1432 Woodridge Drive
Aledo, TX 76008
20 June 2005

 

 

Dear Christian Friends,

I am writing this letter at this time because I believe it may help others who are still experiencing the results of awful treatment at the hands of misguided religious leaders much as Jane and I experienced many years ago. Jane and I were both marked to be avoided in 1985 (see the letter from Robert Grove, et. al. at the end of this paper). I was given the added distinction of being declared both a proud person and a heretic. Jane and I both believe many of the statements and between-the-line implications are either false or completely misleading.

I quite patiently submitted to many, many "lectures" by Robert Grove and Bob Harrison involving endless repetitions of pet doctrines—including many lectures on submitting to "the leadership." The assertions were usually quite dogmatically given and the offered commentary was (in practice, if not in word) expected to be taken as the final word on the matter—a practice I found then and still find unsound.

Contrary to the practice by Robert Grove, Bob Harrison, and their followers, the Scriptures admonish each of us "to submit ourselves to one another in the fear of God" (Eph. 5:21). It also says in Hebrews 13:17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you." Also, in 1 Peter 5:5 it says, "In like manner, ye younger, submit yourselves to the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."

I saw very little of the scriptural submission just discussed actually being practiced in the Grove-Harrison camp. My observation then was that many of the "leadership" were among the younger men; it is even more so today I believe. The "leadership" are simply those who have asserted themselves as such and who dominate the speaking so completely and with such defiance of any questioning of their pronouncements that one must infer that they view themselves as an infallible interpreter of God’s word. Surely, more is needed than this to view rightly such "leadership" as "them that have the rule…for they watch for your souls."

For my part, I prefer to submit myself to those who I have reason to believe have some degree of humility and who actually prove all things and encourage others to do the same without dogmatically insisting that my understanding (and that of everyone else) conforms to theirs. It is a distortion of the Scriptures to insist that someone submit to another’s understanding of the Scriptures when he believes that the Scriptures clearly teach something to the contrary. That is not scriptural submission; it is a clear case of not walking by faith. Those who teach such things are not spiritual men.

Believing that the Scriptures do not support what is being taught by "the leadership" is viewed as prima facie evidence of "not being together with the brethren," "not being in subjection to the leadership," "one is not in fellowship with the Lord," or "one is a heretic." However, the Scriptures plainly teach "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." Actually to prove all things is viewed by "the leadership" as "he’s using his own mind" (of course, it’s fine to use Robert Grove’s or Bob Harrison’s mind). The whole basis for our being "marked" was fabricated.

There are a numerous instances of both misleading and false statements in the "marking letter" addressed to me. Many of them are simply the result of variations of classical logical fallacies associated with illogical arguments (e.g., over-generalizing; drawing conclusions from assumed true, but false statements; jumping to conclusions; extrapolation; "poisoning the well"; and confusion of semantics.

I will make only a few comments on the allegations contained in the "marking" letter—not for the benefit of "the leadership" (because I believe they are not capable of understanding), but for others who have either experienced similar treatment at their hands or who are still with them, but remain primarily out of fear of separation from loved ones. To these I offer the following:

• Can you really believe that we were drawn away because "our love has waxed cold"—where is the evidence of that? We have continued to reach out to many who have been similarly treated as well as many other believers.
• The statement about my wife "conforming to the lifestyle" is not true.
• The statement about the appearance of my wife and girls is not true (but admittedly would appear so only to those inclined toward an ascetic standard as is often true in dogmatic, legalistic systems such as the Robert Grove religious corporation).
• The statement about us delaying what we had already decided to do is false.
• Regarding my rejection of "the leadership" and especially Bob Harrison—I make no significant distinction between Bob Harrison and Robert Grove. Robert D. (Bob) Harrison is simply one of Robert’s designated lieutenants along with others.
• The statement about my not accepting "the leadership" is true. As far as I’m concerned the so called "leadership" were then and still are nothing more than unqualified, uninspired individuals that have put themselves forward, dominating meetings, and asserting themselves while taking advantage of more spiritually led individuals who have exercised patience, self-control, long-suffering, and other fruit of the spirit.
• The statement concerning my not agreeing with them on several important doctrinal areas is true. I don’t recall saying that I didn’t expect that I ever would, but that is certainly consistent with my assessment of "the leadership."

I will be very glad to discuss the situations mentioned in the "marking letter" concerning Joe Agee and Marcus Hampton with individuals who have an interest in setting the record straight and in understanding the real situation, but privately since innocent parties were involved.

The "marking letter" asserted that I refused to discuss the situation. That also is false. I received a call from Steve Nearman asking if he could come by to talk. I readily agreed. He came to my home as I agreed, but accompanied by four or five others that had not been previously mentioned. Their stated purpose was to arrange a meeting with me and Robert Grove, Bob Harrison, and Carlton Calk. They had no interest in talking with me about any issues they had, but only in gaining my acknowledgement and submission to "the leadership." (Would you be surprised to find that I declined? Surely not!) I told the delegation that I would be glad to meet with those there and to discuss any subject they wanted at any length, but I would not agree to meet with "the leadership" because I did not recognize them as such.

It was very easy to see the techniques Robert Grove used to gain supremacy. He would call meetings inviting those he knew would side with him and deliberately exclude any he knew would not subscribe to his views—very shrewd in the ways of the world. I observed this more than once. So-called "church decisions" came to be nothing more than judgments formulated by a biased, sectarian and carefully chosen group. Actually, most of the men I had respect for had already been either driven out or otherwise silenced.

They soon mailed me a copy of a letter (the attachment) indicating that Jane and I had been "marked." My offense was described as that I was "proud" and that I rejected "the leadership." I challenge anyone to find in the Scriptures any teaching to avoid one who is judged proud; even were that the case—which I dispute. It isn’t pride to insist that one prove all things and to walk by faith—it’s scriptural. The charge of my being proud is simply an expression they use for anyone who does not accept their views. Actually, it is both pride and arrogance on their part for men to usurp God’s place in people’s lives and insist that others bow down to them and accept their often misguided understanding of what God’s Word says.

I have to confess that my real shame is that it took me so long to act in accord with what my conscience was telling me. I kept telling myself that I should be longsuffering, patient, and wait upon the Lord to deal with the matter. The problem was that by being quiet I was tacitly giving support to that which I abhorred.

In my case I think my whole temperament and education was deemed a threat to "the leadership." I am one who is given to logic and reason both by temperament and by training. I did not complete two advanced degrees (one in mathematics) without being able to think through issues and to reason. Not only that, it is part of my being; it is something that is so central to my temperament that I am driven to do so. Happily it is also scriptural to prove all things.

I hasten to add that I’m not asserting that my temperament makes me a better Christian than others; I don’t believe that. I’m just saying that it isn’t my nature to accept something just because so-and-so says it. I’m too much of a skeptic to do that. I’m certainly ready and willing to follow those who demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit to me; especially to follow in those areas where they’ve demonstrated worthy attainments and where I consider myself lacking. I firmly believe the scriptural teaching that every joint supplies. This, of course, stands against the actual practice in legalistic, dogmatic organizations such as the Grove-Harrison assembly.

The assembly "leadership" demonstrated little to me other than a grasping for authority and power over others. They incessantly spoke of the evils of denominations, but failed to recognize the very essence of denominations in themselves—a divisive, sectarian spirit.

As I began to see what was happening I began to consider the individuals who seemed to be vying for authoritative positions. Almost without exception they seemed to be individuals who had experienced significant father-figure lapses in their own early lives. They either had no father present (through death or divorce), the father was an alcoholic (virtually absent), or their father had substantive failures that affected the individual. I also noticed that more than a few of their legalistic followers had personal and moral failures in their past that were known to others including adultery, covetousness, illegal drug usage, divorce or other marital problems, and substantial personal failures as parents. Most of the delegation sent to arrange the meeting with me had experienced such failures. I do know what I’m talking about!

It isn’t that such failures can’t be forgiven; of course, they can. The issue concerns how one who has been forgiven of such things can be so unforgiving and judgmental toward others; especially in being so eager and quick to accept fabrications and distortions as the basis for the very hurtful, God-dishonoring actions against others that they are. Normally, one who has been forgiven much has a forgiving spirit.

As I emphasized at the beginning, my heart goes out to every Christian who has been ill treated by members of a harsh, legalistic religious system masquerading as a collective representation of Christ on the earth. So I’m writing this response at this time to add my testimony to that of many others and to assure you that you’re not alone.

My wife, Jane, and I moved from Fort Worth, Texas to the Fredericksburg, VA area in late 1970 to take employment with a Navy laboratory. A couple of years after moving to Virginia circumstances placed us in contact with "the assembly" of Christians (I won’t try to make distinctions as to those who were and those who were not Christians; I have grave doubts that some really are believers in the scriptural sense of the word, but will just refer to them as "the assembly" of Christians to keep the correspondence simple). We had some good times and found that the simplicity of meeting only and simply as Christians had a remarkable appeal.

We began to read and study the Bible together with others. This was in contrast to the practice among organizations such as the Baptists, Presbyterians, and the like whose use of prepared study booklets with small Scripture parts inserted have the effect of maintaining an unhealthy and narrow understanding of Christian doctrine and practice. This change resulted in our experiencing a relatively significant gain in knowledge of the Scriptures compared with our prior Baptist experience.

In time, however, I began to see that some in our Christian association were usurping a place above others, not by virtue of having the Christian maturity that merits emulating, but more through a personal self-assertion. That situation was only exacerbated and accelerated upon Robert Grove’s move back to Virginia and his asserting himself as "the leader." (Please notice that it would be "der Führer" in German. Recall that is how Adolph Hitler designated himself, too.)

It wasn’t long before I began to notice harshness and legalism in dealing with people by the so-called "leadership." They couldn’t defend their supposed offices so they invented a generic "leadership" position or office. Next I noticed a tendency to repeat dogmas that were important to them. Bible studies were replaced by propaganda sessions. The weaker the arguments in support of the dogmas directly correlated with the extent to which they repeated those dogmas endlessly.

The relaxed informal meetings in homes, the unfeigned openness, and the open inquiry into what the Bible taught that we had so refreshingly experienced initially had been transformed into a need for larger buildings to meet in, with designated, approved individuals to do the speaking. Further, there were endless men’s meetings dealing with problems and with "marking" the inevitable resolution.

Across the country as these things took place it was surely clear to all that Robert Grove ("der Führer") was sometimes the seen and sometimes the unseen, but always the prime mover behind it all. Robert Grove was obviously using the very same tactics employed by Adolph Hitler so effectively that he dominated an entire country—appointing and controlling lieutenants to do his bidding, and through them committing unspeakable evils without compassion or remorse.

What was taking place, I discovered, was a repeat of what took place in the church by the end of the third century and has repeated again and again over the centuries. This very situation was presented in its historical context in a book that I once read and that made a deep impression upon me. The book entitled "The Organization of the Early Christian Churches" by Edwin Hatch was published in 1888.

The author made three main points in the book that have remained with me until today. He indicated that Christianity seemed to go through three stages as time passed on from the activities recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. During the first period, he said, people came to be viewed as believers if their beliefs resulted in a new life indicative of God’s indwelling Spirit. During the second period people came to be viewed as believers if their doctrines were right. During the third period people came to be viewed as believers if their doctrines were orthodox (i.e., their beliefs matched pronouncements by accepted authority AND those authorities were acknowledged). He went on to say that the third stage was reached by the end of the third century and has remained more or less the same ever since.

So it seems that there exists a human tendency to foist one’s beliefs and will upon others. It was true in the early days of the spread of Christianity and remains with us today. Jane and I quietly left that assembly of professed Christians because they violated the most central of my values both as a Christian and as a person. I came to believe that continued association with them would be harmful to me and to my family. I further came to believe that there was little that I could do that I had not already tried in being a help to them. I leave them in God’s hands and pray that He will be merciful to them and exact less from them than they are due for all the evils they have inflicted upon others.

Some time back my wife and I were given a copy of a Time Magazine article, "Witness Under Prosecution" (February 22, 1982 issue) about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Ray Franz who had been disfellowshiped. Ray Franz had actually been a member of the Governing Body (i.e., one of the 17 men who preside over the world-wide organization). Franz became troubled by what he saw taking place in the organization in both practice as well as doctrinal authoritarianism. The Time Magazine article included the following passage:

"Because of his own work as an author of an official volume about the Bible and a growing feeling that Watch Tower discipline was too harsh, Franz privately concluded that the religion emphasized human organization rather than biblical teachings. Says he: ‘While producing people who were outwardly moral, they subverted the essential qualities of humility, compassion and mercy.’"

Ray Franz subsequently wrote a letter to the editor (March 15, 1982 issue) to correct a miss-quotation. He wrote:

"I appreciate the factual approach in the article ‘Witness Under Prosecution.’ In connection with my being disfellowshiped from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I am quoted as saying: ‘There is no life outside the organization.’ When I said this, I was describing not my own feelings [sic] but the viewpoint prevalent among most Witnesses and implicit in the organization’s teachings. My understanding from Scripture is that God’s Son is, exclusively, ‘the way and the truth and the life.’"

Ray Franz eventually wrote two books ("Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom") describing his treatment at the hands of the Watchtower organization (incorporated under the laws of New Jersey) after being disfellowshiped by the organization. After reading the article, I wrote Ray Franz. We continued to correspond, and Jane and I went by to visit Ray and his wife Cynthia on one of our trips to Texas. It was a thrill to meet them. I found him to be a very intelligent and humble man. I would like to insert here some quotations from Ray’s book "Crisis of Conscience."

"…it was considered advantageous that I be disfellowshiped so as to eliminate what they considered a threat….This…reveals a very great sense of insecurity….This would surely not be the action of an organization fully at ease with its own teachings, calmly confident that what it presents is truth, solidly supported by God’s Word. Nor is it the action of an organization having genuine confidence in its body of adherents, confidence that the instruction and training given have produced mature Christian men and women who do not need some maternal magisterium to prescribe what they shall read, discuss or think about, but who are instead capable of discerning for themselves between truth and error, through the knowledge of the Word of God. The action is typical…of…religious organizations…that [feel] a compelling need to eliminate anything that, in their view, threaten[s] to diminish their authority over others."

In another place he says,

"I believe [the hardness, the aloof, superior, even smug attitude] owes very definitely to the false teaching that allows an organization to make claims of exclusive authority and unapproachable superiority that are both immodest and unfounded. That concept deserves not only to be questioned, it deserves to be exposed for the hurtful, God dishonoring doctrine that it is."

Ray Franz made an expression in the beginning of his book, "Crisis of Conscience" that I would like to include.

"Whether we like it or not, moral challenge affects each of us. It is one of life’s bittersweet ingredients from which there is no successful escape. It has the power to enrich us or impoverish us, to determine the true quality of our relationships with those who know us. It all depends on our response to that challenge. The choice is ours—it is seldom an easy one.

We have the option, of course, of surrounding our conscience with a sort of cocoon of complacency, passively ‘going along,’ shielding our inner feelings from whatever might disturb them. When issues arise, rather than take a stand we can in effect say, ‘I’ll just sit this one out; others may be affected—even hurt—but, I am not.’ Some spend their whole life in a morally ‘sitting’ posture. But, when all is said and done, and when life finally draws near its close, it would seem that the one who can say, ‘At least I stood for something,’ must feel greater satisfaction than the one who rarely stood for anything.

Sometimes we may wonder if people of deep conviction have become a vanishing race, something we read about in the past but see little of in the present. Most of us find it fairly easy to act in good conscience so long as the things at stake are minor. The more that is involved, the higher the cost, the harder it becomes to resolve questions of conscience, to make a moral judgment and accept its consequences. When the cost is very great we find ourselves at a moral crossroads situation, facing a genuine crisis in our lives."

I have been tremendously encouraged by the stand Ray Franz took for truth. I appreciated the objective manner that was apparent in his writing as well as the clear testimony he gave in his letter to the editor correcting the misrepresentation in the Time article about him.

It seems that apostasy is the unavoidable path with men who get their eyes off the Lord and His power and goodness. Men’s desire for authority over other men—not only their actions, but their thoughts as well seems to be the inevitable result.

Roman Catholicism, as well as the JW organization, has demonstrated that disfellowshipping is quite effective in maintaining a measure of conformity. This same sort of experience occurred among the Plymouth Brethren between the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s. The history of legalism among the Plymouth Brethren is well documented by H. A. Ironside in his book "The Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement" (available through most book stores). It is worth reading to see the inevitable result of legalism and dogmatism. I should note also that books by Ray Franz documenting his experiences are worth reading and are available from Commentary Press (you’ll find ordering information at www.commentarypress.com on the internet).

There is one fundamental doctrinal error that is ALWAYS prominent in dogmatic, legalistic religious organizational systems. It is this—they do not properly understand the principle of Christian unity as taught in the Scriptures. They confuse it with behavioral conformity. Christian unity is not sameness such as one would find in the various parts of a piece of chalk; all pieces or grains of the chalk identical to all others. Christian unity is that kind of harmony one may see in a well-designed and functioning fountain pen. All parts are different and have different roles and capabilities, but each part participating in harmony with all of the other parts to accomplish the purpose of the whole—the unity that only comes from both having and manifesting the fruit of God’s Spirit.

Dogmatic, legalistic religious organizational systems ALWAYS focus upon achieving the "sameness" type of unity; same understanding, same views, same thoughts, and with no permitted disagreements or differences—conformity, but NOT true unity. There is definitely no tolerance for public differences, lest their "testimony" be tarnished (they think)—so you see the end result of this counterfeit form of unity is hypocrisy. The result is that "the testimony" is actually tarnished in the very worst and most damaging way.

Someone once said, "Anytime two or more people all think alike, you can be assured that someone isn’t thinking." It is just contrary to our nature (either new or old) always to think alike. We each have different capabilities, experiences, knowledge, and sensory acuteness to do that. We do not all have the same gifts. That is precisely why we need each other. I have always learned more from those who differed with me than I ever have from those who agreed with me. I don’t have a corner on the truth market. I suppose you don’t either. Well, evidently some think they do. How sad. How very sad.

I firmly believe that it is important for Christians to draw strength from one another. As it says in Proverbs 11:14, "…in the multitude of counselors there is safety." There’s certainly no need for a multitude if we’re supposed to get all the answers we should have from one or more authority figures. The point is that we have to decide and having a multitude of counselors provides alternative perspectives that we may (and should) weigh, evaluate, and determine the appropriate value of the counsel we receive. We’re never to accept counsel without such personal evaluation. Also, in Proverbs 27:17 it says, "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." My hope is that these few words of mine will help to do that very thing.

Scripture provides the answer for countering the problem "of being deceived by the cunning craftiness of men (such as Robert Grove and his cohorts) who lie in wait to deceive." It is countered with the truth that "the whole body [is] fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." So we see that relying upon every joint to supply is God’s plan and our help against the cunning craftiness of men who have their own selfish ends in mind.

Regardless of the consequences, I must, like Luther, Franz, and others, stand before "Scripture alone" believing that the Lord not only wishes me to understand His word, but He has the power to help me to understand that which He wishes me to understand. For an individual or group to elevate himself or themselves as an intermediary between God and men is doing what the pope and the JW’s governing body are doing and denying the truth of 1 Timothy 2:5—"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus…."

God wants us to be free, and, if He sets us free, we are free indeed. I have, indeed, been set free, and I thank the Lord for it. I truly hope that you too have been set free and that I may walk with you in the true light of that freedom. May the Lord help each of us along that journey.

As a postscript, to all of this I would like to conclude with some brief observations about our welfare since leaving the discussed apostate group about 20 years ago. The freedom and joy that we have experienced has been greater than we expected. Our relationship with other Christians, unconstrained by legalism and hyper-judgmentalism has been like a breath of fresh air to us. We now feel a oneness with all who have and show forth God’s Spirit without having to confront and indict every perceived difference.

My understanding of the Scriptures seems to have been greatly enhanced by being apart from the Grove-Harrison apostasy. It is as though a great cloud was lifted so that we could see clearly where before we were surrounded by confusion. It is truly marvelous to be free, really free and to be at peace with others who manifest the fruit of the Spirit of God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

My wife and I have a great love for the Christians we have known. We pray often for you as well as other Christians around the world to whom we are united in one Spirit. May the Lord continue to care for you and your families and may you continue to look to Him alone as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Yours in Christ,

David E. McConnell

Email: david_e_mcconnell@yahoo.com

 

 

See Attachment: 6/24/85 "Marking Letter" from Robert Grove et. al. (following notes).

Note 1: The email address given is not my primary email address, but one that I do check. I do not wish to post my primary email address or my telephone number on the web. However, if you wish to contact me at the given email address, I’ll be glad to share my primary email address and telephone number with you. Further, should you wish to know more concerning specifics mentioned in the "marking" letter concerning my actions or views (either doctrinal or otherwise) I’ll be glad to share them individually if you’ll contact me.

Note 2: I wanted to include information that I believe is indicative of the kind of thinking characteristic of a cult. It came from a book by Janis, Irving L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. The eight main symptoms of group think described in the book are, I believe, each present in the thinking and practice of the Grove-Harrison corporation:

• Overestimations of the Group’s Power and Morality

1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.

• Closed-mindedness

1. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
2. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.

• Pressure Toward Uniformity

1. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
2. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
3. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
4. Mind Guards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.

 

6/24/85

TO: Christians we know meeting in the

Name of our Lord Jesus Christ

We know from God’s word that in the closing days of this dispensation "perilous times will come: and that because of iniquity the "love of many will wax cold". It seems that at this time in our endeavor, Satan has been able to draw away several of our beloved brothers and sisters across the United States. We in Fredericksburg, Virginia, find that we must write at this time advising you of the condition of our brother and sister Dave and Jane McConnell.

We gathered together, as men, Friday night August 23, 1985, to discuss events that have taken place with the McConnells in our assembly and what we can or must do about the situation. Some of us have had a growing concern for their conduct and influence for the past eight years, approximately. Others have become aware of the problem within the last couple of years. We all have shared a deep concern for them over the past few months.

Where they are in their walk, attitude and relationship toward the representation of the church which they have been a part of can be briefly summed up as follows:

1. Jane has made it very clear that she has left us and does not intend to return to fellowship with us. She has indicated that in part she has come to this place because for approximately eight years she has asked her husband about various situations and has not received satisfactory answers from him. Also, she has made it clear that over this period of time she has conformed to the lifestyle we encourage, but only for the sake of her husband, not because she understood why. During the last few months the lifestyle and appearance of Jane and her girls has changed considerably. Jane was the one who first let it be known that they were going to leave us. Her girls also let it be known to their friends among the young people. This was in January, 1984. Dave was contacted, encouraged to try to be one with us. Meetings were held, but all that was accomplished was to delay what they had already decided to do.

2. Dave made it clear that he does not agree with us on several important doctrinal areas, and that he doesn’t expect that he ever will. He has communicated to us on several occasions since January, 1984 the fact that he rejects the leadership here in the Virginia area, and especially Bob Harrison in Fredericksburg. He feels we do not understand the truth regarding leadership and how it is to function in the church. At the same time he feels no obligation to help us to understand. In the past Dave worked very closely with brethren in Fredericksburg in various endeavors to help others and deal with situations. Two situations in point are the dealing with Joe Agee and the counseling with and assisting Marcus Hampton in his divorce and child custody case. At this time Dave seems to want to absolve himself of all responsibility by denying the importance of his contribution with Marcus and indicating he had questions all along in the dealing with Joe Agee. Dave is either forgetful or is double minded as there is abundant testimony to his involvement and approval in those situations. Dave has made two statements that make it very clear why he would not be able to function with us. Dave stated he was not "interested in functioning with" Robert Grove as he functions, and that he "was not interested in submitting to leadership as we perceive it". Dave, while refusing to sit down with Bob Harrison, Robert Grove or Carlton Calk to try to resolve the issues indicates he would sit down with others (not in leadership). Brethren collectively in Virginia have indicated in counsel together one mind in that we should not bow to such demands. They would be out of order.

3. At this time Dave and Jane have made it clear that in spite of efforts to find a place or subject where we could try to resolve our differences, they have no desire to try.

The above has been witnessed to by several individuals, some together, and others one-on-one. Those who witnessed to specific events that bring us to this evaluation are: Bob Harrison, Marcus Hampton, Steve Nearman, Robert Grove, Scott Grove, Carlton Calk, Troy Howell and L. J. Balderson. The points upon which judgment must be made have been witnessed to by at least two brethren.

The conclusion we are forced to is that Dave is a heretic (1 Cor. 11:19, Gal. 5:20, Titus 3:10 & 11). We believe his heresy has affected his wife, and we have the greatest compassion for her in this situation. However, we must conclude that they "agreed together" and, therefore, they are both guilty of causing "division and offenses contrary to the doctrine" (Matt. 18:6&7; Rom. 16:17 & 18). We, as members of the church which is Christ’s body, not some man-made church, must bow to the head of the church and "mark" Dave and Jane to be "avoided". This seems to be the end of a long road over which many prayers and efforts have been made to prevent this conclusion. We take no joy in this. Our prayers are and will continue to be that this not be the end but a new beginning. All that is needed for restoration is a broken and contrite heart, a repentant heart. We believe that Dave and Jane are blind to the reaping that is waiting for them in their children, and our prayers are for their children.

We ask you to stand with us in this, because it is God’s order; it is for the benefit of Dave and Jane, and will bring a needed cleansing to our assembly.

Your brethren in Christ,

Signed by: Bob Harrison, Robert G. Rutt, A. O. Grove, William R. Woods, Marcus Hampton, Beverly Patton, Scott Grove, L. J. Balderson, Jeff Grove, W. M. Zelder, Robert A. Grove, Steve Nearman, Alan Patton, Troy Howell, Garland Campbell, Robert E. Balderson, Carlton Calk