Saturday, December 6, 2008
The term cult is thrown around a lot in speaking of a movement polarised around some one's interpretation of the Bible. From a theological stand point theologians refer to a cult as a group of people that claim to be Christian claim to believe the Bible and always deny the creedal doctrine of the Trinity. Most by demoting the Lord Jesus to being part of the created order such as the JW's or the Mormons. Others by denying that the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct from the Father affirming that they are manifestations (modalism) such as the modern day "Oneness" Pentecostals. Aside from the theological usage of the term cult, there is also a social aspect of the term that cannot be ignored. Morey's followers are zealous to preach and teach God's word and are loyal not only to Morey but to each other. They also agree with most or all that Morey says repeating his statements verbatim, even when his views are in question in reformed circles. This loyalty causes them to turn a deaf ear to any evidence of wrong doing that could be given to them. And if one of them concludes that Morey is guilty of sin, they are then rebuked and told to repent. If they do not repent of "their sin" they are then exiled from fellowship with the group they once considered a family. Some would characterise this type of influence as mind control on the part of Robert Morey.
One instance of this can be seen in the fact that Morey can get away with accusing anyone of sin from the pulpit without providing any evidence. Clark Gallagher is a good example of this, but when they decide to defend themselves they are accused of "gossip and slander". This then becomes the catch cry of all his current followers when they speak of the same individuals. Morey will tell the church members that they are not to fellowship with these individuals unless they repent of their sin. Morey limits his followers to the selective information that he gives them and the moreyites base their conclusions on that. Any criticisms of their spiritual leader are perceived as the persecution of a great man of God. This convinces them even more that they are doing God's will because Jesus predicted that His followers would be persecuted because of His name (Mat. 24:9). I like to call this the martyr card.
At Biblical Thought there is a series of articles entitled "Why Be a Member of a Church?" and the articles are good. In the comments section of the third article we find a comment by one of the bloggers.
Dec 5th, 2008
It is fascinating to see how when this blogger refers to us as those who "Don't submit to authority,...mudslingers, slanderers, gossipers, having a 'teardown' ministry thinking they are doing God's work." They demand that we provide evidence for any claims that we make about Morey which we have. But they can charge us with all these sins without providing any evidence that we are guilty of "gossip and slander". Why isn't this statement considered mudslinging or slander, etc..? May God's grace be poured upon FCCOC.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Nov 19th, 2008
One would think that those who remain ARE the moreyites, and those who left WERE (past tense) the moreyites. In the comments section of one of Glenn Hendrickson's blog posts the same woman has this exchange with Glenn, Joshua, and myself.
November 5, 2008 3:40 PM
Miss Becky states that the interest in reading our "gossip" on Morey stems from the "depravity of man." Does this mean that Paul's depravity caused him to "gossip" when he wrote "Alexander the copper smith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds." (2Tim 4:14)? Was Paul engaging in sinful behaviour? Can we not do the same with current church leaders? Or is Morey the exception to this concept? Is it not even possible that we are trying to hold Morey accountable for his actions? Perhaps trying to warn people before they in turn get hurt? Let me pick a scandal and ask miss Becky to explain how this merely constitutes "gossip". Can you explain how it is that Morey can claim that the Wessels brothers stold money from REF when we have the 1992 tax form with Morey's signature mailed in an envelope in Morey's writing that states that he owed them nearly 33,000 dollars? Why did both Bob and Anne Morey sign the "AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES" document stating that they owed the Wessels money when they were supposedly being robbed by the Wessels?
November 8, 2008 9:21 PM
Stupid Sheep said...
ltc, i was saying that of every visitor. If Glenn has a certain number most days, and more on morey days, i don't doubt a large number come for gossip. Either they are subscribed and keep track for keywords or they come because someone else told them Glenn is writing about Morey again.
1) Do you really think that peak is all people "trying to hold Morey accountable? I don't doubt a portion of that number is current-FCC folk like myself. They just keep quiet.
2) Do you really think you can hold someone accountable by reading a blog post by a third party
Miss Becky said...
"ltc, i was saying that of every visitor. If Glenn has a certain number most days, and more on morey days, i don't doubt a large number come for gossip. Either they are subscribed and keep track for keywords or they come because someone else told them Glenn is writing about Morey again."
Miss Becky said...
"1) Do you really think that peak is all people "trying to hold Morey accountable? I don't doubt a portion of that number is current-FCC folk like myself. They just keep quiet."
I cannot speak for everyone involved in the current controversy. I can only speak for FIRE, Larry Wessels, and the contributing blogs regarding OUR motives and work.
Miss Becky said...
"2) Do you really think you can hold someone accountable by reading a blog post by a third party?"
Well I don't know what you mean by "accountable?" I speak of accountability in the way that Paul held Alexander the coppersmith accountable by informing the saints. I know of a family that left FCC after listening to all the mp3s on lieutenantcolumbo. Integrity is an essential characteristic to be a biblically qualified leader. Yes mistakes are made because we are human. But the issues with Dr. Bob are several and significant. With this said, you didn't answer my question regarding the REF scandal. Do you think that we are deliberately falsifying documents? Are those not the Morey's signatures on those documents? If the documents I've made available are accurate, then Morey is guilty of theft. He is also guilty of extortion being that he send out national mail outs accusing the Wessels of stealing money and asking for financial help for REF. The case is simple. Either the Wessels are thieves and liars, or Morey is. I don't see a third option. And we have a long list of witnesses that knew Morey personally and worked for him that can attest to the latter. The man has a very long history of having issues with people. I am restricting myself to this one scandal as I ask my questions. Can you explain to us how what we are doing is any different from Paul's action towards Alexander? Can you show me that the documentation we've provided is erroneous or forged? The PDF documentation on the Internet for instance? May the Lord Jesus bless you miss Becky.
November 9, 2008 10:27 PM
LC:Good luck getting an answer from Becky regarding the ultimatum you've proposed. I've asked her that very question on a number of occasions and she has yet to answer it.
November 13, 2008 11:49 PM
Stupid Sheep said...
To spite Joshua, no, i can't say how it's any different because i'm not familiar with it. Sorry i said anything. You carry on what you're doing and i'll carry on what i'm doing...elsewhere. I shall refrain from commenting on Glenn's blog unless unrelated to all this.I'm not Morey and thus do not have to answer to any of your claims against him.
November 14, 2008 12:06 AM
Becky,The issue you responded to wasn't an ultimatum, nor the question I was referring to. I was referring to the..ultimatum presented by LC. Are you going to answer this? Again, I don't expect you to as I've asked you this question *many* times and on *every* occasion you've refused to respond. Regarding your last statement: you act as if we've been emailing you privately and attempting to force you to defend Bob. No one claimed you needed to defend Bob nor asked you to. In reality, *you've* willfully and publicly countered virtually every post against Bob. This has caused myself and others to raise legitimate objections.
November 14, 2008 12:53 AM
Stupid Sheep said...
Joshua it's because your like an annoying little critter so obsessed with his acorn. Go show the other squirrels while i eat my cake, okay? No i can't explain your claim that Morey claims the Wessels brothers "stold" money from REF. Ask the brothers, Morey, or the IRS. Doesn't concern me. I have no idea the timeline of the signing, these claims, if the payments stated were given, or the outcome of the case that they signed (it said $5,000 MAY be owed after review). I don't think you are deliberately falsifying documents and i don't know if that's Morey's signature. Whoever is the liar is between the three of them. If they have such a strong case, how come they have to turn to the people? Did they lose and they are sore about it?Many times, ah, you admit you are obsessed with this and can't move on with your life. You weren't even one affected, but getting all riled up by others.I have no idea how you got the idea that i'm acting like you've been emailing me privately and all that. You are asking me about issues about Morey and the Wessels. I'm not a part of it so i can't answer. I have NOT defended every post against Morey. You're like the liberals who think that anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview is closed-minded. Oh excuse me for not being a vicious hater like you.
Miss Becky said
"No i can't explain your claim that Morey claims the Wessels brothers "stold" money from REF."
I don't know what you mean by "claim" here. The photo copies of the mailouts Morey put out are on the net. There are several former FCC members and colleagues like Bob Ross, Dan Rosema (Morey's former video man) Mike Stephens (former BML producer and staffer for FD), Lenny Gerkin, Javier Villigran, and many many other witnesses that can attest that Morey has told this story. This is a factual matter of historical record.
Miss Becky said
"Ask the brothers, Morey, or the IRS. Doesn't concern me."
As far as Morey goes, I don't expect him to own up to anything other than saying that everyone else is wrong or in sin. As far as the brothers are concerned, I have spoken with Larry Wessels and have the paper documentation. On my website we have the testimony of the IRS agent that investigated the case and cleared the Wessels brothers of any wrong doing.
Miss Becky said
I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt on this one. Just as I believe that you are a sincere woman of God. But I'm sure it's not that hard to examine Morey's writing and compare it to the writing on the envelope and the signature on the tax form. But truth has to matter so much to you that you are willing to go anywhere it leads you. Even if it takes you down a path that is uncomfortable. The possibility that your pastor is guilty of sins that disqualify him from ministry.
Miss Becky said
This is a very good and frequently asked question. The answer is that this was a bitter experience for the Wessels and all involved. The Wessels were unpaid volunteers for REF, and it would have cost more money in legal fees to prosecute Morey than the money that was actually loaned to REF. So they sent large packages of documentation to several law enforcement agencies that did nothing. Years later one of the packages was returned unopened. The Wessels wanted to move on from this but needed to defend their reputation that had been damaged by Morey. The internet has been a significant factor now. Larry didn't have this medium at the time, but now he does. And Larry has recently contacted officials about Morey. I blogged about this on saint augustinian blog.
Miss Becky said
It grieves me to read this comment miss Becky. What this means to me is if Morey is guilty, then it's just between them. And it seems that it doesn't matter to you if he is guilty of hurting other christians. I know that you are not convinced that he's guilty (though I believe the evidence is clear). But it means that if he is, it doesn't matter. I remind you of a few requirements of being an elder. 1. "Above reproach" (1Tim. 3:2)2. "uncontentious, free from the love of money"(1Tim. 3:3) 3. "Must have a good reputation with those outside the church" (1Tim. 3:7)
November 16, 2008 2:07 AM
Becky,“Joshua it's because your like an annoying little critter so obsessed with his acorn. Go show the other squirrels while i eat my cake, okay?”More attempted insults Becky? I’m sorry but calling me “little”, an “echo”, a “critter”, etc. doesn’t influence me. Attempting to belittle me because you can’t defend your position only reveals your own insecurity.“Many times, ah, you admit you are obsessed with this and can't move on with your life. You weren't even one affected, but getting all riled up by others.”This is an outright and demonstrable lie. Please quote me where I even ONCE said that I was “obsessed with this and can’t move on with [my] life” (you should be able to since you say I “admitted” it “many times”). I have NEVER uttered this statement! I expect an apology for this, Becky. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Furthermore, *empathy* is a just and biblical motivation. I don’t need to be *directly* abused in order to justly expose an abuser. Can you show me the biblical justification for your notion that only the abused themselves are justified in exposing the abuser? Again, as I’ve said time and time again, Tom Maxham is a dear friend of mine and he was slandered/abused by your leader - this alone should be reason for you to discontinue this rhetoric about me being “unaffected”. “I have no idea how you got the idea that i'm acting like you've been emailing me privately and all that. You are asking me about issues about Morey and the Wessels. I'm not a part of it so i can't answer.”You’ve misunderstood my statements again. I’m going to paste them again for you to reread because they’re too clear to reword for you: “Regarding your last statement [“I'm not Morey and thus do not have to answer to any of your claims against him.”]: you act as if we've been emailing you privately and attempting to force you to defend Bob. No one claimed you needed to defend Bob nor asked you to. In reality, *you've* willfully and publicly countered virtually every post against Bob. This has caused myself and others to raise legitimate objections.”“I have NOT defended every post against Morey.” Exactly. That is why I said you’ve “willfully and publicly countered ***virtually*** every post against Bob”.“You're like the liberals who think that anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview is closed-minded.” Nah….I’ve simply produced documented objections to your baseless assertions. So, I don’t actually (in any way) fall into the category you’ve constructed. “Oh excuse me for not being a vicious hater like you.”Can you provide me with quotes where I demonstrated “viciousness” or “hatred” toward you along with the way you are defining these terms (as relevant to this situation)?
November 25, 2008 3:50 PM
Stupid Sheep said...
Joshua, let me try to rephrase to make it more clear; I see how it could be confusing.You said:"Again, I don't expect you to as I've asked you this question *many* times and on *every* occasion you've refused to respond."My response:"Many times"...Ah, so you admit you are obsessed.And i'm not trying to influence you by belittling you. What you do with your life is between you and God. I was just responding to your comment to Lt. about me.
Ron Hodgman Says: November 26, 2008 at 7:18 am
The fact you have interviewed this con-artist greatly lowers my opinion of your website and makes me wonder how much money you may have made as a possible Faith Defender Ministries LP partner in the sale of a church building to hotel developers.
worshipfulexplorer Says: November 27, 2008 at 3:14 pm
To your..comment, I suggest you tread carefully in the Christian life when referring to other Christians. Your language may be taken as a false witness against Robert Morey. Calling a faithful Christian such as Robert Morey such names without any justification is unbiblical and I rebuke it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ whom has been given all authority.
Your personal opinions are irrelevant to any subjects raised here, and I ask that you repent from your open sinful activities immediately, for your own good.
Please take heed, I urge you by the mercies of God.
worshipfulexplorer Says: November 27, 2008 at 11:26 pm
The link you provided only contains single-witness accusations against a targeted person. This is not evidence. It does not meet the criteria of the Bible and should be dismissed as slander, hatred, the work of a busubody(ies), etc.
“I will not repent because you have not proven that anything I have stated is untrue.”
That won’t work, Ron. It is not up to the person receiving an accusation to prove that it is untrue. In order for a charge to be established it must have witnesses. Single-witness accusations are void, otherwise anyone can say anything about anyone at anytime. The burden is on the accuser to give biblical reasons why the receiver should even “entertain” accusations.
You were asked to repent, and I well understand that people “do not want” to repent, and for you to say “I will not repent’ is not a shock. The shock comes when one actually repents. Then the Lord is glorified.
Your “evidence” is invalid and as it stands you are bearing false witness, being a busybody, and unwilling to repent. Please do not take this lightly. Scripture alone is the final judge in cases like this. Compared to Scripture, your actions here certainly call for immediate repentance that you may receive restoration.
Note: This is the second admonishing to you already.
rzhblog Says: November 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Restoration to what? Morey-ism or Christianity
The evidence is valid.
worshipfulexplorer Says: November 29, 2008 at 2:00 am
1Timothy 5:9 says, “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”
This explicit command condemns single witness accounts against an elder. Paul is using the ancient principle revealed by God to Moses. This Old Covenant principle is not abrogated by the New Covenant Law but rather is exemplified as seen in the many passages it appears in.
2 Corinthians 13:1 quotes, “EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.”
Paul’s final instructions to the church at Corinth make it clear that single witness accusations have no validity in the church.
Jesus quotes this too in Matthews account in 18:16, “BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.”
Jesus applies this to the “establishing” of a charge. If a charge is to be made it must have witnesses. If you have a conflict with a person you go to them directly. If they are not willing to hear you and repent, then you must bring witnesses with you to testify as eyewitnesses to the same event. Multiple single witnesses do not count as witnesses. The Bible mandates that a single event must have multiple witnesses. Jesus says, “take two or three with you to establish the charge.” If multiple single witnesses counted he could have said “go find others willing to testify with you to establish the charge.” But that would be inconsistent with the whole of Scripture. The Bible clearly commands that all charges be received only on the basis of two or three witnesses.
Deuteronomy 19:15 says: “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”
Charges and accusations are a serious matter. But only on the multiplicity of eyewitness accounts to the same event can any charge or accusation even be given the time of day. If the biblical qualifications are not met, the charge or accusation MUST be dismissed. This is a non-negotiable matter of fact revealed in Scripture.
I repeat: THIS IS A NON-NEGOTIABLE MATTER OF FACT REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE.
Since your “evidence” is a compilation of erroneous accusations that do not meet the biblical qualifications, I suggest you look to Scripture to see what you are to do in such as case. My summary of what it says, and please check for yourself, is that you are to avoid it, do not take any part in it, dismiss it, and have nothing to do with those that perpetuate it.
rzhblog Says: November 29, 2008 at 7:08 am
There has been more than two witnesses and there is the matter of the witness of a Texas Baptist Church. I have no time to deal with your cultic games.
worshipfulexplorer Says: November 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Unfortunately, for you, the point at which you first received the accusations, they were not presented according to the biblical standards.
There is no Texas Baptist Church witness. You are a person misled.
You failed to shun the slander on the basis that it fails to meet the biblical criteria, and instead became given over to it and now you are deep in sin.
You have been shown your error from Scripture and asked to repent.
You have admitted that you will not repent.
What you cannot say at this point is that you didn’t know you were wrong. You know you are wrong and deep in sin. What you must say is why you went ahead and continued to do what you knew was wrong; why you knew what was forbidden in Scripture and why you went ahead and continued in it anyway.
rzhblog Says: November 29, 2008 at 3:58 pm
There are several witnesses that there is a Texas Baptist church and even documentation on this matter. Just because you say there is no Texas Baptist church doesn’t make it true. You have limited your charge against me in a way that is not Biblical since there is really a Texas Baptist church involved in this matter. If I am in error you are required to take it before a real New Testament church and that church not you will judge if I am in error or not. You have no Biblical authority to say that I am in sin without a church backing you up.
Travis Says: November 29, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I am reading the 81 page document from FIRE and I will have to agree so far that 1) FIRE shouldnt have been involved and 2) most of the evidence (that I have read so far) is based on single witnesses.
until bitterness and anger is repented of this will never be resolved.
I suggest the accuseers go to Faith Community in PERSON and confront in a manner pleasing to God, and go from there.
worshipfulexplorer Says: November 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm
1. Don’t try to switch the issue and make it seem like I am saying that there isn’t a Texas Baptist church in existence. You have publicly charged Robert Morey as a “con artist” yet you have not been conned by him. You do not have witnesses to support your claim, and even if all you’re doing is repeating another person’s claim that he is, since their claims are invalid according to the written word of God, then you become a gossiper and a busybody - 2 things severely condemned in Scripture and highly punishable by God.
2. You say: “If I am in error you are required to take it before a real New Testament church and that church not you will judge if I am in error or not.” Where do you get the idea that I am required to do this? If you feel you have Scriptural support, now would be a good time to offer it.
3. You also said: “You have no Biblical authority to say that I am in sin without a church backing you up.” Where does this idea come from? I have basically memorized the entire New Testament and I have no idea of even possible passages that you may be interpreting incorrectly to conclude as such. Again, if you feel you have Scriptural support now would be a really good time to offer it before you gain a reputation for yourself as one who arbitrarily and autonomously makes rules for Christian ethics.
Please provide the name, location, and contact info of the church to which you are a member in good standing of.
worshipfulexplorer Says: November 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm
You have shown wisdom in the way you are dealing with this.
May the Lord continue to bless you!
I am astounded that these individuals could refer to the evidence as "single-witness accusations". I have to say that these men have either not reviewed the evidence carefully, or are deliberately bearing false witness. If one just looks at the scandal and church split involving Morey's assistant Clark Gallagher and the many witnesses that spoke out on that. These testimonies alone should fit the requirements of Deut. 19:15, 2Cor. 13:1, and 1Tim. 5:9. But that is only the tip of the iceberg, allow me to list some of the many many witnesses of Morey's sinful conduct.
5. Dan Rosema (Morey's former video man)
6. Pastor Charles Bullock (Official Arbitrator & Morey's former TV sponsor)
7. George Bonneau (Published several of Morey's books at Crown Publications)
8. Hank Kitchen (Former Police Investigator and researcher for Morey)
9. Mike Stephens (Former Bob Morey Live producer, FD staffer, and FCC member)
10. Tom Maxham (Former FD staff member and counselor at FCC)
11. James Mulroney (Former FD staff member and FCC member)
12. Joel Hughes (Former FCC member)
13. Joey Enriquez (Former FCC member)
14. Glenn Hendrickson (Former FCC member)
15. Drew Kerr (Former FCC elder)
16. Henry Nowakowski (Former FCC elder)
17. Mike Robirds (Former FCC men's descipleship leader)
18. Joshua Young (Former FCC member)
19. Javier Villigran (Former FCC member)
20. Lenny Gerkin (Former FCC member)
Now if you list the wives of this small list of names, the number could double. And this is without the board of FIRE and the list of testimonies they have of former FCC members. But how do all of these witnesses constitute "single-witness accusations"? Or if I may ask it another way, how many witnesses does it take for a moreyite to admitt we have met the requirements of Deut. 19:15, 2Cor. 13:1, 1Tim. 5:9?
But I see a clear double standard in play here, Morey has stated that he has zero respect for Hank Hanegraaff. Morey uses the evidence provided by the Martin family to illustrate the case against Hank Hanegraaff. But what kind of evidence does the Martin family have? It is eye witness accounts from former CRI employees testifying to his unethical behaviour. In fact, there was a "Group for CRI Accountability" that was formed to deal with the financial issues. Many don't know this but two of the members of that group were Mike Stephens, and George Bonneau. Do those names sound familiar? These men have also worked with Dr. Robert A. Morey and have testified to his unethical behaviour. Why is their testimony valid when they speak out against Hank Hanegraaff but not against Robert Morey? Why are all of the witness(es) considered "apostate", disgruntled", "busybody", "single-witness accusations" when it comes to Morey but not when it comes to Hanegraaff? Joel Hughes wrote an article entitled Frightening Parallels Between Morey and Hanegraaff, showing the similarities between them. But I guess if you support and benefit from Morey's ministry and church group you can say there is no evidence with a wave of the hand labeling it "slander and gossip", "single witness accusations" and give him a pass. Though Morey's desciples practice accountability with one another, it is impossible for Morey to be held accountable by a church that refuses to honor this biblical mandate on their pastor.
Friday, November 21, 2008
What / Who are a moreyites?
Nov 19th, 2008
There is technically no fixed definition for the term "moreyite" given that there are a so few of them. The term moreyite is used to denote a disciple of the teaching ministry of Dr. Robert A. Morey. They tend to display many or all of the following characteristics in varying degrees.
1. They accept the claims and assertions of Bob Morey on his personal and academic background at face value.
2. They unquestioningly accept Bob Morey's claims on theology, philosophy, and history as fact.
3. They emulate and repeat Bob Morey's talking points verbatim in discussions of faith and morals.
4. They (like Bob Morey) condescendingly belittle other Christians that disagree with them and people of other faiths accusing them of changing the subject.
5. They turn away any evidence of wrong doing on the part of Bob Morey always giving him the benefit of the doubt.
6. They disassociate from former church members that find Bob Morey's behaviour to be unethical.
7. They charge any critic of Bob Morey with "slander and gossip" (a Morey mantra) and call former FCC members "disgruntled" and "apostates".
This is just a working definition and description of some of the negative characteristics that these people share. They are also very zealous for the things of God and treat each other as a family when you become part of that circle. They are theologically oriented bunch that have a fire to teach and preach the gospel to a dying world. But once you step outside that circle, things change as outlined point 6.
Moreyites, Are those people who gain an interest and focus in a man. They are not really there to be an active part of the body.
This is not how the term has been used by those who are no longer in ministry with Morey. Most if not all those who have worked with Morey belong to other churches involving themselves in other ministries. Larry Wessels for instance has a ministry that continues to do apologetics on Islam, Roman Catholicism, and the cults.
Identifying and exercising gifts, being a blessing to those around them, being accountable to God through each other. In the end, when things don’t work out the way they expect, they leave because they are not really interested in the church, which is made up of believers, not a building or any individual man!
This is clearly a false statement by the blogger for two reasons.
1. These people continue to serve God elsewhere.
2. He cannot see into the heart of those who have left FCC and judge their motives.
We are well aware of the fact that we as sinners, wil fail each others expectations, violate each others rights at times.
This by the way is an example of point 3 where Morey tells all his followers that he will fail them...
But we are soldiers in the Army of the King of Kings! We press on together, and we by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, are not those who abandon our brothers! We stand together and reach out as aministry to the world!
Nov 20th, 2008
The phrase "We....are not those who abandon our brothers!" I find ironic in light of points 6 and 7. But we will continue to pray and hope that one day they will realize that we care for them and hope that they will see Dr. Robert Morey for who he is.
Monday, November 17, 2008
I bet'cha the prophets of Baal' asked that same question of Elijah, "Don't you have anything better to do?"
I find it obscenely comical how morey worshiper Mario Herrera states, "Faith Community OC is thriving..." yet it's been reported time and time again that God's Children are being ushered out of Robert Morey's church in droves. I guess when you're under the spell of thieves and liars, "thriving" takes on a whole other meaning.
Friday, November 7, 2008
As many of you already know, the previous couple of weeks have been very interesting. Before I get into all of that I'd like to let you know about the informative material from the Apologetics Index concerning "Abusive Churches Discourage Questions." This subject definitely relates to current events & you should find it fascinating reading.
I was planning to send out a general update a few weeks ago but one event after another kept happening that I found myself constantly being delayed. Many of you are already aware of some of the things I'll mention here since I did e-mail some of the goings on to a limited number of you with appended attachments & documentation.
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelicals (F.I.R.E.) has kicked Robert Morey of Faith Defenders out of their organization. The board of that organization issued a statement to all their members citing their reasons why. They have not officially allowed a public posting of their announcement yet but some of the things they mentioned after substantial evidence was reviewed (inside sources say they had at least 11 signed statements from witnesses) were: Morey abused his pastoral authority, badly mistreated people, & refused to meet with the FIRE board to discuss these issues. The FIRE board unanimously asked Morey to resign from their organization which he did. Morey, in his typical fraudulent fashion, put a whole new spin on this story blaming FIRE instead of himself on his website trying to hide the gravity of this situation under the rug from the general public. This is what Morey always does when he is caught red-handed, he just tries to focus blame somewhere else.
Early in October 2008 Morey's "Faith Defenders" filed a "copyright infringement" complaint with Yahoo!.com through their copyright department to have the 13 anti-Morey long version videos we had posted on Yahoo Video removed from the Internet. Morey's "infringement" argument succeeded in knocking our 13 shows off temporarily. I contacted a local copyright specific law firm here in Austin & worked with them to counter-notify Yahoo!.com that this "copyright infringement" argument by Faith Defenders was bogus. Yahoo!.com then gave Morey & his "Faith Defenders" cult 10 days to sue us in court with a restraining order. Of course we were ready to go to court & prove our case but as it turned out "Truth Seeker" Bob & his band of "Faith Defenders" turned tail & did nothing! Therefore, Yahoo!.com reinstated our right to have our anti-Morey videos re posted on Yahoo Video. At the time of this writing we have uploaded 2 of the original 13 shows: 1. "Does God Love Everybody? Faith Defenders Robert Morey Condemns Himself & 2. The Christian & Conspiracies: Faith Defenders Robert Morey Falsely Accuses #2. To see these just go to Yahoo Video & once on their homepage search "Robert Morey" Hopefully over the next week or two we'll have all of the rest of them back up. By the way, you can still see all 13 long version shows on Google Video right now since they remained online the entire time. This waste of time incident with Morey's bogus "infringement" garbage reminds me of the 1990's when he fraudulently took away my home telephone number by sending the telephone company a fake letter supposedly by someone else (this is all documented here). One of our 58 shows dealing with Morey on Youtube also covers this. By the way, our Youtube shows on Morey have now had over 11,000 viewings!
Morey is currently circulating the rumor that he may have a "life threatening" illness of some kind. Morey's record of being a fraud & con man is well established. That's why I am able to put all this stuff on the Internet & shout this stuff about Morey from the mountain tops because everything I'm saying about his fraudulent activity is true & documented & he can't do a thing about it. Now why in the world would I believe a man like this when he says he has a "life threatening illness"? What better way for a con man to get sympathy & support. If I say "I'm dying" then everybody feels sorry for me. Don't believe this man unless he can come up with verifiable medical proof that has been validated by independent sources. Has he told anyone what this "life threatening illness" specifically is? So far the best evidence I've heard for Morey being ill comes from my dear friend Bob L. Ross who simply told me in a short e-mail that Morey "looks" like he is ill based on some of his latest photos.
Finally, I did report Morey to several law enforcement agencies for criminal investigation. I sent my complaints via e-mail & certified mail & I have my signed certified receipts back from all of them. I filed a criminal complaint with the Internal Revenue Service for all the financial mischief Morey has been up to at his "Faith Community Church" & his "Faith Defenders" outfit, not to mention his dealings with others, I reported Morey for mail fraud to the United States Postal Inspection Service, I reported Morey to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on a wide range of issues, & I reported Morey for criminal investigation to the Orange County District Attorney's office. The Orange County District Attorney wrote me a letter suggesting I report Morey to the Police Department where Morey resides (Orange, California). I'll get around to doing that soon. The District Attorney's letter closed with the encouraging statement, "we intend to consider your complaint further. If it is determined that legal action by this office is appropriate, you will be contacted."
Anyway, you can see that October was a busy month.
Stay close to the Lord Jesus Christ in these evil days,
Below is a picture of the letter sent to Larry Wessels mentioned above.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Guess the apple really doesn't fall to far from the tree after all!
According to Poppa Morey, daughter Ruthanne Morey Reid has just voted for America's first Black Muslim President of these United States!
Visit here to hear audio of "Dr." Morey calling Mr. Obama a Muslim!
Dysfunctional family atmosphere anyone?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Dear Brothers: Withrow, Krogh, Ray, Anderson, Crotts, Elliff, Flatt, Marcellino, Newheiser, and Sale,
(1) You have refused to participate in a conference call requested by members of the FIRE Board to talk with you about concerns that have been brought to our attention.Comment: Since I was not the elder who dealt with Maxham, I sent you to talk with the elder who did so. I would not be able to answer some of your questions as I was not involved in the non-compliance of Maxham.
However, Morey was the only elder at FCC at the time. If you look at the Timeline of FCCOC Eldership you see that Morey ordained elders after Maxham's departure from FCC. This means that even if Morey didn't know every detail (being that he appointed someone else to deal with Maxham) he is still responsible as the then sole elder at FCC.
We did not know that the issue had been secretly switched from Maxhamʼs non-compliance to slander against me personally. I am forbidden by Scripture to answer slander and gossip. I am sorry you did not understanding that I would sin against my Lord if I did so.
Morey has perfected the art of accusing others of the very things that he himself does. The situation with Maxham was what moved FIRE to look into Morey's behaviour as an elder of a church. But the moment someone examines his personal character (which is one of the qualifications of an elder) he accuses them of "slander and gossip." This mantra is a brilliant Morey tactic that keeps his most loyal followers at bay from the truth. Scripture does command us not to "slander and gossip", or not to listen to the counsel of "slander and gossip" but I don't know one that states not to answer it. Surely Paul defended himself from the "slander and gossip" of the Judaizers and the Corinthians that challenged his authority.
Notice how many times Morey mentions or accuses others of his mantra of "slander" and "gossip", it is a great way to play the martyr.
(2) We have received overwhelming substantial and consistent documentation and testimonies that reveal a pattern of abusing pastoral authority and injuring Christʼs sheep that cannot be tolerated within FIRE.Comment: Since we have never heard of or seen such documentation, we do not know what you are talking about. Scripture tells us that it is gossip and slander to listen such things (1 Tim. 5:19).
Was Paul guilty of "gossip and slander" when he said "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife." (1Cor. 5:1). And 1Tim. 5:19 talks about needing two or three witnesses in accusing an elder of wrongdoing. It is clear from all the documentation and witnesses provided on the Internet that we have satisfied the requirements of this passage.
I am guessing it is a petition with names on it of people who say that I am mean or something like that. I am surprised that anyone would take such a silly document seriously.
I suppose Morey would be "surprised that" Paul would have taken such "a silly document seriously". Paul wrote to Timothy about qualifications of an elder, "he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1Timothy 3:7)
a. Korah and over 300 leaders gave “overwhelming substantial and consistent documentation and testimonies” against Moses in Num. 16.2
b. The enemies of Paul gave “overwhelming substantial and consistent documentation and testimonies” against him in Acts 24:1-9.
c. Jesus was convicted by “overwhelming substantial and consistent documentation and testimonies” by his enemies.
The people in these passages were challenging the authority of men we know gave "God-breathed" revelation to them. With Jesus they had to twist his words and lie about him as the gospels tell us they did. How the testimonies of those men constitute "overwhelming substantial and consistent documentation and testimonies" is beyond me. The issue with Morey is whether these witnesses are telling the truth about his abusive character. And to parallel them to the biblical witnesses that we know were in sinful in their actions against the saints merely begs the question. Morey is accusing them of slander while not dealing with the evidence.
d. The same was true of Luther, Calvin, etc.
With the reformers the same principle applies, we believe that they were right to fight against Rome. The Reformers even answered the slander against them (which Morey claims is forbidden in scripture) and we believe they vindicated their work. The evidence of Morey's abusive behaviour has not been answered and hence stands.
The leadership and congregations of New Life Bible Church and FCC could sign a statement that I have not taught heresy, committed immorality, or abused my authority. Would this satisfy you?
No it wouldn't, because these people have not been injured by Morey yet. The current witnesses against Morey would have gladly signed that same petition in his favor years ago. They now hold a different opinion about his character. The question is why would people that loved him and worked with him now call for his repentance of sinful wrongdoing. Supposing someone had stolen your car and you had 7 witnesses and other evidence that someone you knew was the guilty party. You found out that there were others throughout the years that have testified to his pattern of theft. But then you had a group of witnesses that say he's never done that to them. Would we acquit him of the crime simply because he didn't steal from everyone?
You would end up with two sets of documentation:
(1.) the leaders and members of the continuing churches who testify that their pastor is gracious and loving man who follows the Bible in everything he does;
Mostly people who have not looked at the history of evidence of Morey's abusive character and have not been victims themselves.
(2.) those who were disciplined or left in sympathy with those disciplined or left for no known reason, who testify that the pastor is a mean man who hurt their feelings.
Or they could be God fearing people that came to the realization that Morey was an unethical man and could not continue to submit to him as a pastor. People that looked up to him as a spiritual leader and were eventually injured by his actions. But this is an interesting point by Morey because he recognizes that he has this reputation among many. This in spite of the fact that scripture tells us what a servant of God should be. "The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2Tim 2:24-26) Even though the passage speaks about how a servant of God should treat an unbeliever, the principle applies all the more when dealing with members of the church. And "gentleness" is not a gift that any honest person can say Morey has mastered.
How would you determine which group was telling the truth?
By examining the evidence and weighing the testimonies of the witnesses and determining the truth of the matter.
1. The fallacy of ad populum. Whoever has more names than the other?
No one says that whoever has more witnesses is right so this is a straw-man. However, Morey is admitting that there are more witnesses against him than for him. This is an admittion on his part of the negativity of his reputation among many christians. Let us remember what Paul said to Timothy "he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1Tim. 3:7)
Moses would have been condemned!
Well we know from scripture that the witnesses were wrong. But is Morey suggesting that Moses should not have been held accountable if he had been guilty of wrong doing?
2. Take each accusation apart to see if it has any hard evidence to back it up. This will take months to do and exhaust all the men and churches involved.
This sounds very convenient for any christian leader that is suspected of wrongdoing. The problem with this statement is that if Morey is guilty of sinning against the saints, we should not bother to "exhaust all the men and churches involved". If this is the case, then what is the point of having accountability in church anyway?
3. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not on the accused to disprove.
The "burden" has been met with Morey's history of scandals.
If someone slanders a pastor- having never come first to him in private in obedience to Matt. 18 - by what biblical basis do you take seriously such accusations? The first thing I ask when someone comes to me and slanders someone is, “Have you first gone to this person in private? If not, I will not listen to you until you follow Matt. 18.”
If one listens to the testimonies of the witnesses against him, one can see that Morey has been confronted about things. And when this takes place, Morey then slanders them questioning their mental states and accuses them of gossip and slander. One instance is found with two former members of FCC that Morey "handed over to Satan".
With respect to (1), Dr. Jim Newheiser, in accord with Scripture and our Constitution, requested assistance from FIRE in resolving issues affecting “the peace, unity and edification” of several churches and individuals (FIRE Constitution Article 7.F). FIRE Moderator Greg Withrow emailed you on Oct 2, 2008 and said, “In reviewing correspondence between yourself and Grace Bible Church, as well as the testimony of current and former leaders and members in your ministry,we felt that we needed to contact you and discuss the issues that have arisen. We have concerns for you as a fellow Pastor, as well as concerns regarding your involvement as an individual member in FIRE. We are requesting that you join us in a conference call.” Although you agreed to this process when you applied for membership in FIRE, you rejected the Boardʼs request, insisting that, “We must make it absolutely clear that according to our doctrinal statement, we cannot and will not ask FIRE or any other outsiders to arbitrate or adjudicate our internal church business such as Maxhamʼs resignation. You have no biblical authority to intrude into the internal affairs of member churches.” Dr. Morey, not only do we have no authority to intrude into the internal affairs of member churches, we also have no desire to do so. However, Acts 15 supports the idea of elders from several churches conferring together to resolve issues that affect the churches. Such a church council has no authority to impose its findings on a local church or its officers, but it can publish its findings and recommendations to all concerned. Surely we can agree that there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors. This is the biblical basis for The 1689 Confession 26.15 and also for our FIRE Constitution Article 7.F. The effects of your actions have overflowed the boundaries of your church and have affected other churches and individuals. Consequently, we have been asked to provide assistance in resolving these matters. While we have no authority to compel you to participate in a conference call, we think that you were unwise in rejecting the opportunity to meet with us.
Comment: The Acts 15 council was not called to discuss the complaints of people against a pastor. I have reread the passage and do not see any discussion of any slander or gossip against some pastor. The council dealt with DOCTRINAL issues that affected the entire church. Your interpretation of the passage is wrong. The doctrinal issues related to the Jewish-Gentile relationship.
There are two things that I observe from Morey's comment here.
1. Morey seems to think that either:
a. FIRE believes that Acts 15 was about "slander or gossip against some pastor".
b. You cannot draw a pedagogical principle from Acts 15 about the churches working together to resolve an issue.
However, FIRE has never stated that the passage deals with "slander or gossip against some pastor". And if Morey is denying the principle behind Acts 15 then he would have to reject the passages he quoted above regarding Moses, Paul, and Jesus. After all those passages were not dealing with "slander or gossip against some pastor" in a local church were they?
2. Morey as a member of FIRE is admitting that he is not abiding by the FIRE Constitution Article 7.F.
Furthermore, you sought to avoid interaction with us by directing us to Elder James Epperly to answer our concerns and stated that “In order to abide with the Board's resolutions, I must refrain from dealing with him [Tom Maxham] any further.” We sought to speak with you only about our concerns, but you have since included your Board in correspondence directed to us. Dr. Morey, we will respect your desire to include your Board in our communications, but we want to remind you that you are a member of FIRE, not them, and our concern is with your behavior, not theirs. We will continue to communicate directly with you as a FIRE member but will copy our correspondence to your Board as you wish.
Comment: The original issue with Newheiser was Tom Maxhamʼs non compliance, resignation, and then schismatic sins.
However Morey has not proven that Tom Maxham is guilty of "schismatic sins" this is Morey's allegation. It is Morey and Epperly who have the burden of proof for this claim.
Somewhere along the way, Newhesier switched the issue to ad hominem attacks against me personally.
As I mentioned above, Morey now accuses Newheiser of switching the "issue to ad hominem attacks against" Morey. When Newheiser was simply trying to find out the truth regarding the situation between him and Maxham. Let us not forget the qualifications of in elder explained by Paul in 1Timothy 3.
If some disgruntled ex-member of a church has a problem with the leadership of his past church, then he has Matt. 18 to follow.
Which they have and has resulted in several church splits in Pennsylvania and California.
With respect to (2), while it is true that "the first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him" (Prov 18:17), if the other party refuses to cooperate then the first to present his case seems, well, right! Because you have refused to meet with us in a conference call as we requested, we are left to draw our conclusions based upon the evidence and testimonies that we have received. We believe the evidence of pastoral improprieties and the gross mistreatment of people is overwhelming.Comment: Since we thought the issue was Maxham, I referred you to the elder in charge of him. You did not tell us that you had changed the issue. You should said, “Look, Bob, Newheiser has put together a document of all the slander and gossip he could find. Although these accusations have no hard evidence to support them, they do say you are “mean.” We have read some “tasty morsels” (Pro. 18:8) and would like you to answer these accusations.”
Following the Dr. Robert Morey play book, he now mocks and accuses Newheiser of putting "together a document of all the slander and gossip he could find" against him. But how does Morey know that there is "no hard evidence to support them" if he had "never heard or seen such documentation" as he claims?
Speaking candidly, this Board of pastors, your peers, unanimously agrees that your actions are inappropriate and are grounds for disqualification from ministry. While recognizing that authority for removal from ministry belongs to Faith Community Church, we do have the authority to seek your removal from membership in FIRE. We therefore request your immediate resignation as an individual member of FIRE. If you do not resign, we will begin the process to bring this matter with the appropriate documentation and testimonies to the attention of the full membership of FIRE with our unanimous recommendation that you be removed from membership at the next National Conference.
COMMENT: I can see where this is going. As friends of Newhesier, you have already pre-judged and pre-condemned me without a trial on the basis of sinful and groundless gossip and slander that fails to meet biblical qualifications. You have violated Deut. 19, Matt. 18, 1 Tim. 5, etc. .
Well again Morey goes from being questioned to accusing others of sinful behaviour. He accuses FIRE of precondemning him without meeting the "biblical qualifications." It's funny to me that Morey says that they violated the above passages when it was he that refused to have a conference call with them on the issue.
You rejected the vast amount of biblical material I sent you and have chosen slander over Scripture, friendship over Lordship. If I resign from or am thrown out of FIRE, Newheiser will use that to redeem Maxham at NANC. That, of course, is his goal. You have allowed him to manipulate you into his smear campaign on the behalf of his friend Maxham. I admonish you brothers for being so gullible.
And now Morey pontificates how FIRE is being manipulated by Newheiser to believe the so-called "slander" against him. Bare in mind that Morey has not proven his accusations against FIRE, Newheiser, or Maxham. He is now engaging in the very actions of "slander and gossip" that he spends so much time condemning.
Now we have a decision to make:
a. We could show up and debate you publicly at the next FIRE meeting on the biblical issues that apply to this situation and with ease destroy the flimsy accusations made against me.These are strong words but we have yet to see the evidence to back it up. Anyone can say this and make his followers cheer for him, but it's another to actually do it.
We have never heard a single accusation that was credible or met the biblical qualifications.
Well this is a shock, Morey says he's innocent. That must make it true right? But who decides what "accusation" is "credible" against Morey? Are we to ask Morey for approval?
b. We could show up with godly people from my previous churches who would testify that I am a gracious, loving pastor.
What about the people that were involved in the church splits in Pennsylvania and California? Will their testimonies count? Or will Morey dismiss their testimonies branding them as "gossip and slander" not provide evidence as usual.
c. Newheiser would show up people whose blogs and internet sites are filled with “bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander” (Eph. 4:31).
This answers part of my question, but how does he know they are angry or bitter? Can he see into their hearts and make that judgment? Is it not even hypothetically possible that they want justice done? Could they want to warn other potential victims?
d. FIRE would explode as pastors would divide over whether FIRE should be used for such things. It would become a circus.
e. Other long standing disagreements among other pastors would now have to be debated and judged. FIRE would become a nasty negative experience.
How does Morey know that this would happen? Are we suppose to believe this would happen because Morey says so? Why can't it be that FIRE abides by their Constitution Article 7.F. and continues to edify the body of Christ in this regard?
f. Or do we at FCC do the gracious thing?
1. protect the members of FIRE from the foolishness of its leaders;
2. protect the members of the churches involved from the emotional turmoil of having to deal with old internal issues;
3. avoid wasting more time and energy on silly accusations that fail to meet biblical qualifications;
4. avoid wasting time on an issue that has already been pre-judged by those who are not willing to submit to biblical standards;
5. avoid tearing apart FIRE by public debate and chaos;
Given that Morey has concluded that FIRE is guilty of the following (unproven) errors. He now pretends to take the moral high ground leaving FIRE saving them from waisting time in turmoil. And now doesn't have to be held accountable for his actions as he has continually done.
We have always said that Newhesier is free to accept Maxham. We did not involve FIRE. We did not change the issue from Maxham to slander and gossip. If the accusations do not concern morals or doctrine but matters of discipline and ministerial judgment, there is no group above the local church to adjudicate such things. You are free to disagree with our doctrine just as we are free to disagree with yours.
Actually it is Morey who has changed the subject, the issue was Morey's unethical behaviour towards Maxham and several others. Though Morey is not guilty of teaching heresy, this is an issue of morals, but again Morey is accusing FIRE of changing the issue when it is he who is changing the issue. He is accusing them of listening to slander and gossip against him, when in reality they had documentation and witnesses against him. Those are two very different things.
Be assured that we have forgiven you for your foolishness. Hopefully, you have already decided that FIRE will never again get involved with such a “tar baby.” Hopefully, other pastors will not be put through such nonsense. Future pastors will thank us for keeping FIRE from being used for personal vendettas.
First he calls them foolish, then says they will thank him for it. This speaks volumes about him.
Lastly, brethren, there is lost world going to hell out there. There are Muslims who want to kill us. The gospel is being denied as never before by heretics all over the place. And, while the world and church are burning, we are fiddling away on issues of whether some disgruntled ex member of a church feels that his pastor was “mean.” Shame on us!
Once again, this is not about "disgruntled" ex members feeling their pastor was mean, it is about holding an elder accountable for his actions. This again is "changing the issue" which he so clearly condemns.
I was sitting with Francis Schaeffer in Switzerland one day when he gave me the following illustration that has shaped and formed my ministry to this day. “The church is like ship at sea that is slowing sinkingbecause the enemy has punched holes in the bottom of the ship below the water line. Bob, your gifts for writing are wonderful and I want you to use them to patch the holes below the water line. While you are dealing with the great issues such as the existence of God, others are up on deck arguing over rearranging deck furniture while the ship is sinking. Do notwaste your time arguing over deck furniture.” To my shame, I forgot his kind exhortation and wasted valuable time arguing over deck furniture with you. Please forgive me for not understanding this sooner and the need to redeem the time because the days are evil. I hold no personal animosity against you or anyone else (including Maxham, Newheiser, et al). I agree with Paul that is always foolish to defend your reputation (2 Cor. 11:21). Let us then leave to the Great Judge to reveal the hearts and motives of men on the day when each manʼs ministry will be examined. To Him alone be the glory both now and forever more, Amen!
We agree whole heartedly that you should "not waste your time arguing over deck furniture," but this does not give any christian leader a right to injure Christ's sheep. This does not give any pastor the right to abuse their power and accuse them of "slander and gossip" while in the process slandering them and causing them pain. When Saul of Tarsus was on the road to Damascus persecuting the church, the Lord Jesus told him that it was a persecution of the Lord Jesus himself. To injure the saints is to injure the very body of Christ, hopefully one day Dr. Robert Morey will understand that.
My resignation is effective as of Oct. 12, 2008. No future communication will be forth coming. We all have better things to do with our time.
Hopefully one day Morey will see the error of his ways and repent of his sins against the saints and restore his broken relationships.