|
to get away with this un-Scriptural behaviour? We will see, shortly, that Lewis was not true to his promise here: 'Now I don't wish to rehearse chapter and verse but, if someone wants me to, I will do at the close of the meeting'. At the end of the meeting he failed to live up to these words just as he failed to follow through his other 'promises' regarding the un-Scriptural way the meeting would be run from the beginning of this debacle.
45. Beware those who try and whitewash the truth
Richard Lewis : I think that having read the letter - that there are times when we who are ministers may use words which in hindsight we may not wish to use again - incorrectly, but unless you want your minister to stand there with a piece of paper in his hand and read it word for word, then, you know, you must be open to that. The extracts of the text which I have seen do not lead me to believe that your pastor is a heretic, and that's a view expressed by the Superintendent as well. The deacons have an opportunity at this meeting to speak as they feel led, O.K. They are not speaking corporately. If they wish to speak, they will do what everyone else does - they will come to the microphone and do so. There is no party line on this. Let me remind you that the deacons have considered the serious char杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧杧 Following that will be an opportunity for others of you to come and to speak as you feel led.
[At this point my wife, Zoë, pulled at my arm as I stood up to make an opening statement. She made it clear to me that she was not going to speak because she knew the matter was not going to be dealt with fairly by the Baptist Union and their representative, Richard Lewis, had already shown his bias. When Lewis stated: 'The extracts of the text which I have seen do not lead me to believe that your pastor is a heretic, and that's a view expressed by the Superintendent as well', he is making a judgement ahead of the evidence. This is obviously un-Scriptural. There was clearly no indication of any kind that the deacons letter had to be responded to in order to ensure that the heresy issue would be dealt with as well as the abusive and un-Scriptural behaviour of Roger Wheelhouse. Richard Lewis was also pinning his judgement of the letter on a single Scripture: Matthew 18:15-17 and this is also inadvisable. No major doctrine is ever be based on one Scripture - unless you are like the Mormons, and then you take 1 Corinthians 15:29 and start baptising for the dead - on the misinterpretation of one Scripture. I did not intend to deal with Matthew 18 - which has to do with personal sin against a brother - until the end of the meeting - if there was time. But in the meantime it would act as an excellent catalyst to fuel the tempers of Roger and his supporters!]
46. Beware the man who does not rely on the Bible to support his motives and decisions
David Williams: Could you, for a start, please clarify for us what this five minutes per speaker actually means?
Richard Lewis: Yes. I think what we actually want to do is to give as many people an opportunity to speak if they so wish. And, it is my judgement, that if you can't say it in five minutes the, er, you know . . . .
David Williams: Could you prove that to us from Scripture?
Richard Lewis : Well, no! I don't need to!
David Williams : Yes, you do!
Richard Lewis : I don't need to prove that... I don't need to prove that from Scripture - if we're going to have that sort of debate now this meeting will stop. I mean I am quite clear on this - I have taken advice from people. I . . .I . .. I am concerned that as many people as possible have an opportunity to speak, O.K. The only way I can do that is to actually ask you to observe some sort of time restriction, O.K. Unless you want to stay here until midnight. Now I'm quite happy to stay here till midnight, but I'm sure others aren't, O.K. And if you want to test the meeting I'm happy to test the meeting. But I'm not here to debate scripture in terms of time and all the rest of it.
[Lewis seriously thought he could Scripturally stop the meeting over this point? Who had he taken advice from? And how typical of the Baptist Union representative that he would refuse to debate the Scriptural view! Clearly, Scriptural arguments would carry little weight with this man. We will see later how this indolent view of Scripture is held throughout and beyond this meeting.]
David Williams : Would you say then that it's also Scriptural for you to stand up and actually make a statement, more or less bringing an emphasis and a conclusion to these matters, before anyone has even spoken?
Richard Lewis : Well, I've not brought a conclusion to anything. I have offered you some advice. If you wish to reject my advice, you're entitled to do so. The church meeting is always entitled to have the final say in these matters. And I'm happy, as I am on any other occasion, to be led by a church meeting. I have no conclusions on this - save that the deacons have responded to some of the things you wrote in the letter, and, having done that, there has been no recourse, I understand, to the deacons to say 'we do not accept your judgement on this matter'. That's the way it should have been done if you disagreed with it, O.K. That's the way our Baptist church life operates. Quite clearly.
David Williams : I don't find it clear anywhere, that it is written down that we should actually - sorry can you not hear? (to the assembly - pause while microphones adjusted)
[My own letter to the church secretary also made it clear that the whole matter of the letter to Wheelhouse would be dealt with at this Church Meeting:
6th December 1998
Dear Howard
with regard to the matter of the leadership of Calvary Baptist Church - as detailed in my recent letter - we wish to request an emergency Church Meeting to deal with this matter.
Yours in His Name
[Emphasis added afterwards!]
Richard Lewis : Can you hear me? O.K. - right.
David Williams : I don't find that it is actually written down - that we should actually have a responding letter - that was not actually from Roger Wheelhouse. That actually then draws a conclusion, and therefore we are not allowed to speak on that matter. I don't find that Scriptural in any way at all!
Richard Lewis : All right deal with it another way. You've taken issue with that. I will ask the church: 'Do you wish to debate the subject of heresy contained within the letter issued to you by David and Zoë Williams?'
47. Beware pre-emptive strikes by the deceived!
[The loud discussion from the assembly interrupted the meeting here and Richard Lewis then allowed the Toronto-damaged 'wailing' deacon, Peter Smith, to take the microphone with a cursory, 'Is that all right, David?' Before I had time to respond he began his prepared speech and so I took a back seat to discuss with Zoë whether it really was worth continuing! (Proverbs 29:20): Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.]
Peter Smith (deacon) : I have been a deacon for the last 12 years serving in three different churches. When I came to the church on the morning after receiving David and Zoë's letter, I was quite angry and very emotional. However, throughout the week I spent many hours searching the Scriptures and praying through this letter. Two things stood out very clearly - the letter was backed throughout with Scripture and, secondly, there seemed to be a lack of love and compassion within it. When I found out that it had gone to every member of the church I had to ask myself this question: Why was it sent out in this way? For I read in Scriptures, and it's already been mentioned, in Matthew 18:15-17: 'If any brother sins against you, go to him privately and confront him with his fault. If he listens and confesses it, you have won back a brother. But if not, then take one or two others with you and go back to him again, proving everything you say by these witnesses. If he still refuses to listen then take your case to the church; and if the church's verdict favours you, but he won't accept it, then the church should excommunicate him.' This is God's Word, to the church, on how we should go about such things. When we follow God's directions, He will bless us abundantly. But if we refuse to follow His ways, in all things, then we shouldn't expect blessings. I say this because the letter was awash with God's Word. And yet the way in which the letter was sent out to members does not follow God's direct teaching. I therefore ask you all to consider whether, as a church [sic]- should be discussing such a letter that has come about in this way. If you feel that we should continue with this discussion of the letter then, as a deacon who represents you, then I cannot stand with you in this. However, if you feel that the letter should not be discussed, then Matthew's gospel clearly shows us how we should continue this meeting.
If you have followed the examples of verses 15 and 16 then what you have to say tonight, I believe will be honoured by God. Verse 15: 'If any brother sins against you go to him privately, and confront him with his fault. If he listens and confesses it, you have won back a brother.' And verse 16: But if not, then take one or two others with you and go back to him again, proving everything you say by these witnesses.'
If you have done this, and bring your grievances tonight, then I believe you will only bring dishonour - sorry - let me read that again. If you have not done this and bring your grievances tonight, then I believe you will only bring dishonour to God in what you share.
So we must decide - do we accept the letter with all its implications or do we reject the letter and discuss the grievances of those who have followed our Lord's teaching. That's all I have to say.
48. Beware responding to a fool's agenda and his timing
(Proverbs 26:4) Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. 5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
[When Peter said he 'was quite angry and very emotional' he was not telling the truth. He was furious - and wore his feelings on his 'black as thunder' face on the morning he described! When he stated that: 'Two things stood out very clearly - the letter was backed throughout with Scripture and, secondly, there seemed to be a lack of love and compassion within it' he needs to read the letter to Wheelhouse as well as the accompanying letter (and consider the Scriptural examples given from Galatians 2 and 1 Corinthians 5-6) which we sent to all members. He also needs to consider the Scriptural definition of love examined later. When he asks: 'Why was it sent out in this way?' he should consider the evidence in the letter and of the later witnesses concerning the 'gagging' and manipulation of the deacons and others in private. These facts answer these questions and none of this proved possible in a public meeting of this nature because of the ignorance and manipulation of Scripture used by the fellowship and the Baptist union representative, Richard Lewis. Peter showed his motives when he stated: 'Do we reject the letter and discuss the grievances of those who have followed our Lord's teaching.' Does he seriously think any orthodox believer in history would have refused to listen to the evidence of a witness in 'court' simply because they had not followed the exactly prescribed route? The truth is the truth is the truth when evidence is concerned. We were not going to be side-tracked by arguing about 'what is God's truth' when Scripture had already been disregarded and innocent victims are being trampled on by evil men! Peter even managed to make the words 'awash with God's Word' sound like a sneer. Regarding his quoting of Matthew 18:15-17 and the 'many hours' he claims he spent 'searching the Scriptures' - we will answer that later and comment also on the general ignorance of Luke 17:3-4 and other passages. It is strange how people who call themselves Christians become as selective as the cults when it is time to be bring the facts out into the open - and it speaks volumes about the state of the church in Britain today!]
49. Beware attempts to side-track from the main point
David Williams : Since Peter has chosen to make his statement, are there actually any people who do object to this method of using five minutes per person? Are there any objections? Yeah, I thought there would be!
Richard Lewis: I don't - [interrupted from floor] - well it's very difficult as you can understand. We either have an open meeting that goes on unlimitedly, or [interruption from someone speaking from floor].
David Williams : What I would say on that - it is obviously impractical, also, from the point of view of - one witness may have a lot more evidence to give than another and therefore five minutes - limiting one witness - is obviously unbalanced. But what I would like to make clear - what I would like to clarify again, the opening statement I made: in what way are you going to limit what I talk about?
Richard Lewis: Well - let me put it like this - I would prefer you not to speak about the challenge of heresy. Because I believe that the deacons that the church have appointed [note: he didn't correct himself and say 'God has appointed' this time] have dealt with that issue.
David Williams : Well, since I wasn't aware of that - obviously that changes the whole framework of everything. Because, unless you told me that in advance, it means we're coming here . . . .
Richard Lewis: Have you got a copy of the letter from the . . . .
David Williams: Yes, obviously I had a copy of the letter - but that doesn't say in any way: 'respond to this letter' - does it? I mean, really, if it had said: 'If you don't respond to this letter' - then that means that a large part of what the original letter was about is nullified. It changes everything - doesn't it?
(Richard Lewis stopped the meeting while the letter was produced and read from the floor by Peter King)
David Williams : We were all obviously expecting it to be dealt with at this meeting!
Richard Lewis: Well, if that is the wish of the church then we will deal with it, OK. And I don't have a problem. . .[further shouted comments from the floor] OK.
[Richard Lewis was clearly not telling the truth when he claimed he didn't 'have a problem. . .' with this request!]
David Williams : OK - I'd like to make this opening statement [interrupted by Richard Lewis: 'Hang on, hang on . . .']
[More calling out from the floor!]
Richard Lewis: Yes, I did! Yes, if that is the wish of the church, you can have a vote. I did suggest to you that if you wished to discuss the matter of heresy then it was for you to decide to do that. And your only way you can do that is to show me - by waving your hands up in the air, I suppose. I don't want to have a secret ballot on such an issue as this, so let's put it to you: 'do you wish to debate the whole content of - because we can take it that way - of the letter, sent by David and Zoë Williams? Yes, or no?' Yes?
[more muffled discussion from floor]
Richard Lewis: 'Yes!' Well, I'm asking you if you want to . . . . the question is: 'Do you wish to debate the whole content of the letter which David and Zoë have sent? Yes, put your hands up; No, don't put your hands up? OK? If you wish to debate the whole letter put your hands up.
David Williams : We have to say that the letter from the deacons actually says that's what we were going to do. If so, then this is quite ridiculous - honestly!
[hands are raised and counted]
Richard Lewis: Those against? [The vote is unanimous in favour of discussing whole content of letter!] In that case [subdued] - it is open to discussion. The church meeting has spoken.
David Williams : Are you going to limit the time each witness is allowed to speak at the microphone? It is an illogical ruling and would not be tolerated in a court of law - and these are the minimum standards I expected this meeting to be run under. Could we have a decision on this?
[The church tape was here judiciously edited to avoid the embarrassing climb-down over the un-Scriptural, illogical and illegal limitation of five minutes speaking time per person, and it also deleted my opening statement so I will fill these in from my notes.]
50. Beware - make judgements based solely on the whole canon of Scripture
David Williams : What are the qualities expected of elders/pastors/bishops/overseers (the interchangeable words used in the New Testament to describe Christian leaders)? Who are we to imitate - men or God? And where does our leading come from? Scripture tells us:
1 Corinthians 4:14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. 18 Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant, but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power. 21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness? I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me.
[Notice how, throughout the meeting, those who spoke of love failed to notice that Paul gave the choice - 'a rod OR with love and a spirit of gentleness? I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me.' Is it possible to show love while applying a rod of discipline to a church? Scripture says 'Yes'! More stunningly, for this divided, factionalised leadership and church, the Apostle Paul not only offers 'a rod' but calls those who use only words with no power, as Calvary Baptist Church did, 'arrogant'!]
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Ephesians 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. 3 But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
[You can read Roger's examples of 'filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting.' But there were even more in private, especially when he was alone with women!]
1 Thess. 1:5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. 6 You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit.
1 Thess. 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews,
Hebrews 6:12 that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
So who are we to compare ourselves with? The apostles & the Lord Jesus Christ! Not with
|
|
