery store on our very first night here. I’ll call him Peter for the sake of this article, but that’s not his real name. Jen and I anticipated the possibility of running into someone from GFC while here. It was simple really, we agreed to say hello in a friendly manner. We wouldn’t seek a conversation, but we would be polite, and kind. There were no internal motivations on our part as we have been accused. If we saw Mike Reid or one of the other elders, I had planned to be, “not as nice” and would say something to the effect, “how long will you go on hurting people?” I think an appropriate response to what they’ve done in their fourteen years. There is a well-attested list of those damaged under their “ministry.” 

On our first night, we went into Hy-Vee (grocery store chain) to pick up some milk. Moments into the store I saw Peter walking my way. My wife was ahead of me and she turned and pointed at him, but I had already seen him. I said, “Hello, Peter.” He turned and looked at me, probably quite surprised as you will hear in the audio. He was caught off-guard. He returned the hello and then stopped to talk. I believe he was ready to extend a hug to me, but I offered my hand instead, and he took the handshake. We spoke for a few minutes, he introduced us to his sweet daughter, five years old, as she willingly informed us. We exchanged a few pleasantries and asked a few questions, and he did the same. There was nothing nefarious, and in hindsight, his actions to be kind back to us were keeping with his instincts and his love for others.  

He and I were once friends. He respected me, and I liked him. We did a lot for his family. Jen did a LOT for them. But we did it because we loved and cared for them, not out of a sense of obligation.

As we departed the store Jen and I said, I’m betting the church knows by now that we are here. We also discussed we hope he doesn’t get in trouble for talking to us because we knew if he told Mike he would have some serious questions to answer to. I’ve been on the receiving end of those situations. You do something inadvertently or violate the rules, or don’t do something you should have, and you’ll get a call into the pastor’s office, or a meeting with the elders and a firm rebuke. “I need to love you more than that Kev,” Mike has told me before. I cringe to think of Peter getting the beat down when he was caught flat-footed by us. We didn’t do anything to hurt him or them intentionally. I hope it is an opportunity for him to reflect on the lack of grace at the fellowship “church.” Perhaps, an opportunity to see what we saw so many years ago now, and actually think for himself rather than being told what to do and think.

That happened on a Friday night and Monday morning someone sends me a text and says, “Hey, check this out.” He had no idea we were in the Quad Cities, and I don’t know how he came across it, but as I listened, I knew immediately what it was all about, because I’ve seen it play out more than once. I’ve seen grown men either make some sort of a mistake toward the church or ask too probing of a question and then end up “repenting” over their egregious sins toward the elders. I would have to believe Peter got up and confessed his sins of “ministering to us” that night in the store. I’m sure he sought the elder’s forgiveness and the congregation’s forgiveness for not honoring his lord and savior, Mike Reid.

After all, this is all about Mike. It is his reputation that was offended. It was his leadership that is being threatened. What I found most shocking, was his insistence that everyone in the church be on guard and ready to defend HIM. He was very clear that this was about HIM and HIS reputation, and the people that had interactions were not ready to stand up for their poor ol’ pastor who is being treated so terribly. 

Does that sound harsh?

In my non-professional view, however, supported by others that are in the know, Mike fits all the descriptions of a narcissist. If you listen to this recording it exhibits narcissistic behavior. He is controlling, he demands obedience, and he is afraid of losing a grip on these people. Did I mention he is controlling, not to mention his visible anger? It rolls off his tongue. To post this monologue publicly exhibits his narcissism as he twists the Scriptures to fit his own needs.

I will cite some examples but there are many. He says that we have been “put out” of the church. I stated above that we left while in good standing. Our being “put out” was after we left. So, his claim that we were put out is only to make it sound good to him and the congregation. As if, they had done it biblically. No, we LEFT the church. It’s like getting fired after you quit. No employer with a shred of intelligence fires someone after they quit because then they are liable for unemployment, but GFC excommunicates’ people like it’s going out of style. They fire them after they quit.  

He says we are the chief revilers and slanderers, and in effect, is hoping God strikes us down. Here again, Mike uses the Scriptures to meet his needs. He refuses to look at all the things he has been accused of. Not just by me, but by fourteen years of victims of his “ministry.” For there to be true reviling and slandering these things must have no basis in truth. If I went out and said he was a bank robber I would be reviling him and slandering him, but he’s not a bank robber. What I have said via the written or spoken word is true and if anyone would like to contradict those statements I’m willing to stand behind them and provide evidential support.

The truth is that he just doesn’t like the exposure. It’s easy to say I’m the slanderer and in this, he becomes the slanderer of me. He is the reviler, he is the slanderer, and he is the divisive one, and this is what narcissists do best. If I’m a believer and Peter is a believer, we are both members of the universal church and unless there is good reason to believe that I am in unrepentant sin then Peter has every right to greet me with a “holy kiss” and doesn’t need to cower because his pastor has been offended that I’ve exposed his hypocritical lifestyle. Peter did the right thing. He handled the situation with grace and love because he knew it was the right thing to do. Sadly, it probably didn’t end up that way. I only pray he realizes it someday.

In his rousing monologue linked below, Mike gave explicit instructions to his congregation on how to deal with us if they see us in public. We attended a high school baseball game and saw one of the leading men of the church. He is a man that is not afraid to tell you what he thinks. He is not afraid to offer a stern rebuke. I saw him walking straight toward me. We would have been difficult to miss. He approached and was within touching distance then took a hard left turn never making eye contact although I was looking directly at him.  

I’m sure he had to consider if the confrontation was worth it or not and decided it wasn’t by the fact he didn’t engage. He has plausible deniability. I’m confident he saw us. He has a reputation that I’m sure he wants to protect. That is probably more important than Mike’s honor, or so I theorize, perhaps the congregation doesn’t fully agree with Mike on this issue? Will others engage us if they see us while we finish our days here? That’s hard to say.    

I write this hoping that others will read these words and understand the dangers that abound. These dangers are especially real in what parades itself as Orthodox Christianity. Abuse abounds. Narcissism abounds. Legalism is only one branch of the tree. At the root lies an authoritarian leader that needs his ego stroked. Mike Reid loves to have his ego stroked, he loves, or demands to be called pastor. He loves it.

Please take the time to listen, and don’t hesitate to ask questions. I desire to be very careful with my words. To be exact in my accusations, and not to accuse without good cause. I’m not the arbitrator of who is saved and who isn’t, but I think if someone consistently hurts people and calls themselves a pastor, they better be prepared to examine their testimony of faith and see if it aligns itself with the Scriptures. It seems to me they are self-deceived. The track record is long and speaks for itself, and many have testified to its validity.

“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Tim. 5:19—20).

Lord help us stand against tyranny and abuse in the church so that they may fear the repercussions of their actions.

Listen to audio here: The audio is of poor quality, but that is in the original.

Original is located here. It starts just before two minutes and ends at sixteen minutes.

Kevin