¹¹When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹²Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

 ¹⁴When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (Galatians 2: 11-14)

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about this passage and the circumstances that surrounded this little confrontation between Paul and Peter.  The more I reflect on this passage, the more I am convinced that this was a situation that gets to the very heart of the matter regarding discussions surrounding the idea of  “close communion”.  It speaks of commonly held “customs” that were practiced by a certain group of believers who wanted to maintain and uphold those “customs” in order that they might practice a “close communion” of sorts.  It was quite simple for those Jewish believers.  If you were not willing to uphold or maintain their long-held customs, then you simply were not considered someone with whom they included in their “close” community of believers.  Ultimately they could not imagine that you could even be saved.  After all, if you weren’t willing to submit to their long-held (and solidly biblical, I might add) practices, then how could you be considered to be an “obedient” member of the Body of Christ?  Is it any wonder, then, that this idea was carried to its logical end to the point that if someone was not willing to be circumcised then it was determined that they did not demonstrate the kind of obedience that would indicate that they were truly saved?

Ultimately the argument was carried to its logical end.  Namely, what the circumcision group said was that you must be circumcised in order to be saved.  If you weren’t willing to be circumcised, then you were not considered saved (by them).  And if you were not considered saved, then you certainly would not be invited to partake at the Lord’s Table.  These people may have said to Titus (an uncircumcised Greek Christian), “Come on, Titus!  If you have truly trusted in Jesus as your Savior, why wouldn’t you be willing to be circumcised?  I mean, after all, Jesus did say, ‘Pick up your cross and follow me,’ didn’t He?  If you are not willing to submit to circumcision, aren’t you demonstrating a spirit of rebellion?  And if you are demonstrating a spirit of rebellion, then surely how can we consider you to be saved?  And if you are not saved—which clearly you have demonstrated you are not saved by your unwillingness to be circumcised—then surely we can not invite you to join us around the Lord’s Table.”  It all made perfect sense—to them.

It was an interesting conundrum to say the least.  Aren’t we glad that this happened so that we can observe how it was handled then and use the situation as an example of similar situations for us today?

What stands out to me anew as I read this passage is that Peter used to “eat” with the uncircumcised Gentiles, but then later declined their presence around the fellowship table and ultimately (by inference) the Lord’s Table “because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group”.

He was afraid.

 

Why was he afraid?

 

What was he afraid of?

 

Peter obviously personally did not have a problem with the uncircumcised Gentiles being welcomed to partake of the Lord’s meal.  He recognized that those believers should not be denied a place at the Lord’s Table even if they had not received circumcision.  Peter was personally convinced of that.  Yet there were others—other Jewish believers—who were not “comfortable” having those uncircumcised Gentile believers at the Lord’s Table.  They wanted to have a “close communion”.  They wanted only those who were willing to “submit” to their long-held (and again, God-given) customs and ideas to be welcomed at the Table.  That is, after all, the definition of “close communion”, is it not?  The circumcision group were all “like-minded”.  They wanted the Table surrounded by “like-minded” believers.  And they carried their reasons to their logical end.  They said that if you were not willing to be circumcised (something clearly commanded by God, by their understanding) then you surely could not be saved!  Peter “deferred” to those who were not comfortable having uncircumcised Gentile believers at the Lord’s Table.  He deferred to the “close communion” crowd.  Should we somehow respect Peter for that?  Was that the admirable thing to do?  Was Peter acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit?  Did Paul pat Peter on the back for his loving and gentle respect for those folks in the circumcision group who simply wanted to keep their communion “close” by including only those that THEY considered to be saved?  Did Paul commend Peter for being “Spirit-led” in his behavior?

 

The logic was simple, really.  Those uncircumcised Gentiles were either “saved” or they were not.  If they were not “saved” then they were not invited to partake around the fellowship meal.  If they were “saved” then they should be included.  Paul rebuked Peter because he knew that Peter personally believed that uncircumcised Gentile believers were saved.  And since Peter believed that they were saved, he was a hypocrite for caving to the pressure of the circumcision group and not personally inviting them to the table of fellowship himself.  Peter was being “double-minded”.

 

So what did Paul think that Peter should have done?  What would have been a demonstration of faith rather than a demonstration of fear on Peter’s part?  After all, what Peter did do was a demonstration of fear, was it not?  Paul tells us that Peter was “afraid”.

 

I don’t know about you, but when I read this passage it seems loud and clear to me that Peter was simply afraid to stir the pot.  He was concerned that he would be viewed as “sowing discord among brethren”.  He didn’t want to cause discord.  And Peter wasn’t the only one.  The pressure was so real that a whole group of  “other Jews” went along with the crowd, and even “Barnabas was led astray”!  Of course I don’t want to be too hard on Peter and Barnabas and the “other Jews” here.  Peter had already demonstrated that he had a tendency to be a coward (the denial of his Lord to a young girl around a charcoal fire comes to mind).  But certainly all believers can relate to his plight!  I know I am most certainly no exception!

 

But just because we can relate to Peter’s proclivity toward cowardice doesn’t mean that we can excuse it in ourselves!

 

I think that Paul would have expected Peter to stand up to the false teaching, don’t you?  I think Paul would have expected Peter to take a deep breath, swallow hard, and step out in faith.  Do you agree?  I think that Paul would have expected Peter to INVITE the uncircumcised Gentile believers to the Communion Table DESPITE the pressure he was getting from the other Brethren who wanted to “play it safe” yet were clearly practicing contrary to the Truth of the Gospel.  Isn’t that the inference?  Or am I missing something here?

 

You already know what arguments the “Circumcision Group” would have presented in defense of their position.  They would have said, “But Peter, this is our long-held agreed upon position based upon what we read in God’s Holy Scriptures.  This practice has been handed down to us for generations, ever since God Himself instituted it with our forefather Abraham!  We are choosing to practice the ‘safest course’!  This is what our little ‘circumcision group’ have all mutually decided to do!  After all, we need to keep our communion ‘close’.”

 

Who knows?  They may have even said, “If those uncircumcised Gentile believers want to have Communion, let them have it among their own ‘close’ group!  Of course we will consider them to be apostate, but at least we won’t be concerned with having them around our table!  Let them form their own new conference if they want!  Of course we will consider ourselves to be the “true” church.  But, as for us, we will continue to practice the ancient customs of our forefathers.”

 

So here is my challenge to you, members of the New Conference of the Old German Baptist Brethren Church.  Are you going to stand up for the truth?  Are you going to talk to your elders, perhaps, to openly and clearly challenge this long-held, but errant, Brethren practice of not allowing “uncircumcised Gentiles” (so to speak) to sit down with you at the Lord’s Table?  Are you going to open the Scriptures with your elders and ministers show them where they err?

 

No doubt there were uncircumcised Gentiles (Titus perhaps??) who approached Peter and asked him why they were not invited to “eat” with him.  I wonder what Peter said.  Perhaps he felt it was better to not cause “discord” among Brethren.  After all, he was “afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group”!  At least that is what Paul tells us.

 

Let me be more direct, New Conference friends.  I would like to know if you would be willing to step out of your comfort zone and INVITE me to partake at the Communion Table at your New Conference Church.  Now you may protest, “But, David, we’ve covered this before; that is not my place as merely a single member to invite you.  You see, David, there are others there at the Table who may feel uncomfortable with having you there!  I must not offend them.  And this is an invitation that must be approved of by THEM!  Above all else, I must not cause discord!  I must not cause an offence!”

 

Hmmm.  I wonder if that is what Peter said when the same question was surely asked of him by the uncircumcised Gentile believers.  Mind you, Peter knew that the uncircumcised Gentile believers should be welcomed to the Table.  He just caved to the pressure of the others who were “uncomfortable” having them there.  He didn’t want to “cause an offence”.

 

Perhaps you think that you don’t have the proper “authority” to make that kind of an invitation?  Just what kind of authority do you need? Is not the authority of the Truth of the Gospel itself sufficient?  That, my friends, is a sincere question.  Peter had the authority of being an Apostle and yet even he was afraid to stand upon the Truth of the Gospel itself.  How about you?  Does the authority of the Truth of the Gospel not have enough merit for you?  I’m just asking.

 

I’m challenging you with this again, New Conference friends.  Do you say what you mean and mean what you say?  Are you going to be “afraid” to cause discord like Peter was?  Or have we not learned from the example given us in this passage?

 

Here’s what I think you could do.  You could ASK the “circumcision group” (aka the “close communion group”) if it would be all right with them if you invite me to partake at your next Communion.  After all, getting their permission in advance would be the “polite” thing to do, wouldn’t it?  But, honestly now, I think you and I both know how that would probably go.  How do suppose it would have gone if Peter had asked similar permission from the “circumcision group”?  Who knows?  Maybe he even tried that strategy!

 

Frankly I think it would be better if you simply told them that you have “exercised the liberty” to invite me to the Table based upon what you know to be the Truth and the authority of the Gospel.  After all, this is the “New Conference”, isn’t it?  Or perhaps you have not yet been convinced of the Truth of the Gospel.

 

What could the “circumcision group” do about it then?  Does that seem disrespectful?  Would it have been just as disrespectful had Peter done the same with the uncircumcised Gentile believers?  After all, the “circumcision group” were no doubt also friends that Peter loved.  What do you suppose Paul expected Peter to do?  Did Paul think it was reasonable for Peter to simply “defer” to the circumcision group?

 

And naturally you don’t have to make it about David Pendleton either.  Why don’t you invite Brian Stull to your Communion at your New Conference Church?  Don’t you think he would be blessed by that?  How about Bill Mustard?  Don’t you think he would appreciate an invitation to join you at the Table?  After all, he invited you all to his!  Mind you, I’m not talking about some “secret” gathering around your private dining table in your home (so as not to sow discord!).  I’m talking about an invitation to the Table at your New Conference Church.  How about Aaron Hoblit?  How about Don Miller?  How about Jeff Miller?  How about John Metzger?  You get the idea!  Invite anyone and everyone you can think of that you personally consider to be your brother or sister in Christ!  Seriously, I’m asking:  why not?  Why wouldn’t you do that?  Are these “uncircumcised Gentiles” not your brothers and sisters in Christ as well?  Or does it frighten you, like it did the “circumcision group” to not keep your Communion “close”?

 

Peter did not have to seek the permission of the “circumcision group” to invite Titus to “eat” with them, did he?  That is called fear cloaked in the façade of  “showing respect for my brethren”.  The problem with that position is that while you show “respect” for the one group of brethren (the erring ones, that is) you are demonstrating contempt for the other group of brethren (like Titus) who have done absolutely nothing wrong.  Help me out here.  Am I wrong about this?

 

I’m sorry, New Conference, but that makes no sense to me.  Which of these brethren really deserve your respect?  Should Peter have shown contempt for Titus (or any one of the other unnamed uncircumcised Gentile believers) in order to show “respect” for the erring brethren (or perhaps the “weaker” brethren?) who were uncomfortable having uncircumcised Gentile believers at their Communion Table?  That is apparently what he did, and that is what Paul rebuked him for.  Am I right about this, or am I missing something?  And please don’t tell me that BOTH parties should be given equal respect.  I’m sorry, my friends, but that is simply not possible.  If you “respect” (by their definition of  “respect” that is) the “close communion” group, you show contempt for the “uncircumcised” believers (so to speak) outside of your group, and if you accept the “uncircumcised” believers at the Lord’s Table, then you demonstrate “disrespect” toward the “close communion” group according to their definition.  You can’t have it both ways.  It is impossible!  That is what Paul pointed out by inference in this passage here, is it not?

 

Peter repented.  What will you do, friends?

 

I am asking you to please invite me to your Communion Table at your New Conference Church.  I may not be able to come, but I would at least appreciate and invitation from you.  And by the way, I think Brian Stull and Don Miller and Bill Mustard and all the other “uncircumcised Gentile believers” you know would appreciate an invitation from you as well.  I’m sure many of them will not be able to come, but I’m also pretty sure they’d appreciate an invitation.  I think they’d be blessed by it!  Don’t you?

 

Oh, and don’t make them jump through any religious hoops (your version of “circumcision”) in order to partake.  Tell them that they are welcome to come just as they are and that you will not “trouble them” with all the unnecessary religious hoops to jump through that the “circumcision group” seems to think is so important.

 

Search your hearts, New Conference!  Something tells me that you know the right thing to do even if you are “afraid”.

 

Very Sincerely in Christ,

 

David Pendleton

Everyone is welcome to a seminar on "Winning Life's Spiritual Battles"

When:  November 13 and 14, 2009
Who:  Featuring speaker Tim Warner from Freedom in Christ Ministries (Neil Anderson).

Dr. Warner is a minister, missionary, author and speaker who, along with his wife, Eleanor, has devoted his life to the ministry of helping others find spiritual freedom.

Where:  Lighthouse Christian Center, at 5256 Sebring Warner Rd. (on SR 127 South of SR 36) in Greenville, Ohio has offered their facility for this inspiring seminar.  All are welcome!

Friday evening's session will be 7-9 p.m.
Saturday's meeting will be 9 a.m.- noon.
 
Some topics covered will be:
* Renewing our view of an unconditionally loving and all-powerful God
* Embracing by faith the totally undeserved gift of His grace
* Finding God's healing for the heart-wounds everyone experiences
* Learning how our spiritual enemy tries to prevent that healing

 Open discussion and question and answer session will be included.
 
A nursery will be provided for those who need it.  Please call 937-548-5267 with the number of children coming so we can arrange for adequate accommodations.

If you have any questions about this event, please ask them in the comments section of this blog.  I will do my best to answer your questions or direct you to someone else who can answer them.

While doing a little research on the Judaizers, I uncovered the following memo that was sent out by the leaders of the Judaizer’s Party around the time of the “Annual Meeting” recorded in Acts 15.  (Please pay careful attention to my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.)


Many have requested a clarification of our commitment to maintain our  “distinctive practice of circumcision.”  We are convinced our circumcision practice is scripturally-responsible and a practice we wish to maintain. We are disappointed to hear discussions regarding what some think we can “let go” or change; and, reluctantly, we observe that some have begun to openly share their differing concepts. This is not our conviction.

In an effort to be open and forthright, we are willing to state as clearly as we can, at this time, our intended direction – trusting that a clarification on this subject now may help many to identify and confirm worthy practices to uphold and that it may negate many future discussions that could arise around this topic.

For brethren, we desire and encourage the following:

That all males be circumcised according to the Scriptures as established by God with our forefather Abraham.

Circumcision has long reflected the self-sacrificing obedience of our ancestors and has set us apart from the world in all mixed gatherings.  Circumcision is respected by those of the world around us, and it readily identifies the circumcised individual as one who professes to believe in God.

Circumcision is a mark of separation by brethren.  It subtly distinguishes them from the world in a visible manner, supporting and defending our fellow brothers in the daily witness they exhibit.

Alright.  Since no one else (like GBMole) has posted these notes taken at the June 8, 2009 Modesto District Meeting, and since I now have a copy of them as forwarded to me by a friend, and since I am curious to know what all the fuse is about since these notes seem to indicate that even the folks out there in Modesto aren’t too interested in making any real changes in forming a new fellowship, then I guess I’ll go ahead and post it here and see what kind of discussion it generates…

So here you go, folks…

(Disclaimer:  These are not “official notes”.  These were simply taken down by someone who was merely present at the meeting.  If there was anyone else who was actually there at the meeting who perhaps disagrees with the accuracy of these notes, or has a different take on the meeting, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.  No doubt the note taker did the best they could.  I think it is fair to grant that they simply documented the meeting as accurately as they could given their own limitations.  Personal comments were also inserted, which were kept intact in this posting.  Naturally these comments are fairly easy to identify.)



The meeting house was packed full with double chairs in the center aisle and in both wings. There were visitors from Sierra Pines, Tuolumne & West Modesto, plus visitors from many states across the brotherhood, including PA, VA, IN, and OH.

Vince Tye

Vince lined hymn 47.

Our God, our help in ages past,
Our hope for years to come;
Our shelter from the stormy blast,
And our eternal home:


“Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” I Timothy 4:16

Vince spoke about the Pastors roll in accurately sharing the Word of God, although the Holy Spirit bridges the gap of the Pastors failings. Paramount to the workings of the church is that there would be salvation preached and that all of us would feel the saving blood of the Lord Jesus.

“Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” 2 Cor. 4:1-2

We have all been challenged, but we all have received unmeasureable mercy. There is no comprehension the extent our Father will go for His people. There is a powerful simplicity to the truth of God’s Word. The Pastors goal is to minister to your mind and also your conscience.

“So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.” 1 Thes. 2:8

It is not the Pastors desire to simply teach, but with an overflowing heart desire for our hearts to all be knit together in harmony.

Tonight we have no hidden agendas.

What is our hope, but a crown of rejoicing for all of us; each of you is my Joy! I care for you. As a minister Vince’s heart desire is to share and do whatever it takes to knit our hearts together in love.

“Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” Col. 1:28-29

Our duty is to warn! Our duty is to teach! I want you to think about those you fellowship with. Look at each other. We need a burning zeal for one another. God IS working within the members, preparing for Himself a Bride, who is perfect in Christ Jesus.

(I felt nearly pumped up to a frenzy!! ;) Was SO good.)

David Rumble Read Rev. 1 in its entirety, getting chocked up often.

It is a high priority that we should see Jesus. Today He is the ascended Lord. He spoke of different ones in the Word who saw God. The theme of the Bible is: REPENT.

He said the 7 candlesticks are the 7 churches, which all represent what is found in Christendom today.

A candlestick shows forth the light. It is filled with the oil of the Holy Spirit. The light goes forth into the entire world by His believers. He’s our King and He was made in the likeness to man; and we shall be like Him one day.

“O magnify the Lord with me!”

Mark Grover

Welcome to everyone here tonight, to our beloved congregation and guests alike.

Purpose of this meeting:

To share Committee Report

To answer questions

To allow comments

Prepare for the future

He requested that the ‘Council Meeting’ not be recorded. “We beseech you” he said.

We have observed for some time the difference in perspectives in regional area. They’ve always been there; lately there’s been a polarization. He said, he had been in congregations across this brotherhood and always been well received.

He discussed the PA meetings held in December 2008 & how that led to the Modesto officials putting down on paper their convictions according to the Word of God, trusting it would produce a dialogue for all of us to unify on. As one minister said on Monday of AM: “We’re not miles apart; we’re inches apart.”

Mark explained the happenings on Tuesday as follows:

Monday morning the messengers voiced for 12 Standing Committee (SC) members. As the messengers filed past, they turned in the papers/petitions from their districts.

Around noon the receiving committee announced the 12 SC members.

Usually the 12 withdraw and immediately divide up the papers and with a list of messengers available they divide everyone into sub-committees.  This year that did not occur.

Monday afternoon the messengers met with the SC and informed no papers to be handed out; due to the divided condition of the fellowship, they would deal with that issue first. They asked for our consent.

The SC took the petitions and queries and papers regarding our differences and pulled 4 from the conservative side and 4 from the opposing side and called them all ‘papers’.

After the discussion, the SC told us their solution. They asked for ratification.

Unbeknownst to most everyone the SC was dealing with all of us as if they were a committee sent to an erring district.

There was no consideration for opposing voices. This is the way they thought it had to be handled.

At this time, their intentions are to send a committee to each and every district in the entire brotherhood, with the purpose of unifying the church. From their perspective, this is the only way to unify us on the ‘councils of the brethren’ which is the minute book and the working of a committee.

We attempted to be as kind as we could, with the sharp differences among us.

They decided to draw a line in the sand, seeking to align the church with White Pines.

We have always been respectful of the brethren and minutes. We’ve tried to be respectful, without requiring bonnets, hats, and black hose. We never use force, though the paper is trying to do so and bring the unity they desire.

On July 6th (give or take a day), the 18 men on the committee will divide up into 6 groups and come meet with us; the 3 that come to our district will be from afar, not adjoining districts.

They will read the paper with the desire that we all stay with the church. If you do nothing, you are with the Old German Baptist Brethren Church. Otherwise, we will put our names on a piece of paper, hand them in and we will basically disfellowship ourselves.

There will be 60 days to recant with no ramifications. They truly think they are being gracious.

That means we have…June….July…August….& September to think this through.

“Trouble is, this has always been my church.”

He went on to explain the meeting held at Wood Colony Hall and how it came to be called the Communication Committee. He stated their purpose statement.

Mark laid out his personal conviction and goal:

I want to remain a part of the OGBBC. I want to keep the minute book. I want a different administration. There will be a lot of details to work out, but hopefully there will be very little change. We want to maintain biblical principals such as the uniform; we want our focus to always point to the Lord Jesus.

Tonight we are planning for the future!

At this point we read the paper from the 18 elders.

Then Mark read ‘Statement of Concern’ paper; it is believed to have been written by Curt Wagoner.

David Rumble

Here are my concerns:

Beyond the protocol and how the SC arrived at their decisions, there was an underlying wrong focus. Before I go further, let me explain a few things.

1.       We brethren here have a respect for church authority. Church authority is needed.

2.       When enforcement comes without scripture, it is wrong.

3.       The end result if we accept this paper, we will be putting our lives in spiritual jeopardy.

4.       We will be bound to maintain the obligatory minute book; which compromises many truths in the scriptures.

5.       “We receive that council, considering it to be the mind of the Body directed by the Holy Spirit and of greater wisdom than any individual mind upon the earth.”

a.       I truly question that 2009 AM was the ‘mind of the Body’

6.       “This understanding provides security and prompts obedience.”

a.       Our security is in Jesus Christ and in Him alone.

b.      Our obedience comes because of our love for our Saviour.

7.       “The church has the responsibility to require compliance in order to maintain purity and unity.”

a.       Purity is maintained by the blood of the Saviour. We need to find ourselves ‘in Him’.

If we accept this paper, it will place us on the road of submitting and living according to the little blue book over the Word of God.

David asked for the reading of Art. 2, 1984:

Article 2. We appeal to this AM to look into the history of our church, to the early formative years, and reaffirm the scriptural convictions they had, that the Word of God is our only creed and doctrine.

Let us purpose to follow more closely the advice of Alexander Mack, recorded in Rights and Ordinances. His words were: “It is, therefore, very good to look wholly and alone to the express words of the Lord Jesus, and to His own perfect example, and to follow that only…This then is the way to God for every soul, namely, to do and act agreeably to the will of God. Hence, in conclusion, I will advise thee to look only unto Jesus, our Redeemer and Savior. Heb. 12:2”

Answer: We feel the New Testament is our only creed and doctrine, and it teaches, according to Matthew 18:17-18 that the church is obligated to advise, admonish, and make interpretation where necessary. (Acts 16:4)

David said, “My spirit rests with the question, rather than the answer.” He then quoted a comment made at official council, “This paper is a velvet glove upon an iron fist.”

John Fall

At the meeting with the 66 ministers, I stated I would reserve my opinion until I had read the paper from the 18 elders.

When I received the paper, I tried to find a place I could agree. For me, it was what was not seen on that paper, buried between the lines.

For example: “If there are members who accept this report and in the future are not in agreement with the church, the matter must be dealt with by the official Body or the Adjoining Elders.” In other words, the ministers of our district must enforce certain things or be called to task. There is so much more in this paper, than meets the eye.

For me the way the meeting turned out; the tenor of the workings of the SC; the way the meeting was conducted; where there was no room for assessing and discussing, it all added up wrong.

We have always heard, ‘The power is in the body.’ It was NOT that way at the AM of 2009. The SC ignored the mind of the body. The paper says, “…a committee was authorized to implement…” the paper was NOT authorized by the body at AM.

I don’t know if you noticed, but after Sunday services, we announced there would be church in our meeting house in the evening. If you look on your little card, there was no meeting scheduled for next Sunday night; our district decided on this so we could visit Tuolumne on one Sunday night service and West Modesto on the opposite. After services we had brethren come up to us and ask, “Why are you calling church and not coming to visit us in Tuolumne?” My answer is simple, 5 adjoining elders, wrote a letter to our district stating they could not commune with us. We voted to hold a communion, AM has always held a communion, but they wanted us to recall our communion. We did not feel to recall our Love Feast. If they wouldn’t fellowship with us around the communion table, why would they want us to come to their district and preach? I’ve been rejected by those brethren. Plus one of those elders grossly misapplied and rejected our 31 page paper. Personally, I don’t want to go where I’m not welcome. I don’t want to convince anyone here against their will, but I must walk according to my own conscience.

Vince Tye

Mark asked me to explain the church order and procedures that I learned while living in Indiana. Mind you, church order and procedures is not a bad thing; they have a very definite purpose in the body of believers.

1.       Church order lends objectability in how to deal with one another

2.       Church order provides equity (fairness) and is not arbitrary

3.        Church order provides protection for us.

There were 2 problems with what occurred on Tuesday. They were in regards to:

1.       Procedure

2.       Doctrinal issues

One thing we cannot do is leave because of procedural problems. We were all damaged and abused; our hearts ached with what occurred. It was spiritual abuse.

Tuesday looked normal at the start. We read Acts 15, we read the duties…then somehow 4 queries and 4 petitions were transformed into 8 papers and the 9 SC members were transformed into a committee.

I’ve served on 2 committees, when you meet you are given papers and time to read each paper and appraise the situation. You receive verbal testimony along with your written testimony. None of this occurred. A committee works together in all manners to arrive at a conclusion; I feel sorry for the 9 elders who were chosen out of the blue. They had no time to draw a conclusion any more than you or I did.

Curt Wagoner asked 4 questions, 2 of those questions went unanswered; at that time red flags started to go up for me.

We the congregation, were NOT apprised of what the SC were doing. They made decisions without anyone’s awareness of what was going on. There were vague voices and implications, but no clear direction for any of us to be aware of what was going to occur. The congregation was not given any opportunity to prepare and turn in papers as committees usually do. Remember, I’ve lived through a couple committees in CA.

REMEMBER: Church order has:

1.       OBJECTIVITY

2.       EQUITY

3.       PROTECTION

This was a complete aberration of church order. The SC was NOT doing everything in the LIGHT. I firmly believe a portion of the paper was generated prior to the Tuesday meeting. The SC compromised an answer that should have been written by all 18 elders.

This paper signed by 18 elders is the direct result of major doctrinal differences; I want to emphasize it is NOT just bad procedure.

I urge you all, to not allow Tuesday to diminish the true beautiful biblical place of church order and procedures.

I urge you all to consider the implications in agreeing to this paper and realize in doing so the results are staggering. They feel there is an infallibility of the church. Once you agree with this paper, you are binding yourself to this doctrine and all that it entails.

Consider your decision carefully, with all the implications that come with your decision.

One last thing, the paper says, “This understanding provides security and prompts obedience.” Jesus Christ is the one and only who provides security, never ‘the church’ that they mention.

Opened for Discussion

Sherman Boone

Thank you brethren for this evening. Where do we go from here? Without us agreeing to this paper, what are we agreeing too? We need to have an anchor. Too many times the county waits until there are 4 or 5 deaths before they install a stop sign. We need a plan.

Don Beachler

God loves you all. He saved you by His grace.

There are 3 4 cardinal issues in this issue:

1.       Jesus Christ is our righteousness

2.       The church is being placed on a level equal to the God head

3.       Jesus Christ’s blood is what covers our sins

4.       We all have been given gifts, to use for the building up of the kingdom of God

As Vince said, “Negotiations are over.”

How are we going to handle camp properly?

“Do we have to go back to the trough and change the food for them over and over?”

Dialogue between Roger Haney & Mark Grover

Regarding White Pines query, Elders Meeting in PA, etc.

Mark said the SC stepped out of line in 3 ways:

1.       The elders meeting held in PA

2.       Soliciting petitions from conservative groups

3.       Out of procedure at AM

In the mind of the SC, the only way to unity is by division. He explained Tuesday was for him and Lorraine very similar to the grieving they experienced when Peter died.

He urged us to consider that maybe just as grief brings us closer to our God, so also we may have revival and repentance from this event.

He explained he does not want rigidity and neither does he desire worldliness. We must build on our common love for Jesus Christ, and never what we are ‘sore’ about. He urged us to give our hurts to Jesus Christ and deal with it as soon as possible.

He shared a conference call he had on Wednesday, trying to choose when and how to move out. He urged us to trust that there will be a church for everyone.

He stated in the east somewhere, there are 2 elders and 3 deacons who have already committed to stepping out (of the OGBBC). There is a ground swell of interest in a new fellowship. What is most important is that we all have a commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ and we have NO bitterness in our hearts.

The issues are wrapped around ‘administration’.

Dan Crawmer

I’m ready to build. I don’t want to have to wait and ‘look forward’ to the committee of 3 brethren coming to our district. I want to look forward to a more pleasant future and not a meeting coming up with a committee.

Mark Grover

We do not want to make decisions at Modesto district as if we are doing it alone. I want this to be a brotherhood decision. However it would feel a lot better to me too, to have each person come forward tonight and sign your name as charter members of a new organization, and then we hand it to the committee. Then we are not disfellowshipped first, but charter members of a new fellowship prior to being disfellowshipped.

Mike Flora

We wanted doctrinal clarity in our 31 page paper; when I was standing outside the tent after the decision was passed, my brother said to me, “You couldn’t receive clarity more stronger than that.” It wasn’t exactly as I expected. I have moved passed the pain of Tuesday and I urge you to not allow bitterness to set in. I don’t see and hear bitterness in anyone.  I do see a balanced group. I see a healthy blend of Anabaptist and pietism thinking among us.

Don Beachler

Brethren we have had 2 years of discussions. The brethren in OH have been looking to Modesto district for direction. Whether you want to be leaders or not, you have to. You have to go ahead. Brethren, it simply doesn’t matter if you want to do this task, you must go ahead.

Mark Grover

The OH brethren were seeking help with the direction and I urged them to not call us and put us on the spot, last January. PA had their illegal meeting and we couldn’t criticize them, then turn around and do the same thing in OH.

For us timing and patience were the keys. We tried going through the proper channels and appealing to AM through our paper without success.

Mike Flora

I just want to leave a comment, which Mark can expound on. “We don’t want to change anything.” In other words if we started from scratch, we’d have to reinvent the wheel, and that’s not what we are looking for.

Mark Grover

For instance, they say no organized Bible Studies. We were aghast when we were called in before the SC a couple years ago and asked to eliminate Bible Studies. I’ve had the singles come to me and urge us to have Bible Studies for them. It would be a blessing to me, to meet the needs of our congregation and be able to do so without fear of rebuke.

Eric Rumble

I have a heavy heart. There are a lot of good folks we won’t be fellowshipping with any longer. Our God is big enough to work with both groups. Somehow it’s ok with Him to allow this to occur. Let’s trust Him; give them a blessing; and move forward in faith and trust.

Donald Root

So much confusion and spiritual abuse and spiritual needs across our brotherhood. The more insecure men are, the more they want to take control. This is a perfect example of that. There are many scars that will last a lifetime. Remember God’s way is patient.

I’ve close friends in the conservative camp that I’ve lived with every year for a couple months; I can hardly bear the thought of not having their friendship any longer.

Mark Grover

We will not be making a decision tonight. I’m planning 2 weeks in the future to meet again; in the meantime be in prayer.

John Yost

I stated recently in the Baggage Room that a divide was a cop-out. I was in error and want you brethren to know you have my full support. In some ways, I’d like the committee to come here, so I can give them my opinion, but on the other hand, I’d probably say something I regret!

Dean Crawmer

I’m not moving away from the OGBBC because of people; I’m moving away because of principal. The brotherhood council is NOT infallible. This is a great time to deepen and renew our convictions.

“Let’s roll!”

James Fultz

I urge everyone to go home and study the life of David and how he refused to murder King Saul. All the brethren in elder positions have been anointed to do their work. We can’t allow our tongues to be a sword against these men.

We don’t want to be out of the fellowship; but we want to transition to something new first.

Robert Filbrun

“So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” Rom. 14:12-14

We’ve heard tonight what the stumbling block is.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Gal. 1:8

“Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;” 1 Tim. 6:17

“Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.” Jer. 23:1

When the parting song was sung on Tuesday evening, I’m sorry but I had to get up and go out. I could not sing it:

Jesus grant us all a blessing,

Send it down, Lord, from above;

May we all go home a praying,

And rejoicing in thy love!

Farewell brethren, farewell sisters,

Till we all shall meet above.

Darren Beachler

Donald I just want to say one thing to you; you do not have to lose those friendships. Maintain those friendships. If they are precious to you, the denomination doesn’t have to make any differences.

Nathan Rapp on Sunday made a comment about Thomas Edison and the fire that destroyed his laboratory. A neighbor asked Thomas, “Aren’t you discouraged?” He replied, “No. All my mistakes have been burned up.” All Thomas was interested in, was what started the fire? If it is legalism for us, we do not want to head into that fire again.

Minutes Read

John Fall lined hymn 78

Guide me, O thou great Jehovah,

Pilgrim through this barren land:

I am weak, but thou art mighty;

Hold me with thy powerful hand;

Bread of heaven,

Feed me till I want no more.

All of us are here tonight because we love truth.

“Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.” 2 Thes. 2

We must:

The wicked one wants to destroy truth

Believe the truth

Receive the truth

Guard the truth

Practice truth

Share the truth

May the Lord direct your hearts into TRUTH.

We urge you to treat everyone with gloves of kindness and love. There may be some that feel later to align themselves with us.

Meeting was over at 10pm.

Well we are about one month away from the communion service at Bear Creek on April 25.  In case anyone out there is wondering:  yes I am still planning on being there, and yes I am still intending to sit down at the Communion Table and partake of communion.

For those who don’t know, I wrote a letter to Kenneth Miller, head elder at the Bear Creek OGBBC, to express to him my intentions to partake of communion there.  I won’t be redundant here with the contents of that letter.  It basically expressed the same things that I said here and here.  Furthermore I expressed in that letter my affirmative answers to the “three questions” similarly to how GBMole answered them here.

In response to that letter I received a letter from Michael Miller, another elder at Bear Creek.  I mentioned this letter in a couple comments here on Xanga, and a few of you expressed an interest in reading that letter.  So I am posting that letter here today.

But first allow me to insert this disclaimer.  There may be a few of you who believe that it is inappropriate for me to publicly post a letter that was sent to me personally.  In response to that potential objection let me just say that, though this letter was indeed sent to me personally, the contents of the letter are neither of a personal nor private nature.  This letter is not the type of letter that deals with sensitive or private or personal matters.  It is a letter that simply expresses a theological or doctrinal position.  Furthermore, this letter was sent to me on behalf of the officials at the church.  The contents of the letter make that quite clear.  I did not write a personal letter to Michael Miller and then receive a personal response from him.  I wrote a letter to Kenneth Miller as an official of the church.  He shared that letter with other officials.  Michael wrote a response as a representative of those officials.

Needless-to-say, I see no problem with sharing this letter openly.  Nothing expressed in this letter reveals private or personal information.  I think that is quite clear to anyone who reads it.

Given that context and caveat, here is the letter I received from Michael Miller about a month ago…


February 27, 2009

Dear Brother David,

You probably don’t know me, as I don’t recall ever having met you, but I am an elder in the Bear Creek congregation.  At our last official council meeting, brother Kenneth shared with us a letter he had received from you in regards to your intent to participate in our communion service in April.  As you know, the chosen practice of our people is a closed communion.  While we would invite anyone interested to come and observe our practice, other those who are members of our fellowship and have answered the three questions on the yearly visit would be invited to sit at the table and participate.  I realize this issue could be debated.  I am not so gifted at writing; however, I would be glad to discuss it with you, in person or by phone, at your convenience.

As you know, many churches in the world today practice their communion in different ways:  many with open communion and many with closed.  This is certainly not unique to us.  We see that in the Upper Room Jesus Himself instituted the Lord’s Supper, and it appears He invited only the twelve men He had chosen to follow Him, with no women.  It appears He washed their feet, had a meal, broke bread, and shared the cup.  Yes, one of them at the table even had a devil.  Today the church takes communion not only remembering that night in the Upper Room, but the events that would take place later that night and the next day, the broken body and the shedding of the blood of our Savior.

So why the dilemma today over open or closed communion?  We can see some churches preaching good sermons, filling their churches and yet living lives that do not reflect obedience to the commands of Jesus?  Some suing each other, divorce and remarriage, living in adultery, and even going to war and taking human life.  This poses a problem for a church that believes in keeping the commands of Jesus such as:  “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.”  Luke 17:3  Already, just about thirty years after Calvary, we see Paul instructing the church not to eat with an unrepentant sinner.  1 Cor. 5:11  So it is with this in mind, our fellowship has decided it not best to open the table of the Lord to those outside our fellowship.  We don’t feel to pass judgment on anyone, and perhaps if we began to pick and choose those who could or couldn’t commune with us, allowing you, but not others, then we would be judging.  What would happen if a sister came in without a head covering, but said, “I have been baptized and am born again”?  What if a brother said, “We are one in Christ”, so he chose to sit among the sisters and wash feet?  And then what happens when the salutation goes around?  You may think this is overreacting but I assure you, I observed this last year at the church conference of a large brethren group.  On stage, in front of an audience of several thousand people, a brother washed a sister’s feet and she washed another brother’s feet.  I also understand that in a home one day a woman washed the feet of Jesus, kissed them, and dried them with her hair.  So I hope you understand, I am not judging you, or any other brother or sister in the Faith.  I would simply plead with you to grant us the respect to not disrupt our communion service by pushing on us your opinions or agendas.  I have visited many churches around the world, many times observing their communion.  I would never have considered it a privilege as a Christian brother to publicly disrupt or find fault with their worship or communion services.  I count it a privilege to be welcome to observe.

I hope you realize this not only affects you.  What about feet washing?  Do you realize some brother would have to go with you?  Or would you choose to go by yourself?  And what about the brother whose feet you wash?  There would be two.  What if one of them is offended and leaves the table?  Would you feel good about yourself?

David, you and I live in a world where billions of people will die and go to Hell if they don’t find Jesus.  I would encourage you to exercise your Christian energies in this direction, in which I would fully support you, and not be so concerned about whether churches are practicing communion in a manner in which you would completely approve.  I would kindly admonish you to exercise more charity and longsuffering with your brothers and sisters all over the world.

I pray to God that nothing I have written will hurt you; if so, please forgive me.  I only hope to challenge you to a closer walk in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ.


In Christian love,

Michael Miller


PS  Feel free to call, visit, or write me anytime.