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.