Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:31 pm:
Mr. Hemenway, It seems that you are stating the teachings and the practices of the past, but are not aware of the changes that have been made. We are confident that the late Mr. Maurice Johnson would stand in bold rejection of the present practices.
In 1927, the late Mr. Johnson repudiated the organization which he organized about 2 years earlier with its formal incorporation and its salaried preacher system to become nothing but a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ in the ONE church of the Bible, described as the church which Christ is building (Mat. 16:18), the church which is Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23), the ONE body (Eph. 4:4), etc. Mr. Johnson would have said that these present day preachers were trifling with the word of God.
As we are being told, Mr. Robert A. Grove (and the other ministers) did not form a corporation merely for his own personal funds or to handle his own income. The funds contributed to the church are placed into his private corporation for income tax exemption instead of using the religious, non-profit, charitable status of the church to claim their exemption. Mr. Grove formed the private corporation, “Robert A. Grove Ministries, Inc.” and it is legally the owner of all the, supposed, “church” funds held in it. Therefore, he is the chief minister and the chief ruler of authority in the group with his understudy ministers under him. He and his sub ministers are the legal owners of the physical and financial assets of the church. Under the present conditions, the term, “Robert Grove church,” seems to describe the church group quite accurately.
Mr. Hemenway, are you allowed to contend earnestly for the truth as you see it, without being forbidden by the leaders? Are you allowed to inform yourself about the present use of the incorporations and continue your discussion of your findings? If so, please do. We have no desire to misrepresent you or the group, but no one seems willing to represent the group in such questionable things. Their secretive behavior is a strong indication of having cultic tendencies which are also demonstrated by their extreme domination and church discipline.
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 5:49 am:
We have access to a study written by one of our contacts that concludes from 1 Cor. 5: that the apostle Paul had judged the man, who had taken his father's wife, and directed the Corinthians to "deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." And further concludes that the ministers today could not accomplish the same if their life depended upon it. There is much more to the study that indicates that the text has been misapplied to the manner addressed on this board. (We expect more about this later.)
Our contact experienced hearing one of their ministers contend earnestly that the penalty for any "marking" or "delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh" was one and the same. The contact was later marked to be avoided and has known that they "delivered him to Satan for the destruction of his flesh."
It is commonly known that the group expects and concludes any hardship, illness or death to be the result of their "marking" judgments.
After more than 20 years with no reconciliation to the group and seeing himself and others live to be three score and ten years and four score years and beyond, he has undeniable proof that they were wrong, Satan did not destroy his flesh, they could not do such thing and the Lord did not vindicate their judgment in heaven.
Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 9:43 am:
Some of our contacts did not trust the members of Mr. Grove and Co. church and had no intention of ever being a part of any such system. They had already gone through the devastating church discipline and were well educated in the unbiblical, unfair, and extreme methods of the group. They had known the joy of truth versus the religious confusion in the earlier days. They remembered how they came out unto the Lord to serve Him, instead of men, motivated by the love of the truth of God and had seen the changes take shape and develop into a formidable error. They contended against the unscriptural “markings” of others and were thus marked, themselves.
Many years later, one of the group members, who had been instrumental in their markings, came to see some of the error. After vacillating back and forth for a few years, being drawn by truth and fairness in one direction and by the slight of men and the desire to preserve his family in the opposite direction, he finally could no longer adhere to the dictates and commandments of men issued by the group leaders. He chose to obey the word of God when it opposed the commandments of the group, and was marked.
At least two of our contacts reluctantly, cautiously and carefully observed this man, encouraged him to be true to God, but watched him as he further alienated himself from the group error, instead of taking some compromised position to appease the group in order to be allowed to associate with his children and grandchildren. At the present, they believe that they have fellowship together, because “if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 John 1:7). Distrust was alleviated; the past was forgiven.
That group member in none other than Mr. Richard Hudson. This illustration is given to show what has occurred and what can occur again and again as individuals see the light of truth and walk in that light.
Humans will never walk perfectly, this side of eternity; but if the inspired apostle Paul tells us in the Bible how the church which is Christ’s body should operate, we should endeavor to walk in it. There may not be much hope for those in the group, but there is not much hope for those, who have come out of the group, unless they individually return to the Bible for their instructions and endeavor to walk in Bible truth. We do not need to compromise the truth to walk with the group, neither do we need to compromise the truth to walk with the denominations. If God has authorized the ONE church and has added every Christian to it and if the apostle to the church has instructed us to keep the unity of it, we should endeavor to walk in the light of that truth.
Above all else, which we might do to bring the group leaders out of hiding and to communicate the truth of God in an effort to recover family relationships with our children, we should walk acceptably unto God and give them an example of God’s will. We must offer them a godly testimony of the church ordered by the Lord.
“Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:05 pm:
According to our sources, a lady was happily married for several years, but in time had marriage problems. This brought the scrutiny of the leaders. She was repeatedly subjected to the extreme sex counseling of Mr. Tom Collins. She was counseled in private without her husband and was coerced to explicitly tell everything about their most intimate relationships, every touch and how. She was made to feel extremely invaded and degraded and molested. She hated the violation of her privacy and Mr. Collins‘ participation. Later, she was divorced, having the sanction of the church leaders but she would not answer any more sexual questions, causing Mr. Collins to become very angry.
This lady remarried without getting the approval of Mr. Tom Collins and Mr. Jeff Grove before marriage which further angered them. After her second marriage, she was compelled to brokenly and publicly confess to the church group her alleged sins. Some weeks later, Mr. David Bishop expressed his concerns of not knowing how to act around her and of being uncomfortable about her presents at their gatherings. Soon afterwards and in her absence, a public announcement was made that the leaders had judged her to be “marked-to-be-avoided.” This was done without having charged her with any specific sins and without an opportunity for her defense to be heard before the leaders or before the church.
Someone told her of the announcement, but Mr. Jeff Grove would not tell her the reason on the phone. She was required to meet with Mr. Tom Collins (church Bishop), Mr. Jeff Grove (Minister), and Mr. Jack Hobson (Deacon) for about a 4 hour session. She and her husband met with them.
At the meeting, they revealed that her previous confession was “worldly and not godly,” and that she was “stubborn and independent.” Their reason was perceived to be a vague and an unbiblical reason to avoid her. They used demeaning words, but were general to the point of defying a tangible understanding.
Her husband asked them to define the “worldly and not godly” confession but they would not give further definition. Also, he asked them what she had done that indicated that she was “stubborn and independent,” but they would not elaborate with tangible information. Apparently, they did not want to accuse her of being stubborn and independent for refusing to answer their sexual questions.
Her husband asked the three leaders what she must do to have the marking removed. They replied, saying, they could not tell her what she would have to do, but that they would recognize it when they saw it. This is perceived to be a maneuver to get her to submit herself to every demand of the leadership by having her try to satisfactorily please them to get the marking removed without a defined goal to achieve.
Is it finally over? NO! It’s just begun. This event has the potential for a whole list of people to get marked-to-be-avoided in a second generation marking. This lady is from a family who has been raised in the church group. Her immediate family, her uncles, aunts, cousins and a host of friends must observe the marking and avoid her to the satisfaction of the leaders or else be marked also in a domino marking. Some may be prepared to avoid her without giving further thought as to whether she is deserving of it, but others may “Prove all things;” and “hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21)
The Robert Grove called meeting of “leaders” in the Joshua, Texas area, this week, may be an effort to coerce the assembly of Christians to observe the unscriptural marking as well as to decide how to respond to negative publicity.
Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 5:18 pm:
How did Mr. Thomas E. Collins become a Bishop in the Joshua Texas assemble of the alleged Robert A. Grove & Co. church, so called, “the church which is Christ‘s body?”
It is alleged that Mr. Collins’ failure as a father is well known, having the end result exemplified in his children. He has often spoken of not being there for his children when he was needed and of neglecting his children. The children have expressed their difficulty in being around him and of the continual problems between Mr. Collins and his children. His daughter reported to others such things as he shock her, struck her, pushed her down, knocked her to the floor, and used loud words and yelling.
Apparently, his election to the position of Bishop was because of Robert A. Grove’s need to control the assembly rather than because of his qualifications. Information from those, who knew him well, confirms that Mr. Collins has always been a sports enthusiast and his involvement in sports and in his work has historically contributed to his being an absentee father.
Mr. Robert Grove first named Mr. Collins for the office and was primarily responsible for his acceptance by the Joshua assembly. A vote for his acceptance was asked by a show of hands. Under such circumstances, few dared to withhold their vote for his appointment for fear of being singled out by group leadership as being disagreeable. An older Gentleman did speak out saying it was the first time a Bishop had been elected by popular demand that he remembered. In secular life, Mr. Collins displayed leadership ability and was known as one driven to excel. He did not, however, possess the qualifications to serve as a “Bishop” in the church.
According to reports, Mr. Collins’ children have had well known personal problems with him that stem from the lack of proper fathering in the home. Since his acceptance, other leaders in the group were aware of his disqualifying traits but they failed to act, partly because of Mr. Grove’s endorsement and partly because of the personal risk of becoming a victim of Mr. Collins’ wrath and partly by lack of enough cooperative consensus.
If it is finally determined that he was unqualified, justice would demand that the “marking” judgments over which he presided should be reviewed and retried, even from their own perspective. It should be noted, however, that in the disqualification of previous ministers, their “marking” judgments were left to stand as the judgment of God and the replacement minister upheld the previous judgments, extending their errors another generation. Of course, a retrial by the same unjust rules would net the same injustice.
The Scriptures say it best, “If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care for the church of God?”(1 Tim.3:5). Therefore, if Mr. Collins and others have not ruled their own houses well, as is evident in Mr. Collins’ case particularly, their judgments in the church cannot be counted as just and godly, without making the word of God a lie and the truth void.
RESPONSE FROM: Just Grace - No Works
Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 8:38 pm:
Her husband had already filed for divorce and had left. At the time this happened she did not have anyone to defend her honor. These questions were one on one and in private. The counseling wasn't even suppose to be about sex. She had not and did not ask a sexual question. Mr. Collins directed the counseling that way, which took the lady by surprise. The questions were very private and extremely graphic. Not only about her sex life when she was married but about her own body, using very graphic terminology. After that private meeting she no loner wanted any kind of counseling from Mr. Collins.
BACK TO DOORKEEPER:
Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 1:57 pm:
We reported that some weeks after the lady had given a broken and public confession to the church group, Mr. David Bishop expressed his concern about her presents at their gatherings (which included the Friday night sing, you spoke of). According to our information, it was weeks after the confession, not weeks after the sing. Perhaps not very clear, but it was our intended report.
Thanks for your clarity about the relationship between the sing and Mr. Bishops concerns. With your input, we assume that the sing was on August 13th. She was marked on the 15th. And the meeting with Mr. Collins, Mr. Grove, and Mr. Hobson was on a Monday night on the 16th? Are we close or right-on?
Our information is good, but not perfect. We are careful to report as accurately as we can and wish to protect our sources as you can well understand. We may post an e-mail address soon. Stay tuned.
Also, we reported that she was repeatedly subjected to the extreme sex counseling of Mr. Tom Collins. We have not embellished the information. It may be worse than you thought. We have a copy of their sex manual, “To the Bride and the Groom” which encourages experimentation with every conceivable sexual stimulation. Kinky sex of all kinds is not off limits. We are aware that they counsel in the most intimate detail in private - the male minister/counselor and the lady.
We are very concerned about the single and married ladies and the men. We strongly reject the practice of such private counseling. We strongly recommend that parents and husbands and wives refuse any such attempt by these “sex expert” ministers. We reject their self-proclaimed “sex ministry” and denounce their “sex counseling” upon our sons and daughters. Where are the fathers and mothers in all this?
We are not at all convinced that counselors are sexually or morally clean in their counseling methods. The ladies are embarrassed and ashamed to tell what they allowed these men to do, because they feel victimized, degraded and guilty. This can contribute to further promiscuity by the victim. It is much like a molested daughter, who refused to tell. The evidence is strong, but until someone comes forward, we cannot prove their folly.
The older men, apparently, are so mastered; they haven’t the spiritual fortitude to rise up and defend their wives and daughters. May God help some of us to help them, support them and suffer with them, if necessary, against this wickedness. This lady’s husband and her family could reject the marking judgment, but no one would defend them and risk their families unless they, by faith, serve God and refuse to obey the doctrines and commandments of men. Her father and mother once came out of their former “religion,” and unto the Lord, not to any such cultic tyranny that controls the group today.
RESPONSE by Just Grace - Not Works
Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 3:29 pm:
Doorkeeper. I later went back and read your report and realized that you could have been talking about the first time Dave Bishop spoke up. After reading this post I realize that is what your talking about. Dave Bishop spoke up twice. Once was after the ladies confession and the second time was a few months later after the lady showed up to Friday night sing. She did show up to sing on 8-13 and was marked on 8-15 but the Monday night meeting with the 3 men was on 8-23. I'm sorry that I didn't follow your report good enough. Your information is very accurate. The first time Dave Bishop stood up and spoke was after the ladies confession and his opinion that he expressed that day was "he didn't know how sincere her confession was." Amazing, now we can judge how sincere someone's confession is. The second time he stood up was after the sing and he expressed at that time "that he was uncomfortable with her presents and wanted to know what was expected of them, while she was around."
She was subjected to Mr. Collins sex counseling several times but the last one was the one that was more than she could handle. In that counseling the language was so direct, so personal, so graphic, that I doubt if most husbands use this kind of language with there own wives. That counseling is what drove her into a shell and made her not want any man's counseling of any kind. All the while she's being accused of "not trusting." Why would she trust? Most, if not all the pain, she was experiencing at this time was from men.
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:02 am:
Just Grace - Not Works, (A little unfinished business.) According to your post, there was a week and a day between the Sunday, the lady was marked, and the Monday night of her meeting with Mr. Collins, Mr. Grove and Mr. Hobson. We were confident of the date the lady and her husband met with the men, but were not sure of the previous dates. We knew the out-come of the meeting with these three men before August 23, and had noted the meeting date on our records as the 16th.
Therefore, with your input considered, the sing must have been on August 6th, the marking on August 8th, and the meeting with the men on August 16th. All this is unimportant for the most part, but since you are knowledgeable, you might want to critique our information a little more. Also, we did not take into account that Mr. Bishop had questioned the ladies confession on the day of the confession but reported his concerns at or after the sing which was some weeks (or a few months) after the confession.
Mr. Bishop’s concerns seemed to have motivated the leaders to declare their marking. His behavior seems extremely prejudice and introduces questions. Was his prejudice based on a happy hunch or on some tangible evidence? Did he express the basis of his contention? How could Mr. Bishop be able to judge this ladies confession? Did the concerns of this man have such effect on the leaders, as to cause them to mark her to be avoided? Mr. Bishop only holds a self-appointed authority to our knowledge.
The lady’s husband gives strong evidence of being a well grounded Christian. We have reason to believe that he will be a godly comfort to her and that they, together, can draw near to the Lord and find victory through their trials and joy through their tears. Our prayers are that they not become discouraged, but mature in faith and in Christian stability and courage. If they remain true to God, God will bless them and they will not give her family any reason to avoid her. Up to this point, we have not heard a biblical reason for the leaders to mark her to be avoided. Her marking judgment was very much mishandled by unqualified leaders, unscriptural procedures, inexcusable intrusion of their sex counseling and by rank injustice. The failures of her past do not justify the extreme condemnation applied to her, now. If her family cannot stand against the leaders in her behalf and in behalf of the truth of God, for what can they stand? They are likened unto the followers of the preeminence seeking Diotrephes (3 John 9-12), who were guilty for following him in the only “domino marking” recorded in the Scriptures. “Neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbade them that would, and casteth them out of the church.” (verse 10) What a commentary!
Other Brethren have refused the domination of these leaders in past years and were marked to be avoided, when there were none that stood with them. Some of them in the Fort Worth area have continued to meet together in small numbers, only in the name of the Lord, much like it was many years ago and they fervently reject the tyrannical system of the Robert Grove & Co. churches. This lady and her family and Christian friends are not without Christian support, even by many who have posted on this board.
RESPONSE by Just Grace - Not Works
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 8:48 pm:
Doorkeeper44. You are correct. The day of the sing was Friday the 6th. The day of her marking was Sunday the 8th. The meeting with her, her husband, Jeff Grove, Tom Collins, and Jack Hobson, was Monday the 16th.
As far as Dave Bishop voicing his opinions. He did not express his opinion the day of her confession (approximately end of March-1st of April). The following Sunday, at the end of meeting, is when he expressed his opinion, "that he did not feel her confession was sincere." The second time he spoke up, to my understanding, was the same night that her and her husband went to sing.
"Mr. Bishop’s concerns seemed to have motivated the leaders to declare their marking. His behavior seems extremely prejudice and introduces questions."
I really don't know if Mr. Bishop has that much influence with leadership. My opinion of him, though, is it's very important to him to be noticed by leadership and I'm not so sure he didn't speak up, stating what he thought they would like to hear.
RESPONSE by Anonymous (18.104.22.168)
Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:49 pm:
One of the things that disturbs me the most about Tom Collins is his need to carry a concealed weapon. I heard him speak of his "license to carry" from the pulpit one time with my own ears. I understand Jeff Grove also "carries a weapon." Why do they feel this need? Are they worried about an enraged husband or father? Does a minister of Jesus Christ need to pack a pistol? What about the shield of faith and the sword of the Word? Can't the Lord protect them? Hasn't the Lord set up governments to minister in that area? If it's right for ministers to carry concealed weapons, shouldn't all the Christians in Texas (and in any other state where it's legal) "follow them as they follow Christ?" I think those that are still in the group probably block those questions from their minds. If they didn't and ever verbalized their questions or doubts, they might find themselves outside the inner circle.
RESPONSE by Allen AKA
Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 7:33 am:
Concerning concealed weapons:
I know that Mr. Grove has said he carries a concealed weapon (I believe it to be a Glock). I also know that it is illegal to bring a concealed weapon (whether or not you have a permit) to a place used as a "house of worship", or within a certain distance from a school. Mr. Grove inadvertently did one of the above, and to protect himself he dis-assembled it, and left it in the trunk of the car. I also know that there was a wedding in VA several years ago where someone was believed to be carrying a gun, and something negative was said from the pulpit (the context being---I have heard a report that...)
Several in the assemblies either own weapons, and possess, or did consider possessing, a concealed permit.
Return to Top Return to Navigation