Mary, Mary Quite

Contrary


Or


1Does the Lord Jesus Christ Want women

To rule as Elders in His Church ?


This is notconfidential and is for all to read.


Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.


image


2First Published: 16th January 2003


Abshott Publications 11 Hayling Close Fareham

Hampshire PO 14 3AE


E-mail: nbpttc@yahoo.co.uk


ISBN 0-953949473-2-0


image

  1. Foreword


    The author, David Clarke, felt compelled to write this book, after his return from a 10-month preaching mission to the jails in the Philippines, between October 2002 and June 2003. The complete mission is recorded in the Trojan Horse Diary for that year entitled, 3“Before the Cock Crows”.


    He discovered sadly, to his disappointment, that many religious errors in practice and doctrine had developed in a country, which is very religious. These errors David had encountered and experienced before in the United Kingdom some 20 years earlier when he was a minister amongst Strict and Particular Baptists. These errors include the failure to understand that God appointed marriage as a pre-figure of Christ and his Church and so the Gospel it good news for all the world; That the head of every woman is the man as the head of Christ is God the father. David realises that a woman cannot be an elder in a church because the scripture says so, with good reason. David states that sexual relationships outside of marriage are wrong. Homosexual and Lesbian relationships are

    image

    cursed by God.


    David in this book asserts the truth that: We have a sovereign God who predestined all things, in order to manifest His glory, in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. That this salvation is by divine appointment through election. Those chosen by the Father were redeemed by the Son and will be separated by the Spirit in time. In other words: The elect shall be saved by being called and obeying the gospel as they are made alive to Christ. This will be by God the Holy Spirit working in them both to do and to will of His good pleasure. All the elect shall be saved and none shall be lost.


    Recent issues now convince David that Satan is bent on destroying all those relationships, which God has blessed and designed for our good. The relationships under attack are those of marriage, family, church and those wholesome, lawful, relationships between men and women.


    However due to the sad fall of man in Adam the whole world is in need of deliverance, from the sad effects and evil of sin which has come upon the human race in every culture.

    The matters that David writes about have been “burned into his skin”, so to speak, like a branding iron, shortly after the collapse of his, short lived, second marriage, in November 1998. The situation that David now writes about is just another blow, which hit him, on his return, from a short lived wayward lifestyle, that he had chosen some seven years earlier, when he left his first wife and four children, for what he once described as the, “love of a life time”. The thing that David did displeased the Lord.


    In the case of Job, we have the life of a righteous man, who was tried by the Lord, according to His sovereign will, and as with Peter Satan who desired to sift him too tried him. In jobs case we have the scripture to teach us that behind the scenery a spiritual conflict existed. Satan was seeking to destroy the servant of God but behind this scene a continuous supply of the spirit of grace and supplication, to uphold the man of God, who was a chosen vessel to obtained life. Job 42, verse

    11. We are informed that it was the Lord that had brought all the evil upon Job but it was Satan who was the wicked instrument. In this book David

    wishes to suggest that the Lord tried him too, like Job, only in his case he was not a righteous man but deserved damnation for his sins. Never the less he too is a chosen vessel unto honour and the Lord Jesus has prayed for him. God set him apart before the world was to experience the good and the bad in order to his to testify to the whole world of the goodness an mercy of God displayed towards him in his deliverance from a life of crime, promiscuity and drugs, in short sin, death and hell. David believes that behind the scene of this natural world is the spirit who animated the “Queen of Heaven”.


    David’s first publication was his autobiography, ”Converted on LSD Trip”, and tells the story, from his birth to his remarkable conversion from crime, drugs, and sex to Christ on the 16th January 1970. It describes his early life as a Christian and the range of experiences of Christianity from 60’s to the present time. He speaks of his call to preach the gospel and his life in the Bierton, Strict and Particular Baptist, Church.


    During this time David had been extremely, blessed by the Lord, in many ways, with a wife,

    lovely home and four children, all after he had graduated from his earlier Borstal Training sentence in 1967, which he was given for a crime of malicious wounding in the 60’s. David speaks of his subsequent conversion to Christ, search for truth through the religious maze, to his then present position as a lecturer at Luton College of Higher Education. He leads up to his fall into inward and then outward sin and his desperate call again for deliverance a second time from death and destruction for all his sins. Then to his remarriage which ends in disaster.


    This book seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and bare testimony to a triune God made know to us in the person of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.


    This volume describes David’s first encounter with wayward Christianity, shortly after his return from his fall into outward sin, and return in repentance unto, His Father’s house. Only to find wicked servants had taken control and violated the rule of the Son of God’s house, which he had entrusted to them. David was not welcomed at the Jesus is Lord united Reformed Church, meeting at Warsash - no doubt it had become the den of

    thieves. All David did, to upset these elders, was to point out to them that it was wrong to appoint women as elders in a Christian church. A further shock was later encountered by David when the elders at Titchfield Evangelical Church, banned David from attending the Sunday morning public meetings because it upset his estranged wife, who attended the meetings there. To his amazement he realised that a woman elder, called Valerie, was behind this move. These elders were later challenged about their immoral and of course illegal conduct but as of today they have refused to explain their reasons for a departure from the traditional Christian view of Christian Marriage.


    There have been many secular books, which seek to identify and outline the distinctive differences between men and women such as, Men are from Mars Women from Venus and Why men don’t listen and Why women can’t read maps, all of which are humours how ever the scriptures are the only book which give the answer as to why men are as they are and why women are as they are. David maintains it is because of what God pronounced in the Garden of Eden when He said the woman’s

    desire shall be to rule her husband, but he must rule over her. Gen. 3 verse 16. A leason he needs to learn


    The method of writing is unique but David believes he has been directed to write this history for the benefit of all who will listen to the Lord Jesus Christ, and has lived to know that they too need the salvation, which is by the Lord Jesus Christ,who is the Son of the living God.


  2. Prelude


    A question of Chauvinism or sexual discrimination


    Is this Christian belief and conviction, taught in the Old and New Testament Scriptures? If so the why not take the matter seriously? God has spoken expressly in the scripture about:


    Marriage Divorce

    Homosexual relationships

    Lesbian relationships


    Sexual relationships outside of marriage Drunkenness and blasphemy Relationships with animals.

    It is our wisdom (the believers) to take heed to what God has spoken to us about these issues and not ignore His Word. God has also spoken to us about the roles of men and women, in and outside of marriage, and also in the church and family. Again we ought to take heed to what is written and not to ignore God’s Word. The world can do as it pleases let them decide for them selves not the church.


    The role of women in the church is as equally important as that of men. We ought not to go against what God has expressly spoken to us about these matters and ignore our respective roles.


    The author puts it forward an opinion that Men fail in their duties towards their women if they do not teach and maintain the truth of God regarding these issues and relationships as revealed

    to us in the bible and that wisdom dictates that we obey God’s expressed commands rather than do our own thing and allow women to take over and ruin themselves, in seeking to rule as elders in the Church. DC July: 5/3/99


    Introduction


    The provocative question, “Does the Lord Jesus want women to rule as elders in His church” is a very reasonable one as we are living in the times spoken of Revelation 2 verse 12 to 17. It is believed this provocative question will be the means of speaking to those sluggards of men who are asleep and not honouring Women kind. Women do not respect men who are wimps!


    We are exhorted by the Apostle Paul to “mark those who cause division and offences” Romans 16 verses to 20 and avoid them and so in this book I have marked and named these elders at Warsash Church and so encourage others to avoid them.


    Romans 16 verse 17


    Now I beseech you brethren mark them, which

    cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine, which ye have learned: and avoid them.


    Method of approach


    The following pagers contain a documented history of a real difficulty that arose at The “Jesus is Lord” Church meeting at Warsash, Hampshire. It ends with David Clarke, the author, being asked by the elders, “How can I continue to go to the Church if I hold such different views to them”, with respect to women being asked to be appointed as Elders.


    It had been announced to the church, by Martin Lloyd, the church Secretary, on the first Lord’s Day in January, that elders were unanimous in their view that women my become elders in the church. David maintained that this was contrary to scripture and was an error.


    This history made known by a series of letters and correspondents,whichrelatestoacontroversialissue raised, by Martin Lloyd and the elder, at Warsash “Jesus is Lord Church”. These men caused the division and so they are marked, according to

    the scripture. These men were responsible for the offence.


    This publication reveals that the issues spoken of by our Lord Jesus Christ, in Revelations Chapter 2 verse 1-7, are relevant to day.


    The charge of practicing the “deeds of the Nicholaitanes” has been laid at the door of Martin Lloyds and the elders of Warsash Church.


    Please feel free comment and respond any way you feel appropriate. Martin Lloyd responded to my complaint, on 25th January 1999 by letter, after I questioned him and another elder about the proposition to opening up the rights of the church members to nominate women to the eldership,


    Note:


    This note is added for this publication as the times are changing and the scriptures are being fulfilled. It was spoken prophetically, in the early chapters of Genesis 3 verse 15, that the Seed of the women shall bruise the Serpents head but it shall bruise His heel. Also that the curse placed on the woman, man and the ground still remains and the conflict

    between the sexes will continue. It is believed that the break up in marriages is due to us forgetting the past and ignoring what God has to say about our distinctive roles. Marriage, the church and lawful relationships are the target of Satan’s spleen.


    Current Philosophy and Education


    It is now taught, by many so called educated people, that men and women can function equally in the role of elders and priests, that gender distinctions must be cast aside.


    The author maintains that the principle is wrong and such ignorance has opened up the door to the destruction of wholesome relationships which are blessed by God to unclean practices of homosexual and Lesbians.


    The issues of women in the church and head coverings are discussed in the Appendices4 and also the mistaken view that women could function as a Priest5.


    1. (See Appendix 01 Covering or ladies hats?)


      image

    2. (See Appendix 03 A Mary for every one)


      Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ alone


      Davidmaintainsthatafailuretoseeandunderstand declared truth, concerning the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the revelation of God’s plan and purpose in the design of the church, has lead to the confusion today and is responsible for the many evils that we now experience in our modern society.


      Salvation from such evil is only to be found in a returning to God through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ alone.


      The author says, “Thank God for Ladies in the church but men watch out!”, Ladies follow fashions. However I say let Christian women set fashions.


  3. Before Chapter One


    Announcment by Martin Lloyd introducing controversy


    My letter to the elders

    This is a copy of my letter sent to the elders following their recent announcement regarding women elders in the church.


    January 1999


    Dear Secretary and Elders,


    The secretary announced today in church that the Eldership were in unanimous agreement that women could be ordained as elders as well as men.


    I groaned immediately as I felt very sad that a controversial issue was being introduced to the church. I spoke to the secretary and another elder. (Two of the elders were away) saying I believed that the elders were in serious error on this point and I believed it my duty to say this to them. I stated that I did not like controversy and would avoid it but this matter was thrust upon the church.


    I said that unanimity did not make a matter right, as all the disciples of Jesus were unanimous when they forsook him. That did not make it right.


    I commended them for standing against making practicing homosexuals elders but I could not do

    the same about this issue.


    The Secretary said they had looked at the issue and that was their viewpoint and I should be subject to their authority.


    I said I was not arguing about their authority but I was under authority to Jesus and I felt it my responsibility to say to them how I felt and believed. That I did not have to believe what they believed.


    I asked them what did they think I should do about the issue which has been raised by them not me.


    Apostle Exhortation


    My immediate thoughts were:


    The Apostle Paul’s exhortation to Titus was to ordain elders in every city.


    Titus 1. Verse 5.


    He says, “If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly etc.

    Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers.


    The elders here were to be men and not women.


    I Timothy 5 v 1 Paul states that anElder should not be rebuked but entreated as a father and the younger men as brethren.


    The next verse states that elder women should be treated as mothers; the younger as sisters. In these two versesanelder is male there is no suggestion that an elder is a woman.


    I understand the Hebrew word for elder is “ zaqen” meaning old age - bearded. Meaning male as in Gen 50 v 7. The Hebrew word for elder women “gadol” meaning great as in Gen 29 v 16.


    Paul write to Timothy 1 Tim 3 v 1 saying If a man desire the office of a (bishop), he desires a good work. The word bishop is similar to overseer as used in Acts 20 v 28. In this place it states the Holy Ghost made them overseers. These were men not women as later in Acts 21 v 5 it says their wives and children came and kneeled down as they

    parted.


    Paul states 1 Tim 3 v 2. that a bishop must be blameless the husbandofonewife. One that ruleth his own house having his children in subjection. If a man know not how to rule his own house how shall he take care of the church of God.


    Here we are to understand the bishop or overseer is a man not a women.


    The Apostle does make distinction between the man and the women and argues his point from scripture. In 1 Tim 3 v 8.


    Men not women


    He says I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.


    In like manor also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shame faced ness and sobriety.


    Adam was first formed then Eve.


    Adam was not deceived but the women being deceived was in the transgression.

    I do not wish to be controversial but I believe the clear light should direct us or Gods word we be not be wiser that what is written. Obedience to Gods Word is better that sacrifice. Remember what happened to king Saul. I believe it is against the word of God to ordain women as elders.


    Yours Sincerely in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ


    David Clarke End.

    The Letter of Controversy


    image

    This letter of reply from Martin Lloyd, and elder and acting as the Interim Secretary of the Warsash United Reformed Church was received and is published below:


    Warsash “Jesus is lord” Church


    Mr. D. Clark


    11 Hayling Close,

    Fareham Hants.

    Warsash United Reformed Church


    Interim Secretary: M Lloyd 8 Home Rule Road,

    Locks Heath, Southampton, S031 6LG

    Tel. (01489) 581009


    25 Jan. 99


    Dear David,


    Thank you for sharing with Brian and myself your concerns about the possibility of our fellowship having female elders and for the letter you gave me Sunday evening concerning the same subject. I should perhaps point out that it is not a new view and there is within the fellowship a number of female elders and has been for a number of years.

    They are at this point non-serving but still Elders.


    I hope you will agree that what we are talking about is in fact a matter of interpretation of the scripture. Within the Eldership at Warsash we hold different views on some doctrine. We believe that God has called us as Elders and therefore accept by His grace one another’s view while possibly not agreeing with it. Which of us is right and which of us is wrong is not important, what is important is that we love and serve our Lord Jesus Christ to the best of our ability. I believe at Warsash that is what the Elders are doing.


    We have in the past been side tracked on different issues, which have been raised by various circumstances. These issues have in my opinion, at best, slowed our progress as a church and, at worst, prevented us doing what God has called us to do. I agreed that doctrine and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is important but if it slows us down or stops us reaching out, which is what we believe our Lord is calling us to do, then it can not be right. If our doctrine prevents us from working with other Christians then we must throw it away and reconsider it. Doctrine has evolved over the

    years and praise God will continue to do so. No one has a pure doctrine and no one is perfect only Jesus.


    Be assured that we will continue to pray over this and many other issues, and we thank you again for expressing your opinions and beliefs. Thank God that He has given us a fellowship in which we may do this openly.


    Yours in our Lord Jesus Christ,


    Martin Lloyd: E-mail: Martin@Iloyd7.freeserve. co.uk


  4. Chapter One

    Summond to see the Elders


    28/2/99


    Today was the day I was summoned to see the Elders regarding my objections to them supporting women becoming elders?


    On the 21/2/99 I was asked to meet the elders

    after the morning meeting, on the 28/2/99. I met with the elders as agreed and we meet in the small room. The Elders were 5 elders one being the secretary.


    I was informed by the secretary that they had not called me to discuss any issue with me about women elders but rather as what had happened was so very serious he wondered had I any Idea how serious it was.


    He stated I had written to a visiting preacher from a bible college and I was very rude to him. This was out of order as I was undermining the leadership at (Name withheld) church.


    His tone of voice and method of speech was such that he might just well have said, “ Art thou he that troubleth Israel” (1 Kings 18 17).


    I replied I was sorry if I had cause any offence but I had not meant too.


    However before I could say any more I was silenced by the secretary’s retort he said, “No, No, it has got nothing to do with offence”.

    I said well I couldn’t say any more as I did not know what to say.


    I was told the secretary’s I was out of order and how could I explain my writing such letters not only to the visiting preacher but also the Elders.


    In trying to explain I started to say “I was invited to become a member and assumed--- but before I could finish I was stopped from speaking again the secretary him saying, “No, no, not any more. That invitation to become a member had been with drawn”.


    I was taken back by this and had to checked this out with him first of all by saying I did not know that. This was news to me. He then said as far as he was concerned he would not support me becoming a member now. He could not speak for the others. The other elders remained silent so I assumed they were unanimous in this view too.


    I said, “well I had not been aware of this until now so in that case I will say. I was about to or was trying to explain that I was acting in good faith and a way that I thought right.

    I said to the secretary that I had asked him and another elder before, when I raised my objection at first, how did they want me to deal with the issue. At that time the secretary had said they were the Elders and I should be subject to them. I asked them to pray with me over the issue as I knew this matter could not be left and I wanted to act in wisdom and to honour God.


    I followed my objection by a letter to the elders and received a reply.


    The reply I received was unacceptable as it contained very serious errors so I wrote back pointing them out about them.


    I explained my letter to the visiting preacher was between him and me and that I had given a copy to them as I was being open with them and not doing things in the dark or a corner.


    I said I had no intention of arguing with them and I was not going too.


    The secretary said why did I write again without saying anything new. Another asked me elder, “then why all these letters if I was not arguing”.

    I replied to the secretary and said I was not saying anything new because I was sticking to the one issue. Women do not qualify to be elders according to the Word of God. I replied to the elder I wrote again by way of reply to secretary in order to point out the errors contained in their reply to me. I simple state they were wrong and gave the reasons.


    Icouldhaveinformedthesecretarythat,“Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and Idolatry”. That like King Saul who was instructed to go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and women, infant and suckling, ox and sheep camel and ass. They too have not obeyed the commandments of God.


    God has instructed the church men are to be neither Elders nor women. They want to go beyond the commandants of God and appoint women contrary to the scriptures. Saul thought it a good thing to spare the best of the sheep and oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord their God. Saul did not obey the voice of the Lord but did evil in the sight of Lord. 1 Sam. 15 1- 23. To go beyond scripture and against scripture is the same sin as King Saul.

    I was then asked if I would subject my self to the elder ship should women join their team.


    I replied it depends what you mean. I said they were not ruling my conscience and they had no jurisdiction over my faith. I said I would be subject to their authority in respect to the things in the church.


    I also said I would not be saying any more to them about women elders.


    The secretary told me that he had known me 5 years and as far as he could see I had not change in all that time. He saw no change in me and it saddened him very much. He stated I was seriously spiritually in a bad way. I replied to Martin that if that was the case then the Lord Jesus was sadder that him.


    He said I was consumed with this women elder ship, that it had taken me over. He maintained no one writes pages the way I did on such a subject.


    I replied to the secretary saying I am not the same as him. I was different. That he was now judging my motives. I explained this had not consumed me

    as I had far more serious and pressing things in my life to deal with at the moment. I though to my self after the event that it was written of Jesus “the zeal of thine house has eaten me up” (Psalm 69 .9) which of course is commendable.


    The Elders recently in normal course of events brought up this issue, so I acted normally for me. The secretary then told me they could not help me. That he had already recommended some time ago I go to El El ministries.


    I asked were they asking me to leave. The secretary said how could I continue going there if I held the views I held.


    I suggested that if they thought I was wrong in this issue, why did they wish me to leave, as surely they would want me to come to know the truth and follow them. (This being the scripture reason for reproof)


    I suggested by staying they could help me. I certainly would wish them to come to knowledge of the truth this was why I had written to them in the first instant, and this would be my wish for the

    future.


    I went on to explain I had been helped this past year and blessed of God at the Church and I had no intentions of going elsewhere, at the moment. However I asked if they would support me if I looked elsewhere; another elder said they would.


    I said I had no intention of going elsewhere nor was I making any threats. I also said had I known that they held to women being elders I would not have sought to join them when asked to do so


    At that time there were six male elders and no hint a women becoming and elder. I said I would be looking elsewhere but at the moment I have no where else to go.


    I reiterated I had acted out of love to them in dealing with this issue. I did not want to get involved in controversy. It causes me great distress. I did not want it but I did what I believed the Lord would have me do.


    I had been faithful to the Lord Jesus.


    I felt very calm and was not surprised at their

    reaction. I was very disappointed however and felt sad at such a situation.


    I felt the Lord stood by me and I know I had been faithful to the Lord in this issue. I am reminded “ They that honour me I will honour”. (1 Sam 2 30).


    I now know how Paul felt when he wrote,” no man stood with me, but all men forsook me. (2 Tim 4 16)


    End.


    David Clarke: March 1999.


  5. Chapter Two


    Background and Support from The Jesus is Lord Church


    Over the past year I had received a great deal of help and support from the church as I was having real difficulties within my second marriage.


    During this time there were seven male elders. There were no women elders and I understood these men were seeking to honour the Lord in every

    thing.


    The churches had also decided leave or sever links with their trustees who were the URC. This was over the issue regarding homosexual persons becoming elders. I had supported their stand and encourage them in this.


    In November I had been asked if I would like to become a church member and I said I would like too but I declined in the end, due to my domestic situation. I was informed I was to consider my self- one of the church and could join when I wanted.


    After this a former elder announced he was leaving with his wife and also a senior elder announced he would also be leaving in May 1999. Another former elder had left recently leaving only five left. There had never been a mention of women being elder’s whist I was there.

  6. Chapter Three


    Invite to The Bible College


    About this time I was invited, as a potential student, to Bible College so I went to the open day early 1999. Whilst there I took the liberty to speak to the man who was the visiting preacher, the Dean of Faculty in Biblical Authority, about the issue of women elders? He said he would have to have a Word from the Lord before appointing women elder however she would have to have the appropriate qualifications. He was not against the principle of a woman elder.


    I was disappointed at this reply as this meant I judged such teaching unsound and wanted to know the Bible colleges position before I considered any more being a student there.


    The preacher came and spoke to the Church a week later.


    I wanted to speak to the Principle but judged it best to write to him.


    The following is the letter I sent to The

    Principal.


    8/2/99


    Dear Mr. Swadling,


    Thank you for your letter regarding the bible college training centre. I was very pleased to visit you on your open day and as a new potential student I found what you had to say very remarkable and helpful.


    I wanted to ask you about the colleges position regarding Female Elders as the church (name withheld URC) from whom I have received much help from have recently announced that the elders were unanimous in accepting women may serve as Elders in the church.


    This has been very disturbing to me as the scriptures are clear that the qualifications for an elder is to be the husband of one wife and to have his children in all subjection.


    There are no examples of women elders in the New Testament. The scripture speak against woman usurping authority over the man.

    Peter Jacob, one of our former elders, taught use to speak and believe only what the scripture says. To reject every thing else.


    The view held now by the elders is a deviation from scripture and has cause much distress and one family has now left.


    In speaking upon the subject I was informed that the bible college share the same view; that women may serve as elders in a Christian church.


    I would be very grateful if you would speak clearly about the bible college position with respect to women elders.


    Yours very sincerely David Clarke.

    Please share this with the Dean (visiting preacher) and your staff as I did speak to him briefly about the matter on the 30/1/99.


    The Principals Reply


    To: Mr D Clarke

    11 Hayling Close Fareham Hampshire

    P014 3AE


    10th February 1999 Dear David

    Thank you for your letter dated 8th February and I am pleased you enjoyed your time here at Christ For The Nations Bible Training College.


    I note your question about Female Elders and really to clarify the situation I would say that Christ For The Nations does not officially have an opinion or view on this particular subject because we are not a Church and we teach about leadership. This sort of issue really is down to the individual Church Elders and leaders of the various Churches. I have photocopied an article, which Barbara Sambrooks one of our lecturers here has written which I think you should find quite helpful.

    Also when we look back in history we see that God has very clearly used many women to become leaders and Elders in various denominations who have really been effective in the Body of Christ. I think what we have to do is look at the cultural background at the time for when Paul was writing to Timothy in the Scriptures you are quoting from Paul was talking to Timothy about the Church in Ephesus and it was a Jewish culture he was talking about and in the Jewish and Greek culture at that time men did have positions of authority and leadership but women seldom did.


    There are many instances as you can see from Barbara’s notes where women have been Church leaders and house group leaders and God has used them mightily. My personal opinion is if God anoints and calls someone then it is not up to us to judge and be divisive. It caused a great split in the Anglican Church but as far as l am concerned what is more important is not whether someone is male or female but rather their character and whether they are people of integrity or not? If you look at the qualifications of leadership in every part of the Bible what God is looking for is people whose

    heart is towards Him and that they obey what He is calling them to do. The Church I attend, The Vine Christian Fellowship actually has women Elders as well and I personally do not have a problem with that providing that as with men Elders they are people under authority: i.e. submitted one to another.


    I say these things are down to the individuals and in any Church situation if you belong to a Church and the leadership is doing things, which you feel, are not Scriptural and not right then obviously it is your choice to find a Church where you do fit and you are content and happy. In the broader context of The Body of Christ we should not judge one another and as I have said before as Christ For The Nations is not a Church we do not have to take a view on this other than try to give a balanced overall picture and various denominations and Churches come to their own conclusions.


    I hope this has been helpful and if you would like to come and chat with me I would be more than pleased to do that.

    Every blessing and hope to see you soon. Kevin Swadling

    Principal/Director


    CHRIST FOR THE NATIONS UK DODSELY LANE EASEBOURNE MIDHURST WEST SUSSEX GU29 OAD


    TEL: 01730 817775 FAX: 01730 817992 E-MAIL


    cfnuk@aol.com


    CHRIST FOR THE NATIONS UK IS A REGISTERED CHARITY TRUST No. 1064962


    My Response to the Principal’s Letter


    The Principal acknowledges that the bible college has no official position yet they teach about leadership. I was hoping to hear the Word of God in all issues like this governed them.


    He went on to give his personal view that history has dictated to him that it is OK for women to become Elders and they are very effective.


    This is a serious error. We should never look to history for direction when God has spoke directly on the subject in question. If you look at History

    then look to Eve in Gen 3 16. Do not take Eve as the example to follow suit.


    In his opinion theApostle Paul’s argument against women teaching and ruling was a cultural issue of his day and does not now apply to the churches today.


    This is another serious error. The Apostle argues in Corinth,” if any wish to be contentious (regarding women in the church) we have no such custom, neither in the Churches”. Cor 16). i.e. not just Ephesus.


    And again,” Let your women keep silence in the Churches: for they are not permitted to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law (1 Cor14 3 4). i.e. not just Ephesus.


    And Peter states “ Likewise ye wives be in subjection to you own husbands (1 Pet 3 1)”. i.e. not just Paul.


    I have quoted two witnesses - it is not a cultural thing but creational.


    He argues if God anoints anyone to do any work

    who are we to judge on the basis of sex.


    It is not for me to judge what God does but we are given the scriptures in order for us to, “try them that say they are apostles and are not”. The church at Ephesus was commended by the Lord Jesus for doing just that. (Rev 2. 2)


    The scriptures forbids women elders (and gives its reasons - these are creational not cultural) who are we to go against the Lord?


    The Principal then give example of The Vine Fellowship as having women Elders.


    I thought it a poor answer to sight the Vine Church has women elders is like Eve saying “Adam look I have taken the forbidden fruit and it looks good, tastes good and I’m sure it will do you good, Go ahead and eat it like me”.


    The answer is no, we do not follow any man to do evil but resist evil and follow the Lord Himself.


    I am told it is a local church affair and if I feel the local church is unscriptural I am free to go elsewhere.

    Had Paul allowed Peter to oppose the Gospel, like he did, where would we be today. Paul contended earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints he did not ignore problem but faced them and tackled them.

    Women Can’t Have Authority Or Teach Barbara Sambrooks Article Within1Timothywehavesomeverycontroversial

    verses of Scripture. It would be far easier to try to

    ignore them rather than explain them for fear of offending various groups within the Church.


    We need to know something of the social background of Ephesus, the city where Timothy was a pastor the religious and social background has a great bearing on what was written


    InActs 19 we read that a riot broke out when Paul’s preaching threatened the livelihood of the Silver Smiths who made idols of the goddess Artemis. The origins of this goddess went back far beyond the Greeks; she was the mother goddess revered, in many guises, throughout Asia Minor. To the Greeks she was known as Artemis. The Romans

    knew her as Diana. In Graeco-Roman mythology, at the birth of Artemis/Diana, she was so horrified at the birth pains her mother endured that she was completely averse to marriage. In ancient writings praising the honour of Artemis she is portrayed as the one who remains a virgin, loves women, helps them to hunt and capture men in war, helps them in childbirth and even protects civil urban Greeks from the wild forest. She is seen as saviour and ruler of the cosmic powers. Astrology played an important role in her worship.


    Ephesus housed Timothy’s Church. It also housed the temple of Artemus. The Temple was the largest and most lavish structure in the whole of the ``hen known world. It was used as a bank, money and valuables placed there were safe, no one would dare to violate the temple. The central object of worship in the temple appears to have been a meteorite called “Diopetes”, which means “Fallen from heaven” (Acts 19:351. Priestesses attended the temple of Artemis. Males could only become priests if they had been castrated. These eunuch priests were called “Megabyzoi”.


    Another pagan religion that was prolific in

    Phrygia, the area in which Ephesus was situated, was the Cybelereligion. Cybele was another “mother goddess”. Again, any male priest in this religion had to be castrated. They were known as “Galli”, they wore female clothing and let their hair grow like a woman’s hair.


    As we read through the epistles to Timothy we need to bear this background information in mind. Also, one must be aware that in the two pagan cults mentioned the women were dominant. With this short overview we can perhaps begin to appreciate the motivation behind Paul’s writing.


    The Church in Ephesus, to which Timothy was the pastor, lived in the shadow of the great temple to Artemis. France writes that it “cannot have been unaffected by the surrounding atmosphere of a flamboyant and probably fairly uninhibited form of worship in which women and eunuchs played a leading role”(France p.58).


    1 Tim.1: 3 - Timothy is urged not to let anyone teach false doctrines. It is interesting that “certain men” is more correctly translated “certain persons. Could it include women?

    Why did Paul use an unusual term, why did he not use the plural of the word anthropos, or andros which both translate into the English as man?


    I Tim. 1:7 - Some people are wanting, to be teachers of the law but they have no understanding. If we keep the religious background in mind, and read this verse With Chp 2:11-12 we may gain a little more understanding of the text.


    I Tim 2:12 –“Authority” in the Greek text a cognate of the word authento is used. This only occurrence of this word in the whole of the New Testament, it does not even occur anywhere in the Greek version of the Old Testament. Authento is more correctly translated “usurped authority” It means to seize or assume power wrongly, to dominate Paul would not even let a man exercise “authento” within one of his congregations. Authority must be given, not grasped. Why would Paul have written such a thing?


    If Paul had meant that a woman could have legitimate authority he could have used another Greek word, proistemi, which he has done in other places (Chp. 3:4-5,12, 5:17), and which is translated

    as authority, or management. The word he did use, authento, is used of one who does anything by his/ her own hand. In non-biblical Greece it is used in regard to a murderer. What the women in the pagan cults, local to Ephesus, were doing was “murdering men”, not physically but emotionally.


    In the Syriac and Arabic versions of our Timothy text authento is understood to have connotations of insolence, bullying, domineering. One scholar has said that from the evidence it would seem that there were women in Ephesus who were brutalizing men.


    Could it be that some female converts fron1 the pagan religions had come into Timothy’s congregation and were trying to have the superior role, as they would have had in the temple of Artemis? Such a background would certainly explain why sucl1 a large percentage or the letter contains so much about women. Here is Timothy, a young male leader in the Church, the equivalent of what would have been seen as a priest. In such a society as Ephesus it is no wonder that Paul wrote Chp.4: 12. We can see that Paul was writing to address the specific problems in Ephesus; other

    communities would not have had these same problems.


    Salvation through childbirth!


    Does it mean that a woman’s salvation can be achieved through childbirth?


    What if a woman does not marry, or does not have children, does it mean that she cannot be saved?


    Does it mean that a woman will be kept safe through childbirth? . What of those thousands of women who die during childbirth?


    If it is number three then the Word of God is untrue!


    If it is either of the first two where is the place of the cross in the salvation process?


    To exercise good exegesis we need to read Chp.2: 9-l5). as a complete unit.


    D.M. Scholer says that there was a problem in the Church in that some women were despising their roles within marriage. This could be due to the local cults. (Chp. 1:9-1 I deals with women’s

    dress and demeanor.


    As we look at our section (2:9-l 5) this does appear to speaking about the marriage situation


    Verse 12 Authority over a man (Gk. Andros). This verse, coupled with the rest of the section appears to be addressing marriage; Christian marriage. A women (Gr. Gune) can also mean a wife; there is no difference in Greek, just as andros can mean man or husband.


    Paul then goes on to use the example of Adam. and Eve, .as France puts it; the paradigm married couple (vs. 13-14). Our section of the text concludes “with the commendation of childbearing, which is the most distinctive “wifely role”. In the context of marriage it is the safest role if it functions within God’s plan for the family (France p.61)


    Vs. 13-15: The Explanation for these verses is often taken back to the creation principle. France contests the argument.


    V.13: commences “For”, this takes the reader back to Genesis chps.2 & 3 not Gen. 1. (France p.67)

    We read in Gen. 1 26-27 humankind, both male and female are given joint authority. This is a creation principle that human beings have authority. Authority is not based upon gender but upon who they are in relationship to their creator. Both male and female are created in the image of God and He delegated, or entrusted, authority to them. lf we say that Adam, the male, was created first, then, men have authority over women Then we have to conclude that priority in creation order would mean that humankind must be subject to the authority of the animal kingdom, which is nonsense. In Gen. chps.2 & 3 Adam was created first but Eve was first to get tempted. If the woman is responsible for sin’s entry into the world why does Paul tell us that it was Adam (Rom.5)? (France p.67)


    If Paul is saying, in Timothy, that women cannot he trusted with authority because they are more gullible surely such an argument can only be taken back to The


    (Gen.3.)


    France suggests that this is an illustration of the potential dangers in relationships between men and

    women. In Gen. chps. 2 ~ 3 the woman took the initiative with disastrous consequences. She acted independently.


    Nowhere in Paul’s writing does he ever use save with regard to physical safety, or well being. Christians are not guaranteed physical safety; Christ did not have it, Stephen did not have it, Peter did not have it, Paul did not have it we could continue. Can I draw your attention back to the religious background of Ephesus? Marriage was despised; childbearing was looked down upon in those pagan religions. Paul is trying to correct a perverted system of belief that had crept into the Church from the surrounding religious thinking. He wants Timothy to teach the wholesomeness of Christian marriage and family life. Remember that Artemis was the one who looked after women in childbirth. Paul is telling Timothy to teach that that Christ will look after them in childbirth. Their salvation is secure in childbirth; whether they live or die their salvation is secure.


    Main Source Books:


    R.T France. Women in Church Ministry,

    Paternoster Press, Stambaugh & Balch.

    TheSocialWorldoftheFirstChristians, SPCK. Barbra Sambrooks MA, BA., Dip. Th. Lecturer

    in Biblical Studies CFN UK.


    A disappointing reply


    From the Principal’s reply I was very disappointed and I sighed at the situation. Barbara Sambrook’s article may be answered but that is not the object of my notes today. I have enclosed further reading notes for further study.


    As you will see from my previous answers Barbara is wrong. The Ephesian situation was not a cultural issue with women. The issue against women in the Ephesian Church was common throughout out the whole world.


    The Apostles Paul and Peter give reasons from scripture why man was to rule and not women, these reasons were derived from the way God ordained things. The Lord made it that way.


    The things on earth are after the order of things

    in heaven. Just like the tabernacle in the Old Testament. As there is order in the Godhead so there is order between man and women. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co equal being three divine persons yet the Lord Jesus Christ is subject to the Father in things pertaining to our redemption. The woman is subject to the man in relationship yet equal in person to the man before God.


    The divine persons in God created man and women according to the heavenly pattern. Which means the relationships between man and women are creational not cultural. Just as the head of Christ is God the Father, which has nothing to do with culture so the head of women, is man (1 Cor 11 3). So man is head of women, a woman was made for man, from the beginning. This is the Apostles argument. It would be foolish to depart from God way of things.


    See appendix 01 for further reading and sermons on Cassettes.


    By Derek Prince and David Pawson.


    The Principal then came and preached at the

    Church shortly afterwards and I understand he supported he reassured his views on that occasion.


  7. Chapter Four


    My Second Letter to the Elders


    28th January1999


    Dear Secretary and Elders,


    Thank you for your reply to my letter regarding women elders.


    I do not agree with you that the possibility of an appointment of women Elders at the Church is a question about interpretation of scripture.


    I have declared to you what the scripture actually says about the appointment of Elders. I have not made any interpretation of the scripture but taken it in its literal straightforward sense.


    Scripture is clear that men were to be appointed as elders in the church and not women. We have no example of a women being appointed as an Elder in the New Testament.

    I have said I believe it a serious error to depart from the scripture revelation in this matter.


    You say that you agree doctrine and the interpretation of scripture is important but if it slows us down or stops us reaching out then it cannot be right.


    I believe this is also an error because the scripture says (2 Tim 3 16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction, in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


    On this basis I put to you that scripture teaches we should keep the commandments of God and not rush ahead because we want to make haste. This was the error of King Saul.


    The scripture clearly tells us (1 Sam 13 12) of King Saul who rushed ahead of God, he did not want to be slowed down, and made his own burnt offering and supplication without waiting for the appointed priest of God. He felt he could not wait for Samuel. Verse 13 Samuel said to him you have

    done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord.


    We are also instructed by scripture to layhandson nomansuddenly (1 Tim 5 22) this is in the chapter where Paul instructs Timothy in the appointment of Elders.


    I use the scripture here, in both places lawfully, to correct an error.


    I believe it also another error to teach that the doctrine of scripture is progressive. The scripture is clear (Jude 3) that faith was oncedelivered unto the saints. This is not a progression but a revelation to the church, now contained in the scripture.


    I grant that we grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ and so the doctrine of Christ. This is progressive but the doctrine of the gospel was delivered once unto the saints. There can be no new revelation about Elders to the church. The doctrine of Elders is contained in the scriptures alone, not in new revelation to the church.


    I feel and sense that God is about to try or prove the church at with this issue as He indicates He

    will do.


    I am responding as I am instructed too (1 Th 5 19- 21) to prove all things and to abstain from all appearance of evil.


    The scripture teaches (Deut 13 1 - 3) Thou shall not harken to the voice of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


    I believe I have done as I am called of God to do. To speak as I have so learned Christ.


    I have no desire to be involved in contention or arguments. I would exhort you as I would a Father and a brother to hear what I say because I believe I speak the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth.


    Yours in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ, David Clarke

    28/1/99.

    Letter to the Dean (visiting preacher)


    From: David Clarke


    Copy to: The Elders Jesus is Lord Church. 17th February 1999

    Dear Charles


    Re:Your sermon at the Church Sunday 14/2/99


    You raised some issues, which I felt needed to be clarified on Sunday. It seems some of the things you were saying were ambiguous giving a double message. The secretary was moved to say he believed it was directly from the throne of God. I heard ambiguous things and would like clarification.


    Joshua 1 2


    The Lord spake unto Joshua son of nun, Moses’s minister, saying.


    Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou and all this people.

    The essence of the message was Moses is dead you now have a new leader. Do not look back to Moses- God is to do new things.


    Afterwards I questioned you re - new doctrine and the fact that God is to shack every thing so that old doctrine must be cast away to be replaces by new doctrine. You had refereed to old wines skins and new wine skins etc. I wanted to establish what you actually meant so I asked you “What new doctrine has God revealed to the church today which was not known to the early church in the Apostles time”. You replied said no, no. I did not say new doctrine like that but our understanding of it is new to us. Why do I think there are over 2000 denominations. I said I accept that.


    I established or understood that you did not teach new doctrine or expect it.


    I asked this because of our situation at the church and its seems things are changing. Former elder has left and another is to leave shortly. The and the remaining Elders have announced recently they are unanimous in believing there is no reason why a woman should not be appointed as an Elder.

    I have written to them saying how disturbed I am because this is a departure from the clear teaching of scripture. The reply I received was unsatisfactory and contained other issues, which were also in error. To which I have written but so far I have had not further correspondence. There has been no communication with me about it since.


    Iwasinformedthat“doctrineandtheinterpretation of scripture is important but if it slows us down or stops us reaching out then it cannot be right”.


    It was also put forward that “the doctrine of scripture is progressive” - a statement which I took exception too.


    It should be maintained the doctrines of Christ as revealed in the New Testament Scriptures have been once revealed. The truth concerning Salvation and the church etc. were taught by the Apostles in the New Testament times. The scripture of the Old and New Testaments contain the doctrines taught and received by the church. We are not to look for new doctrines there are none. I f any one teaches we more light that the Apostles and so teach new things is error. To depart from the teachings of the

    Apostles is error.


    In light of this I would like to reflect on your sermon.


    Yes Moses is dead and every believer is dead to the law (which came by Moses) by their union and death with Jesus when he died. Or baptism shows this. This is so that we might be married to another even Jesus our husband and savior who has been raised from the dead.


    The Law and its administration have been shaken and no longer stand. The Perfect Law of liberty and ministration of the Spirit had taken its place. Our Jesus is exhaulted above all things. We enter into the benefit of these things only as we like Joshua “let not the word of God not depart from us. It is to be a light and a lamp for our feet. There will be no rest if we depart from the clear teaching of the Word of God.


    Joshua is indeed a type of Christ but Joshua of old did not give the people of God rest otherwise God would not have spoken of another rest yet to be entered into. Heb 4 let us therefore labour to

    enter into that rest. This labor is the labor of faith, which we exercise when we rest in Christ when we believe.


    I understood you to be saying now that Joshua is come (a new leader) God is going to do new things do not look back to Moses etc. throw away all you old teaching and doctrines and receive the new things God is going to do. This sounded awkward in light of our situation at the church.


    The new leaders at Warsash are now saying they want to depart from scripture and appoint Women elders. This is not what Joshua did but rather he was charged then to follow the Lord in every thing.


    Joshua 1


    This book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but Thou shalt meditate therein day and night , that thou mayest observe to do according too all that is written therein.:

    Turn not from it to the right hand or the left. etc. God was only with Joshua whilst he stuck with

    his God. The charge to any leader would be the

    same.


    The people said to Joshua, “All that thou commandant us we will do, and whitherso ever though sendest us we will go”.


    According as we harken unto Moses in all things

    , so we will hearken unto thee only the Lord thy God be with thee.


    Joshua would not have faired very well if he said the moment he took office I am going to abolish circumcision because he agreed he saw no reason for it and besides it upset the women folk. He would not have got very far. The people followed Joshua because he followed the Lord. Joshua was a courageous man of God and we should follow suit.


    Our Elders have departed from the Scripture on this issue of women elders. It is not a question of interpretation of scripture. The scripture could not be plainer. An Elder is to be a man and the women not to usurp authority over the man. Paul says : Cor 14 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual then let him acknowledge that the things

    that I write are the commandments of the Lord.


    To suggest Christians throw away all old teaching and doctrines because they are old and get ready to receive new things is ridiculous. We should not throw away the truth about


    The Person of Lord Jesus Christ. Or how we should function as a new testament church or the confession of faith or beliefs on the back of All Nations Bible college handbook. Unless they can bee proved untrue from the Scripture of the Old and New Testament.


    I know I have spoken to you about women elders before but the question regarding your sermon was to clarify your general principle.


    It could be taken from what you said you support a departure from scripture with the coming of a new leadership because God had said he will Shake the heavens and every thing under them, to establish new doctrines like Women elders in the church.


    This , I think you would agree , would not have come from the throne of God.

    Your Sincerely, David Clarke.

  8. Chapter Five


    We see no reason why women should not be made elders


    Quotation of the Elders at “Jesus is Lord Church” Warsash !


    These are the scriptural reasons why women should not be made elders or rule over men .


    Man is the head of the woman Cor 11

    But I would have you to know the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the women is the man and the head of Christ is God.


    Every man praying of prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


    But every women that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head;

    for that is even all one as if she were shaven.


    For if a women be not covered , let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a women to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.


    For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is in the image and glory of God, but the women is the glory of the man.


    For the man is not of the women ; but the women of the man.


    Neither was the man created for the women but the women for the man.


    For this cause ought the women to have power on her head because of the angels.


    Never the less neither is the man without the women , neither the women without the man in the Lord.


    For as the woman is of the man , even so is the man also by the women; but all things are of God.


    Judge in your selves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered.

    Doth not even nature itself teach you , that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ?


    But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering


    If any man seem to be contentious , we have no such custom neither in the churchesofGod. (either there were more churches at Corinth than one or Paul means all the churches throughout the world)


    God made Adam first giving him instructions and commandments before Eve had been made.


    Gen. 2


    And the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.


    And the Lord God commanded the man saying of every tree of the garden you may freely eat:


    but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shall not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die.

    Adam named the creatures not Eve Gen. 2

    And out of the ground the Lord God made every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature , that was the name thereof.


    And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


    God made Eve for Adam in order to help and support him in his work


    Gen. 2


    And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead therof


    And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a women, and brought her unto the man.

    God placed women under subjection to man after she had sinned in the Garden of Eden. This is not a cultural issue.


    Gen. 3


    Unto the women he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shall bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee.


    Wives should be subject to their own husbands

    , says Peter the Apostle to the Jews


    Peter 3


    Likewise ye wives be in subjection to you own husband; that if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;


    While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.


    Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

    But let it be the hidden man of the heart in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quite spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.


    For after this manor in the old time the holy women also who trusted in God, adorned themselves being in subjection to their own husbands:


    Even as Sara obeyedAbrahamcallinghimLord: whose daughters ye are as long as you do well and are not afraid with any amassment.


    Wives should be subject to their own husbands says Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles


    Ephesians 5


    Wivessubmityourselvesuntoyourownhusbands, as unto the Lord


    For the husband is head of the wife , even as Christ is head of the Church : and he is the savior of the body.


    Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every

    thing.


    Col. 3


    Wives submit your selves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.


    Women to learn in silence not to teach or usurp authority over man


    Tim. 2

    Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a women to teach, nor usurp

    authority over the man, but to be in silence.


    For Adam was first formed then Eve.


    And Adam was not deceived but the women being deceived was in the transgression.


    Notwithstandingsheshallbesavedinchildbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


    This was the rule in all the churches noot just Corinth

    These are the commandments of the Lord not Pauls opinion


    Cor. 14


    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law.


    Cor. 14


    And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home ; for it is a shame for a women to speak in the church.


    Cor. 14


    If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual then let him acknowledge that the things that I write are the commandments of the Lord.


    Aged women to teach younger women


    Tit. 2 1


    The aged women likewise that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given

    to much wine, teachers of good things;


    that they may teach the younger women to be sober to love their husbands, to love their children,


    To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.


    Elders to be men not women ruling his own house well


    Tim. 3


    This is a true saying, if anyman desire the office of a bishop (elder) he desires a good work.


    A Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


    Not given to wine no striker, not greedy for filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, nor covetous;


    One that ruleth hisownhouse, having his children in subjection with all gravity.


    For if a man no not how to rule hisownhouse,

    how shall he take care of the church of God ?


    A note of explanation on Tim. 2

    Notwithstandingsheshallbesavedinchildbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


    The word saved is the same word used to describe the experience of the women with an issue of blood for 12 years and Jesus healed her. She was made whole (saved).


    Made whole = saved.


    A women will find wholesomeness (saved) in child bearing. i.e. Bringing up children and functioning as a godly wife. God made her to love and support a husband and bring up children.


    The Virtuous Women in Proverbs


    Proverbs 30 verse 10


    Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.

    11 The heart of her husband does safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

    The whole chapter treats of the fulfilled women. These are some of the scriptures, which speak

    directly on the subject of women and leadership. I

    hope this is of some help. Thismatterisasclearas JesusisLord.


    Man should protect women not help ruin them


    Why do women wish to resist Gods order by wanting to become Elders? Men who support women in this area are not protecting them. When Eve sinned Adam should have prayed for her, not go along with her sin. So men ought to contend for the truth of God in this matter, to safe guard women from similar consequences. Other wise they will become Punget.


    A warning to the people of God Isaiah 3

    As for my people, children are their oppressors,

    and women rule over them. O my people they, which lead thee, cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.


    Isaiah 8


    To the Law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


    To ignore Gods word on a matter so plain is foolish. Should we ignore the Word of God it might even be written of us one day “Let them alone: they beblindleadersoftheblind”.Math 15 4.


    I have given more than seven scriptural quotations to show that a woman cannot qualify to be an elder. I am however also aware it is written: the sluggard is wiserinhisownconceitthansevenmenthatcan renderareason.Prov. 26 16.


    I would urge you to reconsider the issue regarding women Elders. This is my duty to you all in love. I am speaking the Word of God in the name and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a trial to both you and me.

    I certainly can see how the Lord trying me in this issue to see if I am prepared to speak out for Him.


    David Clarke 16/2/99

    Hayling Close,


  9. Chapter Six

    A tried faith


    The Lord is testing the “Jesusis Lord Church”meeting at Warsash 21st February 1999


    The trial of your faith - God will try you


    It may seem surprising to some that God tries our faith, to see if we love him or no, just as he tried Abraham and the children of Israel.

    How these trials come to us it doesn’t matter. What matters is how we react to them and deal

    with them. We should be faithful to God in our

    trials; obedience to God is better that sacrifices.

    Abraham an example


    Abraham was called of God to go to a land that God would show him.


    God promised Abraham a son in his old age to be his heir


    We read in Genesis


    Gen. 15


    After these things the Word of the Lord came unto Abraham in a vision saying, fear not Abram: I am thy shield, and exceeding great reward.


    And Abram said Lord God what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless. and the steward of my house is this Eleazer of Damascus?


    This shall not be thine heir but he that cometh forth out of thine own bowls shall be thine heir.


    And he believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness.

    God trys Abraham faith 40 years later


    Forty years after God had promised Abraham a son in his old age God tried Abraham so see if he feared the Lord.


    Gen. 12


    For now I know thou fearest God , seeing thou hast not held thy son, thine only son from me.


    We read of Abraham’s trial in


    Gen. 22


    And it came to pass after these things, that God didtempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, behold here I am.


    And he said Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.


    Abraham obeyed God Heb. 11

    By faith Abraham when hewastried offered up Isaac: and he that received the promises offered up his only begotten son.


    God proved Abraham to be faithful Gen 12

    And he said lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: fornowIknow thou fearest God , seeing thou hast not held thy son, thine only son from me.


    Abraham a pattern for believers


    We too as believers will go through trials as Abraham did. We have the scriptures to support us and direct in these trials.


    We are encourage to withstand trials James 1

    Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

    We all shall have trials Peter 1

    That the trial of your faith , being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.


    And in another place


    James 1


    My brethren count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;


    knowing this that the trying of your faith worketh patience.


    The most difficult trials are those sent from God


    As the children of Israel were tried and tested those 40 years in the wilderness so will we be tried in the same way by God during our Christian life.


    Deut 8

    Moses said, “All the commandments which I command this day shall ye observe to do , that ye may live and multiply , and go in and posses the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers.


    And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to knowwhatwasinthyheart,whetherthouwouldest keephiscommandments,orno”.


    As God lead them in the way to prove them and humble them to know what was in their heart so he will try us today. And He is doing so in just the same way.


    Gods trials have a purpose


    God wishes us to be faithful to Him in everything. God will try us to see if we will be faithful to his word. His word is a lamp unto our feet.


    It seems to me that the trial presented to us at the moment is the issue about women elders. This is a trial sent of God. It is to try us to know what is in our hearts. To see if we will keep His word or no.

    I have spoken to the elders about the issue. I am told we are the Elders I should be subject to their authority. I am not questioning their authority but their wisdom.


    I feel the Lord would have me speak about this issue openly . I am responsible to speak what the Lord has taught me


    I have put together, in these papers, several scriptures pointing out Gods word to us on the issue about women elders. It is very clear. An Elder is to be a man, the husband of one wife, with his children in all subjection. Not a women.


    I would ask you to read these scriptures on the subject and make you own minds up. I would exhort you to act according to the word of God.


    We are told by the Lord Him self he will try us in issues like this


    Deut. 13


    If there Arise among you a prophet or dreamer of dreams and giveth you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass , whereof he

    spoke unto thee saying, let us go after other gods , which thou has not known , and let us serve them :


    Thou shalt not harken unto that prophet , or that dreamer of dreams : fortheLordyouGodproveth you to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


    What are we going to do - God is trying us today


    It is my privilege to encourage you in the Lord your God. I have not been called hear to no purpose And is my delight to see Jesus honored and gloried in our midst.


    My desire is you prove true to the Lord in this trial and act the way the Lord wants you too.


    I say follow Gods word which speaks clearly to us stating that a women does not qualify to be an elder.

  10. Chapter Seven


    A fresh look at the Christian marriage


    (By David Clarke 23 rd June 1996 amended June 1999 and January 2003)


    This section was written by David for the benefit of his second wife Helen, after they had both agree to seek the Lord in following Him, in the way of Christian a Christian marriage. Sadly Helen did not entirely agree with David’s findings and neither did the church of which she became a member. This was the, Titchfield Evangelical Church, to which she had jointed after their separation in November 1998. At one stage Helen stated her god was a different God to David’s.


    This sad marriage ended, on the 28th October 2003, in Divorce and the Certificate is included in this book which is intended as a timely warning to all who will listen and seek the help of God. God has spoken to us in these last days by His Son. God hates divorce.


    This is published to help all who have been troubled by divorce and remarriage.

    In the Beginning


    God from the beginning of creation instituted marriage. Adam was made first and Eve was made from Adam’s flesh and bone as his helpmeet. After they had fallen into sin God spoke reprovingly to Adam for harkening to the voice of his wife after she had sinned in the Garden of Eden. God also spoke to the women saying,


    Gen. 2 18.


    “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee “.


    Gen. 3 17


    To Adam he said because you have harkened to the voice of your wife and disobeyed my voice he cursed the ground saying in sorrow would he eat of it all the days of his life. Thorns and thistles would grow and in the sweat of his brow would he eat bread. Until he die.


    As women suffer in childbirth and thorns and

    thistles grow and men have to work by the sweat of their brow so this curse remains and has not been removed because God uses this for his own glory.


    A natural disposition for the women to rule (the curse)


    From these scriptures we learn that the natural disposition of the woman is a desire to rule over her man but he must learn to rule over her. In the same the Lord in Genesis 4 verse 7 concerning sin and its desire to rule instructed way that Cain but he must rule over him (sin). We may learn from it if we listen and hearken to his voice.


    New Testament Revelation


    As we come to the New Testament we learn from the example of our Lord Jesus Christ how to rule our wives and this is by love. For it is written he loved his Church and gave himself for her; so too must we love our wives. The women are not commanded to love their husband but rather to honor and respect them.


    The Christian view of marriage has always

    been clear Ephesians 5 22

    “ Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husband in every thing.


    Husbands love you wives even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Etc. So ought men to love their wives as their own body. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.


    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.


    1 Cor. 12 3


    Before God the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God.


    There is clarity about the position of man and

    women before God. In this light we can view marriage.


    The is no direct indication in the scripture as to how a marriage is entered into but it is generally agreed the man and woman wishing to marry


    Marriage promises are made in public before witnesses.


    Must do so willingly


    There is a leaving the parental home and a cleaving too each other.


    The intention is for life


    Partners cannot leave the marriage A marriage can only be devolved if;

    1. Adultery takes place and that only by the injured party. Divorce does not have to take place if adultery happens.


    2. The unbelieving partner wishes to leave (this leaving being an act of the will and ceasing to behave as a married person) and the believer

    releases them.


    The legal part to marriage and divorce is only a technical aspect. It is not the actuality. Just like a death certificate does not make the person dead nor a birth certificate give life to the baby, neither does a marriage or divorce certificate make a marriage or give rise to divorce.


    Christian marriage involves the marriage partners promising each other certain things. The following marriage vows are derived from scripture and are long-standing Christian beliefs.


    1. The man promises his bride to love, honour, cherish, care and look after her even as Christ loves and cares for his church. (Christ is his pattern). Col 3 19, Eph 5 25, 1 Pet 3 7.


    2. The women in return promises to love honour and obey her man (as the church does to Christ). This is the pattern spoken of in Eph. 5 22-24. This order and pattern of promises are only derived from the scripture and has been the order of things throughout the Church age.


    These promises form a covenant and they are

    made before God and in presence of witnesses. It is not a contract but a covenant and should not be broken. Even if partners fail to fulfil their promises. They are still bound by promise to fulfil their vows. Even if they ignore their vows they are still married. Each partner is responsible to go the second mile in making the relationship work.


    In the marriage all the husband has is his wife’s even his body and likewise all the wife has belongs to her husband.


    This form of marriage is how God intends it to be and I would argue to depart for the scriptural view of marriage is to turn from what God has revealed. I cannot see how any one in their right mind would turn from Gods way of things.


    Views of John Owen


    This has been included in Appendix 07. David Clarke 21st Feb 1999

  11. Chapter Eight


    Extract from David’s Diary

    During the period of separation between David and his wife Helen he kept a diary record of all that he felt appropriate to record. The following is a record and is written for the benefit of any who find themselves stuck in a position where by they are driven from pillar to post, not knowing which way to turn, in order to be delivered from their dilemma.


    The history if filed with much hurt and damage. No wonder it written the Lords hate divorce. The sad thing about this situation there was no Christian man enough to step in and seek to help resolve the conflicts, which had arisen.


    We see later that with the aid of women elder the church at Titchfield fell into spiritual adultery and fornication just as they did in Ahab’s time. This was when Jezebel pursued the life of Jeremiah who pointed out Israel sin and she sough to have him killed.


    An account written from Diary entries


    David Clarke (Jr). Anger with Helen over our separation

    In November 1998, David expressed his anger to me over Helen, he felt Helen had caused the break up of his family and mothers marriage and now she was dumping me and he saw how hurt I was.


    He had heard also, via Gillian a girl who baby sat for Rebekah, that Helen had been telling people I had another women (or so he thought). He also felt that Helen had been saying these bad things to Sam, Helen’s son about me, and that was the reason why Sam found it difficult to get on with him now.


    Helen’s problem with me joining the church at Warsash


    Just before this, before we had split up in October 1998, I had been asked by Will Duffin to joint the church at Warsash. It was in fact the last thing on my mind at the time since things at home were so difficult that I could scarcely think of any other thing than to solve our problems in the marriage. However I wanted to be more involved in the church and I felt so rejected by Helen it felt as though God was saying. “ If your wife rejects you I will receive you”. I agreed to join the church and felt wanted.

    Helen was informed by one of the elders after we had separated in November that I was about to become a member and she felt bad about it. She did not like it and got very angry. She did not feel I should be allowed to join the church on the grounds of all the allegations she had written to Family Mediation see letter dated 8/12/98. She wanted an explanation from the elders how they could admit me to be a member. She felt I was a hypocrite.


    She also said to me, “It felt like I had another women”. It was this phrase, which was picked up by David, “It felt like I had another women”. Helen must have expressed this to some one talking and it was modified to, “ David has got another women.”


    When David informed me Helen had been saying I had another women he felt angry with Helen. So I decided I would have to ask Helen and Sam about it when I was able to see her. When I spoke to Helen about it I discovered this was not true and both Sam and Helen had said not such thing.


    When I tackled David about it he said no I just think Helen has been saying bad things about me and that this was what he thought was upsetting

    Sam.


    I was cross with David and told him how it had put me in a position of having a go at Helen and Sam when nothing had been said. Helen demanded David make her and Sam an apology face to face.


    I saw David and told him I wanted him to apologies to Helen And Sam but has said he could not face the agony of Helen’s ways. It was then I said I would not see him until he apologized to Helen and Sam.


    Helen upset with the church


    Helen was upset with the church at Warsash for considering making me a member as she felt I was not worthy and she wanted to ask the Elders all about it. Helen said she could not face going to see them. I spoke at the meeting that week to the church and elders but they did not think seeing Helen would help her at all. I wrote the following letter back to her.


    I must not join the church - If you do I will take it you want permanent separation

    After this Helen decided not to go for help at previously arranged meeting with Will Duffin (one of the elders at Warsash Church). Helen did not wish me to join the church and she expressed to me that if I joined the church she would take it that I did not want reconciliation. She said it showed to her I was separate. At that time I asked Helen for my papers about my time at the Bierton church. She refused to let me have them. I felt very much alone.


    I shared my dilemma with the church about becoming a member and that it felt like black mail. If I were to join the church Helen would take it I wanted separation, which I did not. Helen wanted to speak to the elders about my becoming a member as she was against it. The Elders felt she was wrong and it would do no good to speak to her.


    I decide to join the church


    Dear Helen, 10/12/98

    I have spoken at the meeting tonight explaining your request to speak to Will Duffin and Peter Jacob

    and who ever about their decision to accept me as a member of Warsash church.


    I explained how you felt very upset and angry since I had done awful things to you. I mentioned in particular your forged name explaining of course I knew I had wronged you and I had said other things, which may of hurt you in our arguments. I also informed them I had apologized to you and asked you if I could put any matter right.


    I explained you felt me joining the church was like me having another women that they were not helping us get back together but doing the opposite.


    I explained to them Rob Bowers and his advise to you about Warsash and also what your minister had said about Warsash church was wrong etc. That both Rob and the minister were in agreement with you I should not be allowed to join the church because of what I had done.


    I did the best I could but they felt you were wrong. They said you were welcome at Warsash Church any time and they love you. Will said you had been invited to be a member but you did not respond.

    He said he had often asked you to see him to help with the kids and me but you would not.


    John and Sue Cook were there and Sue seemed to understand you I am sure she would help if you went to see her.


    I had hoped they would have offered to sat with you at a meeting with who ever you wanted to be there in order to answer your questions but they did not feel it would help at all. They assured me you are very welcome at Warsash church and that Brian had been in contact with you.


    I explained how you said if I join you will take it I want separation.


    They encouraged me to continue seeking the lord and honour Him. All of which I said I would be doing anyway. Since writing to you about the Derek situation I now realize Abraham would have never offered up Isaac in a sacrifice if he allowed his wife to stop him from obeying God. We do not know if Abraham told Sarah about his intention to offer up Isaac in sacrifice in order to obey God but we do know in other things she obeyed Abraham

    and was help and not an obstacle to him. You know I believe God and He has given you to me. It is right and fitting for me to obey God.


    IhavetoadmitInowfindyourwarningthreatening and I take it very seriously. The warning about me joining the Warsash Church. I have explained to you that my wishing to join the church did not mean I wanted separation from you at all but I simple wanted to follow Jesus in every way I could. I have never wanted separation from you; it has been you all along wishing separation - not me.


    In fact it would be my hearts desire we both be members at Warsash. So why not think about it. Why have you left Warsash anyway? I will step aside for a while if you want to go.


    I now realize if you are telling me you will still take it I want a separation if I join the Warsash Church, in spite of me telling you otherwise, and then you are threatening me. I take it you will forsake me if I join the Warsash Church.


    I take it you are threatening me for being a Christian. I believe my Jesus’ whom I depend on

    will never forsake me and has spoken to me from His word about this very situation and this is what he says:


    Matthew 19 verse 29.


    Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands for my name’s sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit everlasting life.


    I love you more than you have ever felt or known you were given me by God as my hearts desire. I am sorry Helen for all the wrong and hurt I have caused you please forgive me.


    You now tell me you will want permanent separation if I follow Jesus in the way he wants me to go. I want to follow Jesus. You have told me I stand to loose you if I follow Him.


    You have already said I cannot take Rebekah if I join the Church on Sunday, even though I really want you and her with me. I am sorry this is your attitude and intention but I now know what I must do. If the Lord will I will be joining the Church at Warsash on Sunday 13 Th. December 1998.

    I assume you will stick to your word but please ring me and say I can take her.


    I will talk with your minister friend, Rob Bowers, David Clarkson, Viv Foot, in fact any one if you think I need help or if you want me too. I am free Friday and Saturday.


    I love you please do not forsake me. We have a lot to look forward too in the Lord.


    Love David.

    Helen wants nothing to do with me Joining Warsash Church


    On the 18th November Eleanor, Esther and Mark called o Helen to see Rebekah and stay for and hour. On leaving Eleanor informed Helen I was to be received into membership at Warsash and would she and Rebekah like to come. (Ely knew nothing of what had gone on). Helen cringed and said no Ely and wanted nothing to do with it.

    I decide against joining the church


    After careful consideration I decide not to join the church thinking this would help so I explained my situation to Bob Thorpe and his wife and Brian and Isabel and they said they would speak with us both and help. I wrote the following to Helen.


    Dear Helen, 20/12/99

    I realize you may not be aware but I did not joint the church at Warsash last Sunday. I was hoping my decision not to join would help our reconciliation as you expressed you were not happy about it.


    I also took the liberty to ask Brian and Isobel and Bob Thorpe and his wife to help us by talking through things with us. They all said they would be pleased to help.


    I have a Christmas present for Rebekah and would really like it to be to her from us both - how do you feel about that?

    Is there any way I could see you for a short while during Christmas as I miss you so very much (If you haven’t given up on us).


    Yours in love David.


    Helen jealous over a song composed in praise to God


    At this composed a song in praise to God and sang it at church. It was in thanks for the support I had received from God during the recent awful times together. Helen expresses her jealousy over this song, as it was not about her. This portrayed to me Helen’s deep seated insecurity so I re-wrote the words for her benefit in my song, “Can your remember”.


    I speak to Helen about David


    After this I was able to ask Helen had she been saying things to Sam about me having another women and thus causing Sam to be awkward with David. When I discovered she had not done so I felt angry with David and made fetched him to see Helen to sort it out face to face. He said he could not face her as he felt physically ill though it all.

    He then said he meant he thought Helen had been saying bad things to Sam about me and that was why he was not being friendly. I stated I wanted him to give both Helen and Sam and apology and until he did I would not be seeing him due to all the hurt it had caused.


    Helen approved of May actions and felt I was now supporting her.


    It was this event, which was the stated reason why David could not see Rebekah. Helen maintained he must be made to apologies to her face-to-face and only then could things be different.


    David’s problem with Helen


    4/10/99


    Adultery the cause


    David’s reaction to Helen (and that of Isaac) is that Helen and I committed adultery in 1993, against their mother and this caused them to go thought awful times. They both saw their mother in so much pain. They blame Helen for this as well as me. They still maintained Helen never expressed

    sorrow to their or their mum for what we did.


    In April 1998, Helen wrote a letter to me during our second time of separation. She had written, “I think Isaac is like his mother - sits on his back side and expects those around him to keep him”. This of course caused trouble.


    See document 006 Court Papers


    pages 4-5.


    Isaac who read the letter informed David of this. He had found it lift in the kitchen at Hayling Close. He was very angry because Helen was talking about his mother. David in due course was offended at the statement about his mother. He felt he had had enough of it all and did not wish to see her again.


    He had already had a run in with Helen back in October 1998 when Helen had told him It was quite OK by her never to see him again. I had tried to resolve these issues between them but could not do so.


    Recollection of thought about David in the car with Helen and Esther

    22/12/98


    Since the night I sat with Helen in the car with David and Esther I realized things were not going to get better between her and David. I felt it important to take steps to prepare some form of way forward rather than ignore the problem. I did not think the problem would be resolved by ignoring it.


    I felt the need to influence David more by talking through things with him and directing him to God but how could I do so. I did not feel Helen was supporting me in this. It seemed very difficult and virtually impossible to be a father to David living away from him. I was angry because with his attitude there appeared to be no way forward. In a similar way with Helen’s attitude, the way it was, he could not move in the right direction.


    I decided I would not see him until I had worked out some way forward. He had said he did not wish to speak to Helen as he found it too difficult and that Rebekah was his half sister. Helen took exception to this and retorted that was fine by her she was quite happy not to speak or see him again.

    I did not see David until I decided things were not getting better between Helen and I as this seems a reasonable way forward. I thought this would help Helen and I sort things out between us and demonstrated to Helen I did put her first. She seemed happy about this arrangement with David.


    I see David again


    I only decided to see David again after Helen told me she wanted to leave me and I was no longer welcome in her house this was late October 1998. . I was informed none of my children were welcome either. Helen stated on Thursday evening, 22/10/98, she would get her ex husband to remove my things from her house. She also left that night and took Rebekah away staying out the night. This reinforced her statement she wanted to leave me.


    I felt so hurt and humiliated and so let down by Helen I knew I had to take this seriously.


    I decided to see David after this because I realized Helen was not bothered about how things were effecting me or any one else and I had responsibilities to my children as well as Helen.

    Also I had been informed David was having difficult times at school and had expressed suicidal tendencies through me not seeing him. I could no longer ignore David’s needs and was not prepared to ignore him any longer.


    I had stopped seeing David hoping it would help Helen but it was evident it had not helped at all.


    Helen had now stated she wanted separation so I felt free to sort out my kids. I felt Helen had forsaken me again and taken Rebekah from me. I felt free to act and see David because Helen had left me and ignored my needs and me.


    When she stating her intentions of leaving and wanting me out of her house I felt no obligation to Helen whilst she was in this state of hostility to me.


    It was during this time I went to Will Duffin, an Elder at the Church I was attending to ask for help. Helen did not take the help offered.


    Help from Brian (Elder) & Isabel and Bob

    (Elder) & Thorpe


    We were invite to Brian and Isabel’s home to discuss our difficulties and after on such meeting I wrote the following and expressed my thoughts to the group with Helen there.


    I feel things are unfair


    26/1/99


    When I left last week I felt very insecure with Helen as she inform us that night she did not know if she could cope with me having the feelings I had towards David. She said if I had these desires to always want to put matters right with him she felt it might be best if we never go back together because she did not think she could cope with me being like that.


    We did discus this later and we both were upset. I think we resolved it and each understood each other.


    After some thought I am beginning to feel things are a bit unfair and I need to talk to Helen about it.

    I understand Helen cannot accept I have the same feelings about my children as she does for hers. I know David has acted wrongly but I do not hate him for it as she does. I hate the behaviour but not him. I feel things are unfair because of what I have already demonstrated to Helen in the past about me putting her first etc.


    I want her to know I do not wish to minimize what she is feeling now about David nor am I asking her to ignore her feelings but rather I want to help deal with them in a helpful and fair way. I will do all I can.


    I feel things are unfair because of things, which have happened to me in the past with Helen’s children.


    Example:


    I am thinking about the incident when Rachel, Helen’s 19 year old daughter, who came into our bedroom late one night in May last year and demanded I leave her house.


    I would like Helen to recall how Rachel came into our bedroom that night and said she wanted

    me out of her house as she called it. She demanded I leave. She screamed at me telling me to get out of her house. Mark her boy friend was sitting on the stair supporting Rachel’s actions. She looked at her mum as if she wanted some backing and said either he goes or I go.


    When Rachel acted and spoke as she did I waited before speaking to see what would happen. Nothing did so I then said it looks like you will be leaving Rachel because I am going nowhere.

    I do not remember what Helen said to her. Rachel left and did not return for two weeks. I

    said to Helen then I felt more secure with her now

    that she had stuck by me on that occasion.


    What I want to know is how Helen felt about Rachel then.


    I am sure she was anxious for her. I believe Helen was worried and anxious about Rachel leaving home because of me. In fact Helen said to me later she was anxious about her, as Rachel had told Marks parents she had been thrown out.

    When Rachel rang a few day latter asking if she could come home Helen said she had not been thrown out and she could come home when she wanted.


    In an argument some time later Helen complained to me she nearly lost her daughter through sticking by me on that occasion. I want to know how Helen felt then towards her daughter because this will help with David now.


    When Rachel asked again to come home Helen ask me when could I see her, as she wanted to come home. Helen felt it would be good for Rachel to speak to me about the incident. I said the following day but Rachel said no it would be inconvenient to her and she wanted to leave it until Sunday after she had come home.


    I felt angry and upset at that response but left the issue not wanting to make things more difficult for Helen and Rachel. I knew Helen was anxious about Rachel. I would have been quite happy for Rachel to stay away.


    Rachel did come home but I never did receive

    an apology from her. When Rachel came home on that Sunday I said to Helen I would like to leave seeing Rachel to another time, as I was not up to it.


    I explained then I understood how Rachel resented me being there and I forgave her and did not really need an apology but wanted her and Mark to speak to me about the event some other time.


    Rachel never did apologize or speak to me about that event but rather kept out of me way and tried her best. I asked Helen twice to arrange with Rachel and Mark to speak to them about the event after that but it never happened. I assume this was because their wedding took priority.


    I tried to understand Rachel’s difficulty then and suffered the situation and accommodated Rachel but at the same time did not accept her behave towards me in telling me to leave her house and acting the way she did.


    Rachel does not speak to me now she always avoids any eye contact with me. Rachel is now married and lives in her own home with Mark.


    I would like to know now how would Helen have

    felt had I then expected her not to speak to Rachel again until she had apologized to me for the way she treated me. I receive no apology then nor an explanation and Helen made great allowances for Rachel.


    I would like to know now how Helen felt about the way I handled the situation. In fact could I have behaved any better? Was there any way I could have helped the situation then.


    The reason I ask now about how Helen felt towards Rachel on that occasion is because it seems she expect me to feel differently toward David than she did towards Rachel. David has upset Helen and me. Rachel upset me on that occasion and I assume Helen was upset too.


    I would think Helen to be unnatural to have no concern for Rachel about leaving home like she did. I would have thought any natural mother would feel extremely hurt and upset over such an issue and want to get the situation resolved sooner than latter. I believe Helen would want to always try and resolve that situation sooner than later. Just in the same way I am concerned to resolve any

    difficulties I get through my children’s behaviour.


    I would expect Helen to be angry with Rachel about what she said and did. I also understand how she might make allowance for Rachel as she was her daughter and that anger would change as she looked at the situation.


    I would expect Helen not to accept Rachel’s behaviour and at the same time, some how, forgive her for what she said to me. Not only to me but also for what Rachel said to Marks parents about her being kicked out. We never kicked her out. I never said she had to leave.


    I would like Helen to tll me how she would have felt about Rachel if I then laid conditions on Rachel before she came back home to live. How would Helen have felt if I said to Rachel she could not come back until she and Mark apologize. That in future she was to ask me each time she wanted Mark to stay the night.


    I think Helen would have felt that unrealistic and hard of me to insisted on that. I think she would argue she could never feel able kick her daughter

    out if she wanted to come home, as she had nowhere else to go. Helen always makes such allowances for Rachel because of all she has had to go through. That is a natural parents reaction.


    Rachel did behave unacceptable towards me and I was angry and hurt over the occasion. Rachel reminded me of it when I felt pushed aside at her wedding. Rachel said the she would never have her dads wife sit at the main table as she was opposed to her.


    In a similar way to Rachel David has said he cannot speak to Helen and does not want too. Helen has said to David that is OK by her.


    David did tell me a twisted story saying Helen had spoken bad things about me to Sam and I sorted the issue out as best as I could. The situation is ongoing now involving Irene etc.


    I was angry with Rachel then in the same way, as I am angry at David’s behaviour now. I did make allowances for Rachel then as I do with David now. There is no difference. I try to understand what is happening to every one involved.

    In the same way I did not accept Rachel’s behaviour then I do not accept David’s behaviour now but I am able to forgive him for the things he says and does just like I have forgiven Rachel for the things she has said and done to me. I am able to make allowances.


    This is exactly the same way God has dealt with me and has forgive me and Helen for the things we have said and done wrong in the past.


    IwouldwishHelencouldsomehowaccommodate David in the same way as I accommodated Rachel and make allowances. I feel we are responsible as to how we allow all our children to affect us. I would like Helen to consider my feelings just as I try to consider her feelings.


    I believe God has given us an example as to how we are to act in this situation.


    It is written, “ God was in Christ reconciling the world unto him self not imputing there sins to them”. He gave his only begotten son to die for them in order to save them whilst they were still in their sins”.

    I believe if we act towards other in any less way than God has acted towards us we are grieving the Holy Spirit of God.


    So we too in a God like way should seek reconciliation with those whom God has give charge over.


    Note it was God acting first toward those who were in error. So too we should act first toward those who have upset us. We cannot do it in our own strength but we can as God enables us to do and act.


    We are the parents not the children. We should set example not expect them to set us examples of how to behave.


    Vicious Attack on my children and me


    30/1/99


    I rang you this morning to see how you were because I was feeling so down about the whole situation. I did not have a clue as to what upset

    you the day before. You accused me of all sorts of things, which were just untrue.


    You launched in to me with a vicious attack saying I was not fit to be Rebekah’s father. That you wanted her to have another Father.


    You said you had finished with me and were not prepared to put up with any more.


    Yesterday you said my children Ely and Esther were not longer Rebekah’s sisters that Jennifer was her new sister.


    You said I ought not to have seen my children that day. You were angry I had seen Esther and you said you wanted nothing more to do with them. They were evil and clannish.


    You refused me permission to see Rebekah on Friday night, as you did not want me too. You stated as I did not see her on Wednesday therefore I cannot see her on Friday.


    You refused to talk further with me and slammed the phone down.

    You have said you would not want me to do that to you.


    Please Inform Brian and Isobel when I may see my daughter.


    I would like in future fixed times to see Rebekah so that it is not varied when ever the mood suits you.


    And please to do not use Rebekah as a tool to punish me or hurt me any more. It is so very hurtful.


    I cannot see how any one who loves some one could do that but you do.


    It will be too hurtful to talk with you about it so please put forward your suggestions and I will see if I agree the terms.


    As I do not want any further rejection and hurt I will leave you to contact await Brian and Isobel or Bob and his wife with these suggested arrangement.


    David’s letter of apology


    Dear Helen,

    23/02/99It has been a long time since I have seen my dad, as he was angry with me for sayings things about you and Sam. I have written to him to apologies. He said I have to see you face to face. I am sorry I find that too difficult. Please accept my written apology.


    I was hurt because I thought you had been saying things about my dad and it hurt me. I was trying to protect my Dad and it seemed as though you were trying to stop me from seeing him.


    I am sorry I got it wrong and said those things I know it upset my dad and you.


    Yours sincerely David Clarke

    And I do love Rebekah


    Helen refused to accept this apology as she felt I had written it and she maintained David should be made or dragged around to her and made to apologies to her face to face. See document 27. Schedule of documents DC 1.

    David comes to stay


    I wrote to Helen on the 22/7/9, informing her that David was coming to stay with me at our home 11 Hayling Close, Fareham. Here is the letter:


    22/7/99


    Dear Helen,


    I am now taking care of David, as he has now come to live with me for a period.


    If you would still like to air your grievance with David, over whatever issue, please feel free to come and speak to him.


    He has read the letter you sent him via Esther. He read it several months ago.


    I am willing to discus any issue (I mean anyissue effecting us or other wise) with you, face to face. I have no problem in speaking to you. The only reserve I have is that I don’t want to get involved in needless arguing which may hurt either of us.


    I love you and have no intention of hurting you.

    Yours in love, David.

    No need to speak to you about anything


    22/7/99


    Helen’s reply to my letter.


    Dear David


    Thank you for you letter. No, I do not have a need to see David thank you. I feel so much better since not having to see them all! (Not Ely)


    As I have said before if it had been Sam spreading vicious rumours and lies around about Trish and James Mike would have got him by the scruff of the neck and marched him around to them to apologize. That is what I think is correct discipline.


    You will never do any differently than wrapping David up in “cotton wool” and treating him as a baby so that is that. Your promise of not seeing David until he apologized to me was empty and he knows just how to get to you. Suicide threats etc.

    So a man leading him in the correct way should have sorted out the grievance. (He wouldn’t last 5 minutes with me!) You and I have different ideas about discipline. He should be brought to me, not the other way around. I find him spoilt, manipulative, nasty and spiteful and that needs correcting.


    I have never wanted to speak to David but you should have made him apologize. I realize now you are not able to act like that now. I think how ever it very cunning and devious of you to make me believe David had not read my letter. You wrote to me saying you would try and persuade him but never informed me he had. I see more and more why he is as he is. You’re modelling!


    I have no need to speak to you about any thing now and agree with you I don’t want us arguing. Let’s look to the future the past is dead and gone. Time to move on. I will only react if I think David is seeing our Becka otherwise I wish you lucked with him!


    It was lovely that Sam rang today away on holiday wanting to talk to her as he is missing her! That’s what I call love.

    I hope all goes well for you on Sunday night, Take care. Yours in love

    Helen.


    PS. If you have needs to talk about your children I have offered before to talk to Peter Jacob or any one you like if you want. I don’t have a need myself. I am happy as it is.


    P.P.S. Am I allowed my TV back you gave me for Xmas and do you have a matters for Becka’s bed?


    My letter of reply was as follows


    (not sent)


    Dear Helen, 23/7/99

    Since you have now expressed you have no need to air your grievance with David, I can offer no more help to resolve the issues facing you and I.

    Matth 18 verse 15, dictates that the offended party must go to the one causing the offence, not as you require. I would ask you to please consider this order of things.


    I certainly not happy to leave things as they are. I have never been happy about any of the arrangements regarding Rebekah but have gone along with things to keep you quiet, hoping you would eventually see reason. I have not met one person who understands you or agrees with your actions with reference to Rebekah.


    I am no longer prepared to keep David away from his sister Rebekah. And God willing both he, Esther, Isaac and Ely, including Sam and Rachel may see her when they like.


    Yours Sincerely, David.

    Conclusion


    I was apparent to me that the resentment, anger

    and hatred, of Helen, toward David were too severing. Helen had a problem - not David.


    Women Elders


    As it was in the day of Ahab his wife Jezebel introduced new things to the worship of God, or we perhaps might more accurately say a new religion, which of course was contrary to the Law of Moses. This too is happening in Christian churches today. The spirit of Jezebel has moved and now animates women elders and women who seek to control their husbands, who are behind the scene and move to deviate from the truth, as revealed in the word of God.


    It is a new religion. They take over Christian churches and men, like wimps, suck up to the women less they offend them. The women elders and such wives deny the truth of Gods sovereignty and deny election and predestination- they support Arminianism. They avoid the doctrine of Hell and court homosexuals and excuse them. They seduce the men in a spiritual way, men who should know better.

    A close reading of the letters published in chapter ten will reveal this. We start with the divorces decree.

  12. Chapter Nine


image


The Decree Absolute

The decree absolute acknowledges the virtual death of the partner who has been divorced. The Lord Jesus clearly states that a Christian should not divorce their partner. The only except is in the case of a partners infidelity. The patter that he has given us is his own conduct he will never divorce his bride he in fact lived and died to deliver her from all her sins. So too should a husband so love his wife.


Divorce Petition


My wife Helen has sued for a divorce; in my absence- on the 10th October 2002, two weeks after I left for the Philippines- and I have responded as shown bellow. I wish you to be a witness to my wife’s intent along with a minister from the Evangelical Church at Titchfield. Please see below. I am the Respondent and Helen is the Petitioner.


I have responded to my wife Petition for a divorce (See this prayer below) as follows:


Wife’s Prayer and The Suit is that the Marriage be dissolved due to the Petitioner belief that the said marriage has broken down irretrievably.

The Petitioner has put the following particulars forward:


The Respondent had behaved in such a way that the Petitioner cannot be expected to live with the respondent.


The Petitioner and the Respondent separated on November 1998, as the result of the Respondent’s unreasonable behaviour. Whenever the parties argued, the Respondent would telephone the police. Often these arguments took place in the presence of the parties’ young daughter. The Petitioner feared the Social Services would become involved as a consequence, and therefore felt she had no option to separate from the Respondent. The Respondent made it quite clear that he would not alter his behaviour and would often goad the Petitioner by going to the phone and placing his finger on the 9 buttons.


The Respondent tried to control the Petitioner. He wanted her to call him “Lord”, to obey him totally, and be “subject” to him. Both parties have strong religious faith but the Respondent tried to use religion, and their daughter, as a way to manipulate

the Petitioner and could not understand why she found it totally unacceptable.


The Respondent had four Children from a previous marriage. He would regularly intimidate and humiliate the Petitioner in front of them, stating she was not a “proper wife” and treated her like a child.


The Respondent also tried to control the Petitioner by withholding money and attempted to blackmail the Petitioner into submission. The respondent made no secret of the fact that he wanted the Petitioner and their daughter to return to him and that he would support them financial, failing which he would not.


The Respondent believes that the Petitioner has demons within her and in past has tried to cast these out as she has slept.


The respondent maintains his attempt to control the respondent despite the fact that they have been separated for some time. He still with holds financial support and last year placed a Family Law Notice upon her property, thereby preventing her

from selling, despite the fact that he lived at that property for a very brief period and has a property of his own.


Within the past few days the Petitioner had to involve the Police when the Respondent came to her property, refusing to accept the fact she was divorcing him.


The Respondent replies as follows


The Respondent does not believe the marriage is irretrievably broken down unless it is the intent of the Petitioner.


The Respondent maintains the Petitioner desired an overt marital relationship and not the covert relationship of a normal Christian Marriage. That the Petitioner has broken covenant with the Respondent.


Particulars


The Respondent separated from the Petitioner due to the demands made by the Petitioner to leave their home. The Petitioner was unable to control her anger with the Respondent in front of Rebekah and

so the Respondent had to on one or two to resort to Police to intervention because her feared harm would come to Rebekah.


On one occasion the Respondent had to call the policed due to an assault by the Petitioner on the respondent. This took place because the Respondent sought to walk away from an argument. The petitioner smashed a cup on the back of the head of the Respondent. A Fareham Police constable warned the Petitioner that she would be place under arrest if she continued to behave in this threatening and harmful way. The Petitioner considered this to be unreasonable and mocked the policeman.


The Petitioner expressed her wish for a Christian Marriage due to the desire to turn from a past history of adultery and sin. The Respondent drew up a statement regarding his view of a Christian Marriage and this expressed the personal understanding of what a Christian Marriage was. The Petitioner appears to reject that this view is a true interpretation of the scripture as the scripture exhorts women to reverence their husband and call him Sir (or lord) a tradition Christian view. See” A Fresh Look at Christian Marriage”, by David Clarke (Appendix

14 Trojan Warriors ISBN number.


The Respondent sought to implement the values of Christian morals in the marriage but the Petitioner resisted them and refused to accept them as governing rules of conduct when it crossed her ideas of right and wrong.


The Respondent does not accept the behaviour of the Petitioners to be reasonable and so fails in her role of a good wife to the respondent.


The Respondent does not believe a Christian should divorce a partner unless in the case of adultery - even then it in not obligatory. The Petitioner has other ideas.


The Respondent accepts the Petitioner has other beliefs and values and is not prepared to be controlled by the Petitioner.


TheRespondentsupportsthePetitionerfinancially but not in a way which suites the Petitioner.


The Respondent believes the Petitioner has an undisclosed illness in the form of a personality disorder.There is no known psychiatric cure for such

disorders. The Respondent believes the Petitioner to be demonised, which is a Christian view of such a mental disorder. Freudian philosophy and modern Psychiatry opposes the Christian concept of demonology that is accepted in other cultures. It is simply a matter of belief and opinion.


The family Law Act is a mechanism to preserve the rights of the marital partners in the event of a dispute. The Respondent sought protection in law to secure his interest in the family home. The Respondent believes the Petitioner to be unreasonable in this issue.


The Petitioner objected to the Police being called out to an incident of assault when perpetrated on the Respondent. How ever the Petitioner maintains a right to call the police to support an opinion, which was not held by the Respondent.


The Respondent believes the Petitioner to be distressed and beyond reason and is a symptom of an illness already mentioned.


Help Requested


The said marriage only be dissolved under the

following conditions:


The Petitioner will make a statement in writing, before two witnesses (I request the Minister of her Church -The Evangelical Church Titchfield, the Minister from the Christian Gospel Church, of which I am a member – stating that:


She is of a sound mind and this is her wish before God.


That she will continue to educate my daughter Rebekah Alice Clarke in the Christian faith as expressed in the Articles of religion and Faith of the Evangelical Church in Titchfield, of which the Petitioner is a member.


That the Petitioner will agree for Rebekah to be included on the Respondents Passport.


The Petitioner will allow correspondence via e-mail with my daughter and via mobile or text phone.


That an undertaking be given that should she become ill, disabled or die prematurely that I will have immediate care of my daughter Rebekah

Alice Clarke without hindrance or let from my wife family of friends or future husband. Please see the enclosed declaration statement.


No objection is made (either public or privately) to my Last Will and Testament being changed in favour of my family.


That the Petitioner will not object to a video presentation to the Judge (if need be in the Respondentsabsenceandtobesuppliedbeforehand) in response to the Petitioners Divorce Petition. This being necessary, due to the time factor and is the only way the Respondent feels he can give to give a coherent, efficiently and effectively a response to the Petitioner’s Statement. The Respondent finds writing very cumbersome and ineffective due to his disability.


No help from my Church


It surprised me that no help was forthcoming from my church meeting ion Paulsgrove needless to say I felt forsaken by them.


I now recall that Rev. Mrs Prosser the wife of the Evangelist David Prosser had brought to the

attention of Mr. Roger French, an elder in my church that I had intended to publish my testimony entitled “Converted on LSD Trip”. I had asked he to proof read and asked if she could help with the grammar and spelling. I was she that was moved to get the elders to step in a prevent me from publishing the work that I believe the Lord commanded me to do.


I suggest that the spirit behind all women seeking to become elders and influence the church in terms of doctrine and practice is none other than “The Queen of Heaven” who is spoken against by Jeremiah the Prophet.


I received e-mail from Gordon and Alistair (which I read a few days later) saying that through the bad reports, which they have heard from the Philippines about me, they are pulling out of Trojan Horse International Ministries.


My Pastor also refused to help and this was reinforced as shown in the following E-mail received on the 2nd January 2003:


Dear David,

I received your email this morning requesting my help concerning your permanent visa status for the Philippines.


I have recently had conversations with Gordon Smith about your conduct whilst on the mission field, and have received two copy email letters sent to Gordon Smith, from Pastor’s Obispo and Lucas, both condemning your conduct to date.


I also understand from Pastor Lucas’s letter that because of your continuing bad conduct he is withdrawing his support from Trojan Horse, and that furthermore the 66 prisoners who shared their testimonies in the recent book will also be withdrawing their support!


In light of the above facts I am unable to comply with your requests, and would further remind you that I have always pointed out to you that I would not want to be involved in any capacity concerning your marital, or child custody disputes.


I shall continue to pray for the situation in general. Pastor Peter Jacob.

No help unless Lucas sends a letter


A further e-mail informed me that my Pastor was awaiting a signed response form Lucas Dangatan before he help me any further.


I also received e-mail from Peter Jacobs informing me he was awaiting a signed letter from Lucas regarding my conduct before he was prepared to help me with my request.


January 2nd


Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 06:02:20 +0000 (GMT)


From: “David Clarke” <nbpttc@yahoo. co.uk>


Subject: Re: Mrs Helen Le Peuple

To: “KLA” <karen.andrews@bellpope.com> Please note I have no intentions of divorcing my

wife.


Since hearing of my wife intention to divorce me, I have with the Lords, help made a decision to stay in the Philippines until my work is done. I

have no income nor is my Church supporting me due to evil reports sent from the Philippines and generated by at least one letter sent by my wife to a church Pastor here. My wife has done as she intended to “expose me”. I am now a man separated from his wife, which now disqualifies for being in the ministry here. (According to certain religious men)


I love the truth as it set men free


The truth is that I conducted the marriage of my brother here in the Prison, which was a privilege to me, as I believe marriage is an institution appointed of God.


I have created many enemies here and one pastor sought to have me deported because I told him he was wrong to have two wives.


I expect my wife will here many evil reports about me. Please beware I am living in the Philippines were corruption is great and it is not safe for normal people to come and live. This is due to the lies men tell and gossip an evil so prevalent by people who have religion but no faith in Christ. These people

need the salvation, which come only by Christ. Another group of men have risen up against me because of what my wife has said to people here. I thank her for the good that God will bring about. At least I am noticed and listened too, even if it is to say look here comes that foreigners who causes trouble every where he goes. I expose and speak against false religion, liars and evil workers. I am very popular how ever with sinners who know that they are in need of salvation, such as murderers killer’s drunkards and rapist.


Yes I do I tell people they need to be saved by Christ alone.


You may not be aware the first Englishman to be sentenced to a 16 year prison sentence under a new Philippine Law intending to reduce Child abuse. Whist my brother and I were both notorious criminals and evil men in our past Michael was set up for a crime he did not commit by men seeking to gain financial from such affairs.


I am to remain in the Philippine in order to direst a retrial that may take a very long time I can only stay here id I am supported by donations or charity.

I am however waiting on the Lord for directions my ministry to sinner is immense. I could spend my whole life attending to the needs of needy people.


My cost will be what I have to spend. Please advise my wife to take responsibility for all her actions.


If my wife wishes not to divorce me the she might consider helping me financially. To Perhaps she could send me an allowance of say one hundred and fifty pounds a month. This would be very much appreciated and would help me help my brother my wife brother in law and Rebekah’s uncle.


KLA <karen.andrews@bellpope.com> wrote:


From: David Clarke [mailto:nbpttc@yahoo. co.uk]


Sent: 16 January 2003 04:06


To: KLA


Subject: Re: FW: Mrs Helen Le Peuple Dear Bell Pope,

Please be aware I have not said I will be selling my property. But rather that I may do if I feel it right to do so.


My reference to staving a witch is a metaphor. I will give my wife nothing to eat or feast upon in order to prevent her from her continued fight to control me by the ancient powers of witchcraft. By the projections of my wife’s mind. It is she that seeks to manipulate, control, bully, intimidate all in to get her own way. I want to walk away from such evil.


I would be grateful if you would conform that you do actually give my wife copies of my correspondence.


The LORD BLESS YOU


David C. January 16th 2002. January 2nd 2003

News for Alistair


Thu, 2 Jan 2003 15:13:26 -0000


Dear David,

I expect Gordon will be emailing you about withdrawing from the T.H.M.I.C. I am trying to contact him but his phone is engaged.


We are praying for the situation, and looking forward to meeting you when you get back.


Love Alistair


January 3rd


Helen aids the problem of Gossip and evil speaking


I wrote to Re. Lucas P. Dangatan Jr. and submitted my letter that I been issued earlier regarding Gani and his talking. It did not appear as that time as Lucas informed my wife had been in communication with them and she had been influenced by here church, of which a women was an elder, whose name I believe is Valerie. This communication for my wife had influenced these religious men who had become my enemies in New Bilibid Prison, in the Philippines, and she had not been honest with them.


It would seem that she had fuelled these men and

given them the ammunition they were looking for to get me out of the Prison. Gani had expressed that “I must be stopped”.


The letter to Gani


Trojan Horse International Christian Ministries


http://www.trojanhorse.fslife.co.uk


International Head Office, 11 Hayling Close Fareham, Hampshire, PO14 3AE United Kingdom


To: Pts. Isagani M. Obispo, Jr.


C/o Dr. Tuico, Sonlight Ministries December 6th 2002

CC. Msgr. Helley B. Barrido (Head Chaplain New Bilibid Prison)


Pst, Tuico (Head Pastor Son Light Ministries, New Bilibid Prison)


Rev. Lucas Dangatan (President of Trojan Horse International Teacher Training College)


Rev. Peter Jacobs (Elder of the Christian Gospel

Church Paulsgrove, England)


Michael Clarke Executive Director (Trojan Horse International Christian Ministries)

Rev. Gordon Smith (Mission Pst. Trojan Horse) Alistair Southerland (PersonalAssistant to Trojan

Horse)


Rev.NickCaranay(NationalChairmanPhilippine Prison Mission)


4th December 2002 Dear Gani,

Re: My appointment of Chaplain for Philippine National Police (PNP) INMATE ASSOCIATION,


Maximum Security Compound

Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, 1770. Thank you for bringing to my attention that my

appointment to the above mentioned position is fake. As you are aware I have asked you to give me the proof of this allegation. I have accordingly

challenged my appointment; as such an accusation is very serious. As you know this could result in my entrapment and detention by the Bureau of Immigration and Detention and deportation as an Undesirable alien and possible imprisonment.


The National Director, of the Philippine Prison Mission, Rev. Monico L. Caranay, has assured me, that my appointment is valid. I have asked for a new issue of certificate with of appointment and duly signed personally in my prescience by the National Director him self. This has been assured to be in order and was confirmed by a telephone conversation with P/CSUPT JUAN VICTOR K. LAURILLA (Ret.) CHAIRMAN,


I enclose a copy of the authorization for the appointment of Rev. Monico L. Caranay to this distinguished position and have no reason to doubt the signature of Conchita M. Felicitas, the Chief Operation, VFFII.


I am sending you a copy of this appointment and would like you to check its validity. As you know I have had many evil reports made against my person and position as the Hon. Director Trojan

Horse International Ministry.


On a happy note the Isaiah has spoken to us on this very subject “No weapon, that is formed against me shall prosper and every evil tongue that will rise against me in judgment, I shall condemn. This in my heritage as a servant of the Lord and my righteousness is of him”. Isaiah 54 verse 17.


I understand that your pastor Tuico has advised you to be careful about whom you associate and that he has challenged my position as the Hon. Director of Trojan Horse International Ministries. Might I add he has not actually spoken to me about such an accusation but as you have informed me about it feel I should be wise just like you have suggested


As you know I have written to Pst. Tuico, inviting him to speak to me if he has any misgivings. So far I have had no reply to my letter dated (Please can you remind me if I sent him a copy of our book “Trojan Warriors”?


For your record and to clarify my position I would like to declare.

IamahonourablememberofTheChristianGospel Church, meeting at Paulsgrove. Please direct any correspondence to Rev. Peter Jacob of 77a Weston Parade, Lee on Solent, Hampshire United Kingdom Tel: 00442392552917, 004407885858233. I

am sure my pastor would be please for you to communicate with him about any issue troubling you or any one here in the Philippines or abroad.


My appointment as a minister of the Gospel was in 1983 when I was appointed a Minister of the Gospel and licensed to preach, where ever the Lord open the door.


My appointment to this position was whilst I was a honourable member of the Strict and Particular Baptist Church in Bierton, Buchinghamshire. This Church was a Gospel Standard Listed Church renowned in Great Britain but classified by some as Hyper Calvinists. Confirmation of this may be obtainedthroughMr.Ramsbottom,GospelStandard Magazine Editor based in Luton, Herefordshire, England. He is also a Gospel Standard Minister. Whilst in the exercise of my calling I succeeded for this church and published this as a book in a limited edition. This contains of my reason for succession

and I called it “The Bierton Crisis” in 1984. The only copy I have of this book is lodged with my wife to whom you may gladly write to and ask for a copy she lives at:


15 Kestrel Close, Stubbington, Hampshire England. UK. 0044 1329 667751

0044 7734206007


As you have read this has been recorded in my book “Converted on LSD Trip” first published on 11th February 2000, by Abshott Publications ISBN 0 9539473-0-0


My wife separated from my in November 1998. This separation was not my wish but my wife who has her reasons. I have a little girl of 5 year old. I love my wife and Daughter and she now is seeking a divorce contrary to the scriptures and Gospel of Christ.

The separation is fully known about by my pastor Peter Jacobs, Gordon Smith and Alistair Sutherland and Rev. Nick Caranay. I have done my best to walk uprightly in this situation, as best as is in my power seeking many means of reconciliation


I have informed Sister Neola, that in order to respect her and not to compromise her or my positing as a gospel Minister, I will move from her home, which is an alcohol and smoke free half way house. This is so as not to compromise my position as a gospel Minister, who eats and drinks wine with publicans and sinners.


I am Christ’s free man not in bondage to the tradition of so called elders male or female.


Notes from my Diary entry: November 25th “A Big Problem”


Please recall my conversation with you Gani: To quote my diary entry.


January 3rd


We had a visit from Garry Rosales the man with new teeth and he shared with me his need of an

operation. I said I would see his doctor the next day and see exactly what money would be needed for a blood transfusion. I said I would do my best to writ home to England to get some support.


Welcome to the Philippines-Sister Neola


“Welcome to the Philippines”, said Neola Lizardo, when I informed her that as a result of Pst. Isagani writing to Gordon and Alistair that my Church were withdrawing their support from my work with Trojan Horse International Christian Ministries.


When can you tell when a Filipino is lying? Asked Prince Charles, an American inmate, in New Bilibid Prison. “When he opens his mouth” I am told is the answer. This is common talk not mine.


However the story I have to show demonstrates how Satan deceives men of good faith. Pastor Gordon Smith and Alistair Southerland have with drawn from the Trojan Horse Ministry due to reports written to them by Isagani and Lucas P. Dangatan confirmed some issues. This incident shows whom the Lord Jesus is directing and who is directed by

Satan. They who are lead by the Spirit of God will know. You will know them as they follow Christ and not men.


Here is the story Dear Lucas January 3rd

I think that my openness, honesty and humour may be a problem to some men.


In the case of Gani I really think he does not understand what I say or mean. I do not think he acts maliciously but he is foolish. By that I mean his back biting and spreading of gossip is foolish and contrary to the scriptures.


This is ungodly and harmful to others. I will be speaking to him about it in due course. He I believe, and you, may have taken my humour so very serious that I think you miss the point of what I am saying and that you to do not understand me- in which case my humour is inappropriate to you- it is not wrong- but you cannot take it so I apologize if that is the case). (Please see my article - Welcome to

the Philippines which I hope will help).


I am sure Gani means well but he should not speak about things regarding others unless he is prepared to face the person he speaks about. He tells me to be “very careful” about many things. Good advise you and many may say in the Philippines but my bible tells me to be careful for nothing, however by prayer and supplication make my requests known unto God.


Gani has informed me that Pst. Monico L. Caranay has given me a fake document appointing me as the Chaplain of VFFII. I realize if this is true and that if I were found with such a document then I am liable to prosecution.


Gani stated this to me behind the back of Monica Caranay and Gani did not confront Monico L. Caranay to his face so I need to resolve this issue.


I understand Monico L. Caranay to be the Nat’l Director, Phil. Prison Ministry VFFII.


I take such a charge by Gani very seriously and I must look into it.

Will you help me?


David Clarke 3rd January 2003.


Conclusion


It became apparent to during my mission work in the Philippines there was real mischief going on. At the time I was unaware if my wife input and dialogue with Gani, Lucas Dangatan, Gordon, Alistair and her church at home In Titchfield all I knew was that Satan was seeking to destroy all the good work which were engaged in by sly back bitters and evil speakers. I was certainly not ignorant of Satan Devices, which gave me encouragement. The more opposition the greater the grace was give me to fight the goof fight of faith and do the work of an evangelist.


Ends in Divorce


The whole affair ended with my wife divorcing me on unscriptural grounds being supported by her elders at Titchfield one of which is a woman.

Letter to To: Rev. David Brown Pastor of Titchfield Evangelical Church Garstan Close

Titchfield


12th November 2003 Cc.

Helen LePeuple, Dear Rev. Brown,

Re: Titchfield Evangelical Church, Helen LePeuple (Church member)


Mr. David Mugford, the former pastor of your church, telephoned me on Monday evening, in response to my letter dated 24th October 2003, to the Elders of your church.


He informed me that in response to Helen’s request that he and your other Elder were prepared to act, on Helens behalf, in terms of mediation, with respect to my contact with Rebekah my 6-year-old

daughter, who lives with her mother Helen.


He took time to explain that as you were not the pastor at the time of the advice and direction that the church were giving Helen, in respect of her divorce suite against me, that it was felt he was the best person to respond to my letter addressed to you all.


I light of this I feel that I will turn this offer down as I believe this would prove unprofitable, due to the bias and predisposition of your elder and church members who act only in Helen’s interest. This is not mediation and so I cannot see how this would assist in Rebekah’s long-term interests. Helen has in fact already turned down the help offered by The Hampshire Mediation Service.


I would how ever value a formal response to my request for the reasons why your church, via your elders, i.e. David Mugford, a lady Elder and another man supported and encouraged Helen to pursue her Divorce suit against me on the 10th October 2002, during my absence and evangelical ministry in the Philippines. And also why I was informed that I was not welcome at the meetings of the church and

instructed not to attend.


I would be grateful for your scriptural warrant for such actions and that advice given to my former wife. Please explain how it was viewed as in the best interest of Helen, Rebekah and of course the glory of God.


Yours Sincerely David Clarke.

No Reply !! This says a lot.


This letter was never replied too so I decided to write again here is the second letter.


Second Letter


To: Rev. David Brown Tichfield Evangelical Church Co. 8 Appleton Road Fareham

Hampshire.

07970 755567


1st January 2003 Dear Rev. Brown

Further to my letter I regret to inform you that communication with Helen, my former wife, in connection with contact with my daughter Rebekah, has proved too difficult and contention is still rampant. This I foresaw and for which reason requested she seek a neutral mediator.


I asked you in my letter to rationalize your unorthodox views on Christian Marriage. This because you have influenced Helen and this has proved disastrous not only to her but also Rebekah.


In the first instance she refused to be reconciled to her husband and then by your encouragement she sued me, in the civil court, for a divorce, which was contrary to the scripture.


As Helen is you church member, and under you care, and the fact that I have made many attempts to speak to her in a reasonable way, which has all has failed I now conclude you are party to the offence.

Why do you refuse to communicate with me and why was I banned form the meetings of the church by your elders? You public notice displays all are welcome to the meetings but you fail to add “except David Clarke”. Might I add the Landlord at The Bugle, Tichfield, has given me a warm welcome and accepts me as I am.


I suspect this is due to your weakness a failure to obey the scriptures and follow the Lord Jesus Christ. I come to you now, as an offended person, and look to you for redress according to the scriptures.


I too have sinned against heaven and earth, in the pass, but the Lord does accept repentance- I cannot throw any stones at you but seek your Christian response, to my complaint and request to put the matter right and for the information requested. I would value your and help and cooperation.


Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ David Clarke,

Minister of the Gospel. CC. Helen LePeuple.

Conclusion


I conclude that those who seek to be wiser than what is written in the scripture, as these elders at Titchfield, Warsash and Paulsgrove, concerning Christ, the way of salvation and church order fall into the deception of Satan and work against their declared purpose of functioning as a gospel church. Such pastors are as it was in Jeremiah’s day scatter the sheep of Christ and do not gather them at all- to their shame.


When I inform Christian men and women of my conclusions they show that they too have been deceived by saying oh! You have a problem with women. I say no but rather I believe God and the scriptures and am like John the Baptist or more clearly like one of the two witnesses, in Revelation 11 verse 3, who before they were kill spoke clearly in the day of there prophecy. Then the Beast who arose from he bottomless pit slew them.


Observations


It is David observation and suggestion that that women have reacted to man’s failure to treat them

rightly in honouring the weaker vessel and are seek to put a respectable face on feminism. They have turned from the word of God to do this and so are deceived by the devil. The spirit behind this movement is that same spirit which animates the Queen of Heaven and it is not of God. Repentance is the only hope of recovery to the mind and will of God. The Lord speaks of a bed that these who committed acts of spiritual adultery will be case onto and those who commit such sins with the false prophets Jezebel. I suggest it will be a bed of embarrassment which it will be the Lord doing as he gave them space to repent but did not.


13 Appendices and References


Appoint Elders in every City (Tape) Derek Prince


Women in the Church (Tape) Derek Prince


What it is to be a woman of God (Tape) Ruth Prince


Leadership is Male David Pawson

Article Divine Order Sinclair Crosshouse Believers Magazine March 1999 Appendix 01 Covering is an issue

Appendix 02: An Assignment for our Teacher’s at the New Bilibid Teacher Training College.


Appendix 03: A Mary for All (The Economist) December 20th 2003)

Appendix 04 Articles of Religion Trojan Horse International

(TULIP) Phils. Incorporated Appendix 05: Desertion and Divorce. Appendix 06: Marrying after Divorce

in the case of Adultery By John Owen


Appendix 07 The Rules


Appendix 08 Gender in the French Language

Appendix 01

Covering is an issue


Anew word has come into our religious language. It is that principle of “Covering”. It is said and believed that every one in ministry needs to be covered, if they are to be involved in the work of God. Some that you need to be covered or supported by your church, before you enter into the work of God puts it forward. Without this you will fail or cannot achieve or do the work of God.


Might I suggest that this is a deception of Satan

and we have no scripture to support this proposition?


The head of every man is Christ not the women or the Church


I have learned, by experience and practice, that this way of thinking is the natural mans view and is not the way of faith. I maintain we must depend totally upon God, as man will always fail. The head of every man is Christ and not an elder, church or religious body of people. I put it to you and they who argue you must be covered have been seduced and become like women. I ask one

question by whom was Moses, Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, or the Apostle Paul covered?


Scripture deals with covering


Scripture does actually deal with the issue of covering and its practice and significance. In many religious circles the issue of covering and its scriptural meaning had been lost, ignored or thrown out of the window, only to be replaced by this new expression “we all need to be covered”. In other words the word of God is being ignored.

Order in the Godhead, family and the Church The scripture says the head of every man is Christ,

not the church, or its elders. However the head of

every woman is her husband, not another man or the church or its elders or a religious organization.


In the case of the women the natural physical head should be veiled or covered in worship to signify she is subject to her man. The covering is an outward sigh of a natural law set by God between the man and his wife- the result of the fall in the Garden of Eden. The wife is to be subject to her own husband and under him. He is to cover her.

This is where the ancient word covert relationship comes from. A man has an overt relationship to the women but is under Christ but the women are under Christ but covertly related to the man.


Throw away the covering says the modern man and women


In our modern age women are taking over positions that God designed expressly for men to fulfil and this phenomenon of throwing away the “covering” which God says a woman should wear has crept into the religious world and the practice has made an opening for direct disobedience. They now do those things the scripture forbids. In the West and Asia women are appointed elders and pastors and as a result the men have become week and are unable to stand against those things, which are opposed to God. Jezebel is back.


The biblical order of Man and women has been lost and is being replaced by this new invention of man- we all need to be covered. This is the new cry.

Covering for all


This David says this is the deception of Satan and maintains the head of every man is Christ, not the church; it’s elders or any organization. It is this David’s hope that through this publication he will encourage men to return to the old paths of Christ and His Gospel, with the Bible alone being the only rule of conduct and practice in maters of faith and religion.


Dealing with offences


If an offence is committed in any society the scripture teaches the way to deal with the problem. The injured party is required to go to that person directly who caused the offence, not to the church, or the elders of the church behind the offender’s back and sort it out between them both.


Thus the injured party is under Christ and in going directly to that person opens a way to allow the person to act before the Lord and put an offence right. It allows men the opportunity to exercises grace in the same way God has done to them.


Should this approach fail then you go with one

or two believers seeking to resolve the issue and finally let the problem be known to the church, only if the issue cannot be resolved between you.


Mans head must not be covered


The head of every man is Christ and so his (physical natural) head must not be covered in the worship of God, this indication is to angels as well as men and he is under Christ’s rule directly. The woman is under her husband’s rule and so this is signified by her (physical natural) head being covered with a veil or covering.


The religious world has got it wrong


I have notice that when the wrong view is held and the way of speaking used “every one aught to be covered” then it leads a person to look to an organizing for approval and financial support and not to the Lord. Such people begin to then realize that if they do certain things or act in certain ways then the society with whom they work may disapprove of them and threaten to with draw support.


A man who is under Christ will know the right way to walk and act in any given situation if he is

lead by the Spirit of Christ. The


moment a man looks to the organization or friends for support he tends to fall into a trap and try to please man in order to again, acceptance and support. This is the natural man’s way and so he cannot walk by faith. The natural man preserves not the things, which are spiritual. The natural man does not depend on God but his own carnal wisdom. The natural man goes against the way of faith.


An example of this error and women getting it wrong


This is an extract for the Daily Diary of Trojan Horse International (TULIP) Phils. Incorporated


December 25th 2002


I went to see Olga Robertson at her home on the reservation and had a meal with her friends. Olga had arrived from America and shared with me some of her experiences. I gave her a copy of our book and she asked me if all these men who had written their testimonies were born again. I state to her that I was not going to judge that that they must stand by what they have written. That I had not changed

a word even though Gordon Smith had wanted me to remove from Hectors Maqueda’s testimonies his references to TULP and hard Calvinism as he called it. He wanted to make the testimony accepted to men and not to cause offence. I had to say no to this and maintained we were not to do that as that was changing his testimony. If this happens he wood be like the Pope of Rome seeking to alter things to please men.


Olga told off one of her men who was wearing a hat in her house she was very curt with him asking him what do he think he was doing wearing his hat in her room. I was amused how he obeyed her without question and so I asked Olga did she cover her head when worshiping God. She said NO! and looked at me with a question mark on her face.


The point I was making was that the covering of the head of a man, when in the presence of God in worship, was a dishonour to his head who is the Lord Jesus. This being the Apostle Paul’s argument and case.


However Olga Robertson was taking offence at this man and told him so by saying it was a

dishonoured to her by wearing his hat in her dinning room.


The Apostle Paul goes on to say that if a woman did not cover her head in the presence of God in worship then she dishonours her head (the man). Her defiant No told me a lot.


This situation reminded me of Mrs. Evered in “The Bierton Crisis”.


A Walk by Faith


The spiritual man walks the way of faith, depending upon God and the light of His word and Spirit direct him in every situation. It is the way of faith. Our walk must be by faith. The walk of faith goes against the natural man and way of the carnal nature. We often have to reprove (silently) by doing the right thing, at the right time, regardless of what people think. In such a walk the believer are often alone (but not alone as the Lord it with him).


When men find them selves looking over their shoulders, wondering what will this person of that person think of me, if I do or say or do the approved thing, then that is where Satan has got you. If you

find your self not doing things which you know are right before God and proper because you feel others may disapprove of you, then that is Satan ensnaring you so that you will become ineffectual in your work for God. We are told to resist the Devil and he will flee from you.


The rise of Jezebel and the “Queen of Heaven”


It is put as a real proposition that we are called to leave this world, this includes the world of carnal religious people as well, and daily follow Christ. We are required to put away former things, which are not of God, to follow Christ. Our drugs, our laying, our bad ways, to walk with Christ. The religious sinner must also put away his formal dead religion to follow Christ. We all must take up our Cross and follow Christ. A failure to do so will mean we will be party to those allowing the doctrine of the Nicolaitianes, Balaam and the re-introduction of that false prophetess Jezebel, as was are told in Revelation 2 verse 18 – 29. This rise of such idolatry was the ruin of the people In Jeremiah’s day when they refused to stop worshiping the “Queen ofHeaven”- beware she is back6.


6 See appendix A Mary for all- Jew, Christian and

The religious and Irreligious sinner forsake your world


As it would be wrong to encourage a drug dependent with drug or a homosexual deviations to continue his ways. Or for drinker with drink problems, to remain drinking like a fish. So in the same way it would be wrong to encourage a religious sinner to continue in his of her idolatry and false religion. They must leave their sinful way, just as a drug dependent and drunkard and sexual deviant, must leave their carnal ways. They must do it today. We all are all required to walk by faith. Religious sinners exist as well as irreligious sinners exits. All need to be saved from them selves and forsake their world to follow Christ.


David Clarke


Written at Coin, Near Savilla. On a Trojan Horse mission to Spain. 4th May Saturday. Amended. Philippines 5th December 2002 and 1st January 2003.


image

Muslim.

Appendix 02

An Assignment for the Teachers


An Assignment for our Teacher’s at the New Bilibid Teacher Training College. E-mail us for our Theologian’s answers.


New Bilibid, (Maximum) Prison Teacher training college


Essay Assignment


This assignment question has been put to our teachers and trainers in New Bilibid Prison as these teach the gospel to hundred of inmates in the “The Big House”. New Bilibid Prison houses over 23,500 inmates in three compounds, Minimum, Medium and Maximum Compounds. There are over 1300 men on “Death row” awaiting death by lethal injection. Twenty-two of these men are our “Trojan Warriors”.


Our “Trojan Warriors” are preparing to take the gospel to the rest of the prisons in the Philippines (All 1506 district and city jails). Our first man, who has been set apart and will be sent (DV), has only one leg. His name is Pastor William C. Poloc. Upon

his release this year he will work closely with our President Rev. Lucas P. Dungatan in the ministry taking the Gospel to prisons inn the Philippines to “Set the captives free”.


Assignment Question


Does the Lord Jesus Christ wish women to rule as elders in His Church?


Your are required answer this question in an essay format in 2000 words.


Church history the world of Christianity is changing. It is believed that the Church should be as a great light to the society in which she lives, to give clear moral guidelines to its people. A Church functioning correctly should help the society rise from poverty and so prosper in every way.


When the Philippines are mentioned to the western mind the picture of beautiful women and sunshine comes to mind. It is internationally known and believed by some people that a Philippine wife is the desire of a Western man. This because of her cultural up bringing. It is generally believed the Filipino culture has developed in such a way that

the women have good attitude towards the man (her husband), which lends itself to a successful marriage.


On the other hand it has been argued that this cultural phenomenon must be changed because it has left the women vulnerable and open to abuse and exploitation. Strict laws have been passed and enforced to prevent marriages between Philippine women and foreign men. It is argued by some that such laws have been found necessary in order to protect their women and society from abuse. The effect is that these laws prevent the natural migration of Philippine women to other countries.


It is now how ever, by some, that it is poverty that has robbed and damaged the Philippine Culture [1]. The argument goes on to maintain that it is the Catholic religion, which is the cause of the problem, as it breads poverty. So if we get rid of the Catholic Religion we get rid of poverty.


An old proverb warns, “Do not throw the baby out with the bath water”.


It could be and it may be that the Old Catholic

views of the man women relationships may have some mileage. It would be a shame to discard every vestige of good, which has been cultivated over many years, even though the Roman Catholic Church may be so wrong in many other issues.


The moral values, which serve to bring stability to marriages and society, have always been those biblical views expressing of correct relationship between the man and women, children and parents and society and the law of the land.


These moral values dictate that the Head of Christ is God, Christ is the head of the man and the man is the head of the women. These philosophical statements are not exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church but to all Christians who maintain that the bible is the Word of God.


The bible informs us that God designed the marriage relationship, to reflect the eternal relationship between Christ and his Church (Christ and His Bride). Sexual purity, i.e. no sex before marriage, fidelity in marriage, Marriage for life are values held by all Christians.

That the “curse” and thy desire shall be towards thy husband but he shall rule over thee” is in fact the conflict found in every relationship between man and women.


The women, designed by God, under this curse will always seek to rule over her husband- it is natural to her because she is so very different to the make up of a the man. The man also made in the image of God and under the curse will find this conflict mysterious at times and very hard. He must learn to rule over her, in love, otherwise the marriage will be far from harmonious not being as God so lovingly designed marriage to be. In a successful marriage the scripture will be fulfilled which expresses the effects of gospel truth In that day the wolf will lay down with the lamb”. Guess whom the lion and lamb may represent.


The position and role of the women, in the sociality of the Church, is also expressed in the bible and the Church should reflex this moral and working principle to the world as a great light in this current generation- as an example. The church should not follow a fallen world but be its leader.


This essay should argue that a departure from the bible format which defines clearly the roles and moral codes for church and family life is a sure fore runner of sorrow to our children and children’s children.


This is why Jesus admits no divorce (except in the case of adultery and that is not a must) because he wishes the Man to be as he. He will never put his wife away. He redeemed his bride, gave his life for her to cover all her wayward ways. This he did demonstrating his love to her in actions. Under the Law of Moses they had not this light and had hardness of heart- we have the Love of Christ to constrain us)


She in return responds naturally (only through and due to His redeeming grace) willing says “I do- I will love honor and obey you. Out side this rule of Christ a marriage cannot be as God designed it to be. In marriage children are to learn those necessary things for the make up of good society and its laws. Children need both parents to raise them up. Those children raised in dysfunctional families (due to

unresolved conflicts between separated parents) suffer. Then children suffer, Society suffers in fact we will all suffer and have to live with the consequences of our actions.


It is maintained by some that a women ruling as an Elder in a Church is contrary to the will and wish of our Lord Jesus Christ and runs against the grain of scripture. Just like fornication. Homo- sexuality and lesbian relationships run against the grain of the image of God invested man from the beginning.


Others maintain that the curse in the Garden of Eden has been broken and we now have a new order for Men and Women, as they are equal and can rule as Elders in the Church. That is provided they have the gifts and qualifications to so rule.


The purpose of this essay is to prepare our Trojan Warriors, for the world out side New Bilibid (Maximum Compound). In the world you have already found tribulation but in the Church. As you will find as you leave prison, you there will find great tribulation over this issue if you are not aware and prepare for it. Be however of good cheer

Our Lord Jesus has over come the world. And be thankful He is head of His Church.


David Clarke 7th April 2002.

[1] The Philippines Damaged Culture? Earl K. Wilkinson 2001.


A reflection


Sadly to say the men did not carry out the assignment and Rev. Lucas ~Dangatan wrote asking me not to mention anything about our objection to women elders etc in our book “Trojan Warriors” as he was not wanting to offend ladies who otherwise might buy the book. They had many Pastorer’s (Women Pastors-Elders) working in New Bilibid Prison.


Appendix 03

A Mary for All


(The Economist December 20th 2003) IMAGINE what you would think if you had

grown up with little knowledge of Christianity, and you arrived in mid winter in a country whose culture and spirituality had been shaped by that faith in one of its more traditional varieties. In other words, if you found yourself observing the celebration of Christ’s Nativity in a country dominated by Roman Catholics, or by the Greek or Russian Orthodox church, or in an ancient outpost of Christendom like Ethiopia or Armenia.


You might have questions about the sex of the worshippers, and of the divinity being worshipped. As you walked into church, you would notice some impressively robed people singing, speaking and gesturing at the far end, either in view of the congregation or else in a partially enclosed space from which they periodically emerged Both these robed celebrants and, almost certainly, their assistants would all he male; and no female would be allowed to enter the semi enclosed space. Yet most of the worshippers might well be female.


Then you might begin to wonder about who or what was being addressed in the ceremonies you were watching, and your confusion would be even greater.As you studied both the seasonal decorations

the greetings-cards, the cribs and Nativity scenes, and also more permanent fixtures like statues, icons and mosaics, you might well conclude that the main person being celebrated and adored was not a newborn boy, but his mother.


The impression of a maternally oriented religion would be especially powerful if you entered one of the many eastern Christian churches where a fresco or mosaic of a giant figure of Mary, with a relatively small figure of Christ superimposed, filled the concave space above the altar, seeming to tower over the worshippers. The sense of a religion dedicated to womanhood, with or without the attribute of maternity, would be stronger still in bastions of Roman Catholic piety such as Mexico, where simple believers often pour out their hopes and fears to an image or statue of Mary alone, without her child.


And your curiosity about the divine force being invoked might grow even greater if you could follow the words being prayed and chanted all around you. Some of these words would be celebrations of a new-born boy, destined to save mankind, but much of the language would be about his mother:

the miraculous circumstances of her pregnancy, and


the great tragedy that awaited her as her son was to meet a cruel death.


Whatever you made of this story, you would find yourself appreciating one of the great cultural achievements of the Christian era: thousands of lines of subtle and expressive religious poetry addressed to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Some of this was composed for the mid-winter celebration of Christ’s birth. Equally beautiful language was inspired by the four other feasts that the early church dedicated to Mary, each with its complex liturgical forms.


From the relative handful of direct references to Mary in the Christian gospels, a vast web of ritual and praise has been woven.


Of course, if you then asked a well instructed Roman Catholic or eastern Christian believer about the meaning of these rituals, you would be told rather firmly about the limits of Mary’s veneration. Mary is not a goddess, you would be informed,

but a human being with a unique relationship to God, and therefore a unique role in praying for and protecting the human race. She is not worshipped, but rather venerated.


A Roman Catholic might tell you that Mary was the co-redeemer, with Christ, of the human race- though this is not dogma-and that she was conceived without the “original sin” that every other human being inherits. An eastern Christian would not use quite that language. But he would acknowledge a special sort of intimacy with the mother of God, and in particular with icons of Mary with her son, which no other manifestation of the divine can inspire.


lslam’s most honoured woman


Allthiswouldberatherpuzzlingifyourbackground was entirely secular, but it would be very familiar indeed if you adhered to another monotheistic world religion, Islam. In some respects, Muslim beliefs about Mary-the most honoured woman in Islam, and the only one to have an entire chapter named after her in the Koran-seem to be quite close to those of the Roman Catholics. The Islamic

tradition holds that Jesus and his mother are the only two human souls who were not touched by Satan at birth.


In other respects, the Muslim understanding of Mary seems close to that of the eastern Christians. Both cherish the story of Mary’s childhood in a place of supreme holiness that had hitherto been a bastion of male priests. Both name Mary’s guardian as the priest Zechariah or Zakariya. In Islam the story is told of Zakariya bringing food to the child Mary and finding that she had already been given nourishment by God, this is cited as a sign of her extreme receptivity to God. In Orthodox Christianity it is stressed that Mary was born an ordinary human, burdened like others with the capacity to sin.


So much for the theology, you might say. But, as an outsider, you would still wonder at the power and intensity of the metaphors that early Christian hymnographersascribedtoMary.Amongthedozens of heart-stopping turns of phrase, she is described as the dawning of a mystical day, a bridal chamber bathed in light, a lily whose perfumes scent the faithful, the vessel of God’s wisdom, who showed

up the unwisdom of the philosophers and reduced the scholars to speechlessness.


In the eastern church, some of the finest language is prescribed for a feast in late November or early December that is based not on the New Testament, butonalesser-knownChristiantextcalledtheGospel of James. This feast celebrates the presentation of Mary, as a three-year-old child, to the Temple in Jerusalem, where she is described as entering the most holy place-which was normally reserved for male priests-and spending the remainder of her childhood absorbing the Temple’s sanctity and scholarship.


Where do all these images come from


Where do all these images come from? A psychotherapist in the school of Carl Jung might say that motherhood, as a force that feeds and protects all humans, is the most important of all the “archetypes” that lurk in humanity’s collective unconscious; so any religious practice that fails to answer this need will fail to satisfy its followers. For feminist critics of traditional Christianity, the attention paid to Christ’s mother is a feeble

counterpoint to the male domination of every other aspect of the faith. Secular historians would link the veneration of Mary to the pre-Christian cult of female divinities, such as the Egyptians’ Isis- who was conceived by her followers as a Madonna figure nursing a holy child-or the Romans’ Diana.


A somewhat different answer is offered by Margaret Barker, a Hebrew scholar and prolific writer on religious history. Her latest book, “The Great High Priest”, is a collection of densely woven arguments about the continuity between Judaism and early Christian practice. It touches on at least two interlocking themes the sex of divinity, and the locus of holiness.


From Judaism to Christianity


As she (and many others) have observed, much of the poetry dedicated to Mary comes from what is called the ‘wisdom tradition’’ of the Jewish religion. This takes the form of passages in which wisdom is perceived as a form of feminine divinity.


The Proverbs and “Wisdom”


One of the most explicit references to wisdom

as a sort of female agency or power is in the Book of Proverbs: “Wisdom hath builded her house... She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine and furnished her table. Mrs Barker believes that there are scores of other places in the Jewish scriptures where ‘wisdom language” is lurking just below the surface. Some of this language was transferred, in Christianity, to Christ or the Holy Spirit, but most of it was applied to Mary.


The Queen of Heaven


Mrs. Barker believes the worship of a deity in feminine form was more explicit before the catastrophe of 586BC when the first Temple, built by Solomon, was destroyed and the Jews went into exile in Babylon. As evidence, she cites a passage in the book of Jeremiah where Jewish exiles in Egypt are scolded for continuing to offer cakes, libations and incense to them “Queen of Heaven”.


They reply defiantly that everything had been going well in Jerusalem’s Temple, and among the Jews generally, so long as the heavenly monarch was given her due. Only when that practice ceased had disaster befallen. Other scholars have noticed

references in the Old Testament to “groves” and “high places’, where forbidden religious rites were going on, and have assumed, perhaps reasonably, that these too were rites associated with a feminine deity.


Female Cult


To back her interpretation of this passage, Mrs Barker draws on a version of the Book of Enoch found among the Dead Sea Scrolls-manuscripts whose discovery so years ago transformed Christian and Jewish scholarship. This document asserts even more clearly that the cult of a female force called wisdom had been a feature of the first Temple, but was then abandoned, disastrously.


Un unswerable proposition


As an exercise in textual analysis, Mrs Barker’s case is almost unanswerable, albeit not entirely original. The idea of wisdom as a female agency or person also existed among the Greeks, for whom Athene was the goddess of wisdom, just as Minerva was for the Romans. More recently , in the 1930’s the idea caused furious disputes in the White

Russian diaspora in Parris with bitter allegations of heresy being traded.


No wonder. As Jamie Moran, a lecturer on religion and psychology, puts it, “The Christian church does have an understanding of wisdom as a feminine gift of God, but it is so subtle that almost any statement you make about it becomes heretical.” The best way to understand the Judeo- Christian wisdom tradition, in Mr Moran’s view, is to think of wisdom as a creature who is not part of God but has a unique role in mixing God and creation together. If so, it is easy to see how “wisdom language” was transferred to Mary.


But whatever the insights offered by comparing texts and metaphors, it can be hard for :1st-century observers to understand the sheer passion of the language that was addressed to Christ’s mother in late antiquity. “The all-golden vessel, the most delectable sweetener of our souls, she who bears the Manna which is Christ: land uncultivated, field unploughed, vine streaming with fecundity, vessel most delightful, spring that gushes forth, the treasure of innocence and ornament of modesty.~, Those are the words of an eighth-century Byzantine

sermon, describing Mary’s entry into the Temple.


The holy of holies


To understand the preacher’s passion, it helps to look at the other part of Mrs Barker’s argument which has to do with the locus of holiness on earth. Like several other religions, the Jewish tradition was torn between its emphasis on the unbridgeable gap between God and human beings and its belief that, in certain circumstances, it is possible for man and the divine to come face to face.


The Temple or Tabernacle


For the Jews, the unique place of encounter between man and God was the temple. Before that, it was the Tabernacle, or tent, constructed by Moses. Mrs Barker’s point is that only in the light of the temple or tabernacle tradition can many features of early Christianity be understood. She also believes that the reverse applies: in the light of early Christian practices and ritual, it becomes easier to re-enter the world of the Jewish temple. As an example of this, she takes the central Christian rite of the Eucharist, in which bread and wine are

offered to God, consecrated and then consumed by worshippers who believe the sanctified gifts enable them, in some mysterious but primordially important sense, to take part in the divine life of Christ.


As many a religious historian has noted, there are two temple practices that foreshadow the Eucharist. One was the weekly ceremony in which 12 loaves of bread were brought into the temple, consecrated and then consumed by the high priests. The other was the annual rite that marks the high-point of the Jewish calendar: the Day of Atonement, the only time when the priest entered the holy of holies, the most sacred part of the temple.


Before doing so, the priest would select two almost identical goats. One would be slaughtered, and its blood was taken into the holy of holies before being sprinkled in various parts of the temple. The other was sent out into the desert, a “scapegoat’’ bearing the sins of the people.


As one standard translation puts it, the priest would sacrifice one goat for the Lord, the other to a demonic force called Azazel. But Mrs Barker,

drawing in part on Christian sources, argues for a different reading of the Hebrew: one goat was sacrificed as, rather than for, Azazel, whereas the other was sacrificed as the Lord. If she is right, then the paradoxical Christian teaching that God the Son, being crucified, is both “victim and priest” in an act of supreme sacrifice becomes easier to understand. And it is clear that the links between the Eucharist and the Atonement rite are closer than previously realised.


Mrs. Barker’s broader case is that posterity has underestimated the importance of temple worship in the spiritual universe, not only of the Jews, but also of the early Christians, some of whom were temple priests. Her argument is reinforced by the recent findings of John Wilkinson, a former director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.


Synagogues, Cathedrals and the Jewish Temple


Mr. Wilkinson has studied the architectural designs of hundreds of synagogues and Christian churches from the early Christian era of Georgia

and Armenia to Salisbury Cathedral in England, which was begun in l22O AD. His conclusion is that all these buildings reproduce, with some precision, certain proportions of the ideal Jewish temple as described by Ezekiel. Because the architects set out to copy ratios, rather than exact dimensions, the temple influence is not immediately obvious. But it can be discerned, says Mr Wilkinson, in apparently dissimilar churches.


Temple and Tabernacle


As evidence that Christians self-consciously followed the Jerusalem design, he cites a papal adviser of the 13th century, William Durandus, who said, “Our physical church has taken its form from... two buildings, the Temple and the Tabernacle.” But most of the time, the “temple proportions,, of church design, Mr Wilkinson believes, were part of a secret body of orally transmitted knowledge, influenced by the Greek belief that numbers had mystical properties.


Whatever the channels through which the temple influenced Christians, the essential point, for both Mrs Barker and Mr Wilkinson, is that

Christianity inherited and built on the Jewish belief that it is possible for the human being to have a direct encounter with God, and in some sense to become part of divine reality.


For the Jews, the temple, specifically the holy of holies, was the unique locus for that encounter. For Christians, the equivalent place was the sacred space around the altar of their church, where bread and wine were consecrated, and believers were enabled to take part in Christ’s life.


Transcending sex


(a subtle suggestion)


So how does that argument tie in with Mrs Barker’s earlier observations about the worship of the feminine in early Jewish religion, and the transfer of this tradition-or at least its language and metaphors-to Mary? Very closely, she would argue.


First,theChristian(andMuslim)storyoftheyoung Mary going into the heart of the Temple indicates, in Mrs Barker’s view, that sex is transcended in the divine reality that Jewish high priests entered

when they made their annual procession into the holy of holies.


The door open for women Elders


There is thus, she argues, a sense in which the priest entering the holy of holies ceases to be male. Mrs Barker, a Methodist preacher herself, concludes that this journey to a “place beyond gender” can be made by a person of either sex, and there is no reason why women cannot be Christian priests. Conservatives may regard this as feminist claptrap but, whatever they believe about that thorny topic, many Christians may be sympathetic to the stress that Mrs Barker lays on the traditional story of Mary’s early life among the temple priests, in a place of pure holiness where nobody except an elite caste of males had ever been.


Muslims, like eastern Christians, believe that Mary’s mother was expecting a child who would perform unique services to God, and was therefore surprised when her baby turned out to be a girl. Christians and Muslims will never agree on the

nature of Mary’s child: was he God incarnate, who experienced death and rose again, or a uniquely inspired prophet who did not die but ascended to heaven? Yet Christians and Muslims alike can see in Mary an affirmation that there is no limit to the holiness, or proximity to God, that any human, whether male or female, can attain. Surely that is reason enough, for people of any faith, to feel reverence for; history’s foremost Jewish mother.


Authors comments


The revealed teaching, in the Old and New Testament scriptures, concerning the person of the Lord Jesus, are expressed in many Christian Article of Religion, such at those of Trojan Horse International (TULIP) Phils. Incorporated. A correct understanding in these matter will enable the reader to be free from the errors which this book seek to deliver the reader from. These articles may be seen in the Appendix 04.


David Believes that Mary Baker has it wrong, as the typical priesthood and pattern of the Tabernacle portrays the following things of the reality.

A The incarnation of Christ i.e. the person of the Son of God becoming that which he was not. A real man without sin in our human nature. He is one person uniting the divine nature of God and our human nature in one person. He Tabernacle amongst us.


B That the believer being born again is the temple of Go build for an habitation of God. Through the Spirit.


  1. That the Church is the body of Christ the ground and pillar of the truth a temple that God has built and not man.


  2. That the Son of God, in our nature was the sin offering and the High Priest that was to come.


  3. He offered himself once and for all in a sacrifice which can never be repeated.


  4. His Deity was that which sanctified the Gift.


  5. There is now no sacrificing priesthood after the order of Aaron.

  6. A woman and any other man were disqualified from the priesthood under Moses by the Lord himself.


  7. The Law is fulfilled in Christ.


J We now have a priesthood of all believers making spiritual sacrificed acceptable to God by the Mediation of Christ alone.


Conclusion


It is written Galatians 4 verse 30, “Cast out the bond women and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewomen”


This David says, “Cast out the women elders, false Prophetess’s Jezebel and her brood, otherwise you too will be cast into a bed. Remember her children will be killed by the Lord”.


Appendix 04

Articles of Religion


Trojan Horse International (TULIP) Phils. Incorporated


We maintain;


That the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are given by inspiration of God and are the only rule of faith and practice and that these scriptures reveal the one true and only God who is self existent, infinite and eternal. That there are three self existent co-eternal persons in the Godhead namely the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one God and that the Lord Jesus Christ is very God and very man in one glorious complex person.


That God is the creator and sustainer of both spiritual and material worlds.


That the eternal purpose of God in Christ is to manifest his glory.


That Before the world began God did elect a certain number of the human race unto everlasting life and salvation whom He did predestine to the

adoption of Children by Jesus Christ of his own free grace and according to the good pleasure of His will.


That God created the first man Adam upright and all his posterity fell in him. Adam was responsible for the fall of humanity.


The effect of the fall left mankind ruined; this included his mind will and affections. Both Adam and his wife Eve were affected in different ways.


That the Lord Jesus Christ in the fullness of time became incarnate and that he really suffered and died as the substitute for his people (the whole world a term used in scripture, expressing both Jew and Gentile). He made all the satisfaction for their sins, which the law and justice of God could require as well as made a way for the bestowments of all those blessings, which are needful for them for time and eternity.


That the justification of Gods elect is only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith without consideration of any works of righteousness done by them and that the full and

free pardon of all there sins and transgressions is only through the full free pardon of all their sins and transgressions is only through the blood of Christ according to the riches of Gods grace.


That the eternal redemption which Christ hath obtained by the shedding of his blood is special and particular that it is only and intentionally designed for the elect of God who only can share its spiritual blessings.


That regeneration, conversion, sanctification and faith are the work of the Almighty efficacious and invincible grace of God the Holy Ghost.


That all those chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son and sanctified by the Spirit shall certainly and finally persevere unto eternal life.


There is a resurrection of the dead both of the just and the unjust and that Christ will come a second time to judge the quick and the dead when he will consign the wicked to everlasting punishment and introduce His own people into his kingdom and Glory where they shall be for ever with Him.


That the Church is the design of God and is His

delight and the Lord, “loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwellings of Jacob”.


That baptism of believers by immersion and the Lords Supper are ordinances of Christ to be continued until His coming again.


That marriage was ordained of God to reflect the relationship between Christ and his Church.


There is order in the family, society and Church. The head of every man is Christ, the Head of Christ is God (Father) and the head of every woman is the man. Children are to be subject to their parents and wife to their own husbands. Society and Church to be subject to magistrates so long this subjection does not oppose the rule of Christ.


Note from the Director


May I suggest that articles of religion are not put up to cause division or controversy but rather use them to prompt the truth as it is in the Lord Jesus Christ? It is unreasonable to expect all people to see and agree on things all at once. Let every one be prepared to learn. A fuller and detailed version my be read in the First London Confession of

Particular Baptist in 1644.


We could include the words used in baptism or dipping i.e. In Jesus name (His authority) I baptize you in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost.


David Clarke (extracted from Trojan Warriors).


Appendix 05


Desertion and Divorce


The following note are the extract for my Daily Diary.


November 6th 2002


The same day I received the following e-mail from Alistair and felt very sad at his outlook, as he had misjudged the situation and myself very badly. I wrote my reply, which appears as an appendix 023 to this diary (written July 2003)


Date:Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:35:54 -0000


Dear David,


A letter and a warning from Alistair

(See appendix 013 for my reply)


I want you to listen to me very carefully now with an open mind, because I have some things to say which are very, very important. I have wanted to talk like this to both you and Michael for a long time but the opportunity and the time was just not right. Now it is.


Gordon and Alistair Pray (In England)


Last night we had some serious prayer at Gordon’s and this morning all my four readings for today from Titus 3, Hosea 10, 2Kings 17, and lastly psalms 129-131 (which speaks of Gods mercy when we hear him and obey what he is saying in the previous 3 readings.)


Alistair’s own experience


I will speak from my own tragic experience, and wise men will learn from other people’s mistakes. Foolish men are stubborn and will not and will have to learn the hard way by their own. I have no doubt that God has used what he can out of what you and Michael have been doing, but there is a time when we have to go on from the first principles of

Salvation and the milk of the word to more serious things.


Achilles heel


When I started as a Christian I also had a great zeal to do the work of the Lord and had great faith and did not trust or look to other men and acted quickly and with conviction on what I Thought the Lord was saying, and I didn’t listen to what other men of God were saying. Consequently I overlooked areas in my life which were Achilles heels and which let in deception, which I did not recognize myself and therefore did not listen to the advice of others who did.


These Achilles heels were not going ahead with prayer and agreement with mature men of God. Not recognizing that I was using my financial strength to manipulate others to doing what I wanted them to do to further the work of God that I was trying to do. Also there were other errors of sin such as lust, lack of prayer but one of the most dangerous and most camouflaged areas of sin which I never did see or recognize until it was too late, was the desire and need to be recognized by others, which

need was the prime mover in what I was trying to do for God; and therefore false and unfruitful.


Judgment comes


God in his great and wonderful grace and mercy knows all these things and lets us follow that trail trying to nudge us back onto course for a long time, but there inevitably comes a day when he says you have gone far enough and the judgment comes. The ministry fails and the finance fails and people involved get tragically hurt and some even leave the faith.


I might have been used greatly


This is how things went for me. Because of my manipulation in trying to get a dear brother to do things my way, he erred from the truth and was reported dead in France. Another sister also was very badly wounded and I got myself into situation that went very, very badly for me, and any ministry that I might have been used greatly in didn’t happen.


Wanted to share with Michael


Now I wanted to share all this with Michael before

I left but it just wasn’t the right time or I would have done it. I recognize the great zeal and boldness that you both have and desire to serve God with in these last days, and you both have talents that can be mightily used, but not until you have come into submission in the kind of areas that brought me down over the past 15 years. Satan will try and get you to overlook everything I am saying now and to count it as not necessary for you, that is the way he deceives us and limits Gods work.


Errors in our ways bend a Ministry


There are two areas, which I see you following me in, which I also used and which made me to err and brought forth only wood, hay, and stubble in the work of God.


And that was trying to bend my ministry onto someone else’s and achieve what I wanted to do. From what I can see Lucas Dangatan pioneered the work in the Prison and he is the mature man of God that you both should be coming under, but you have used his work as a platform to build you own. This will not work It never does. Unless the Lord himself builds those they labour in vain. The Lord

has used Lucas to build the Theology Institute, It is quite all right to come under his cover to extend that into something bigger, but it must be under his cover, as he is the man of God who has been placed there. You cannot usurp his authority, that is what men and even Miriam tried to do with Moses, and they suffered terribly and she was put out of the camp with leprosy for a period


Alistair view (Lucas P. Dangatan should be in control)


Regarding what is happening here I see the openings with the ship and the possibilities of the other ships if we fulfil all obedience; I see the possibility of working with Mickey and David Hathaway and other s maybe and it could work. It can all happen if we are right about other things and that is that the work in the prison comes under Lucas Dangatan because he is the man who God put there.


Michael need in England


Michael is needed here because his talent is not in spiritual things it is in business and negotiating

and pushing boundaries. Maybe later when he is more mature God will use him in Spiritual things but to do so he should be coming under Lucas teaching and guidance. That is how God works. It is in the Bible. I did not see this even though I was told and therefore my ministry that could have been significant never took off. I knew too much and was too stubborn to come under another mans teaching. I just took what I wanted from wherever I found it and I got very knowledgeable but was no earthly use. Michael could set up the things that are needed to put a boat into ministry here with the expertise he has.


Break down in the family


Another serious thing and advice I ignored when I started out, even though God spoke to me in an audible voice was not leave my children and go out to do Gods work. That stubbornness and disobedience brought my youngest into the madhouse and my eldest into a heroin-registered addict. You David have a precious little girl who needs your love and if you are not here to take up your case you could be denied access, and lose your half of the property your wife is in now.

Alistair’s advise


The way to go is to come under a mature man of God until he sends you out in Gods authority. If you cold spend some time following David Hathaway in the dust of his feet you could have the authority that he has, and that is awesome.


I am now off to Fareham to try and nail down Nick and get these debts settled.


Pray for me as we do for you Love you both very much Alistair.

I really began to wonder about Alistair and what he would be reporting in England as his mind regarding the mission and our work was closed up to where we were working.


My reply


Here is my letter of reply (Not sent), which was written many months latter:


Dear Alistair

Re: Your letter 6th November 2002


You wrote to me in November 2002, soon after you returned from the Philippines, and you have asked me to listen to you very carefully as you believed that what you were to say was very important and you wanted to express certain things that had been on your mind, to Michael and I, for a long time.


I have read your letter and my very first impression was that you were very negative and of a depressed spirit, which coloured your perception. Also the fact that you were unable to communicate what concerned you to Michael and I at an appropriate time indicated that you had also a problem in communication. You list many things, which show you had been considering these things for some time, which concerns me.


This I have observed is typical of the way you are as a person and it colours the way you think. I am not like you, as you have been aware and you know I am completely different to you.


I am also of the opinion that when two people of

similar, dispositions communicate with each other the picture they paint may be similar if both have a dismal outlook. I fell this has happened to you and Gordon.


You have both spoken about me, without reference to me, and the bad and negative thoughts, generated have taken root giving wrong views to others also. This I believe has happened and been the cause of the problem with my Church and who ever you have spoken to.


An unhelpful way of writing


I felt your method of writing is very accusative and what appears to be speaking for insight is not the result of revelation from the Lord but rather by a way of projection.


Projection is processes of judging a situation subjectively by the way you personally feel and look at a situation. Such person believes and thinks that other people are like them. This kind of judgment is in fact erroneous. This is not necessarily so and in your case I believe you have both been severely wrong in many issues that I need to point out to

you, so please bare with me.


I am able to do this but it may be painful to you. I would therefore ask you therefore to listen to me as you have asked me to listen to you.


You have been wrong in your assessment of me


If you have spoken you mind to others and have said this is your view of than no wonder they have misunderstood my ministry and this could account for the negative responses that I have had from my church in Portsmouth.


I believe I can take you through each point that you have made and if you listen to my words, and the spirit by which I speak, I believe you will be recovered from the snare that I believe of Satan has used. I then hope that you will then view my actions in a different light than you have so far been able to do.


I would like to put it to you that my actions have been directed out of love, faith and a desire to honour the lord Jesus, in every thing. I am not a man pleaser.

An error in doctrine


In the first paragraph you speak in terms of God showing mercy to men when they obey him. This Alistair is the error Arminianism and is that of natural religion. And I would like to suggest now, at the onset of this response, that this is your problem. That this is why you fail to understand the way that God has dealing with you in the past. I speak like this to you because you have been outspoken enough to me stating that the tenets of what you call Calvinism are wrong. I would rather use the scripture to show up errors rather that refer to other men’s opinions.


Our God is the God of grace


Our God deals with us according to His grace and mercy. This means we obey Him because he has shown mercy to us already. This is the favour of God. It is not the other way around. You express that God shows mercy because we obey Him. This is salvation by works, not grace. I say we obey because God has shown mercy and grace towards us and thus enabling us to both will and to do of his good pleasure.

In just the same way, that a man with good eyesight can see the creation of God because the Lord has blessed him eyes to see, whereas the blind man cannot see the world around him because he has not been blessed with sight to see. Some are give eye to see other not. Some are chosen to salvation some are not. I am very happy to be corrected if you are able to do so.


Who is foolish?


In the next paragraph you load what you are about to say with “ If I do not listen to you I will be like foolish and stubborn men, and have to learn what you want me to learn the hard way.


I feel this way of writing is bad taste, as it is an attempt to assert that you are right, and your experience is that of a wise man, and that I am in the one in the wrong. I am very happy for you to have a difference of opinion to me but to speak as you do is not helpful.


I can remember Alistair you were angry with me once at Soriano Compound, along with Andy, and you said that my trouble was that I thought I was

always right and was never wrong. This difference being between you and me is that I allow others to have a difference of opinion and I can live with the difference. It would appear that you couldn’t. I t appears that you believe that you are right and I am in the wrong. You make no allowance for my difference of opinion.


Better to express things differently


This Alistair is not a good, or gracious way, of talking-it is brow beating. It would have been better for you to write and say you were concerned, or afraid, that I may be misguided and that from your previous experience you feel I too may have been misguided. You might use your experience to say because as you had been wrong in your approach, to certain ways in the past, that you now are concerned that Michael or I could be mislead just as you were. It is because of your concern that you are writing us both in order to be of help. You could say you have learned from you mistakes and you hope you may be a help to us.


In your letter you have written as though what you say is fact and it is a fate accomplish and that

things are as you have asserted are true. This Alistair is wrong and could be harmful to anyone not discerning.


Alistair’s condescension


You say that you had no doubt that God has used what he could, out of what Michael and I had been doing, but there were more weightier matters in the word of God to deal with, and more serious things going on from the first principles of salvation. This Alistair is condescension.


The Lord did a good work at new Bilibid Prison, on the 15th October, which you did not recognize, other wise you would not speak the way you did. And I also believe not many of the team saw it or took notice of it. You missed the mark but we hit it. We opened a door for the team to enter and spend time with who ever you were able to speak too. You know what happened


Our program designed


Our program was designed by Michael in order to introduce the whole team to the Prison inmates at New Bilibid Prison. We were not seeking to

reach the Christians.


We had a method but you failed to see what it was


Our purpose had a method that was contrary to contemporary evangelism. It was to give you, the team from the UK, an introduction to the inmates at New Bilibid Prison (all 13,500.00 of them) with a book of 66 life giving testimonies to which you could refer too, so they and you, after the event and days that were to follow could walk any where in the prison and share the gospel with as many as the lord sent your way, without having to explain again and again who you were and why you were there.


The team missed the cue


What Happened? None of the team went into the prison the next day to do follow up and capitalize on what we had done, except Richard Kent. Some went shopping or slept. You, Gordon, and others including Gani missed the queue, and began to complained staying that we had missed

a great opportunity to preach the Gospel. In other words you judged the situation according to your preconceived ideas of method of reaching people in order to preach the gospel and just because we do not do as you would have liked you complained. A man with a good spirit would had seen the good that was able come of the situation and made the most of what little there was but what did you do. Complained and murmured! Gordon stated that we had missed a good opportunity to preach the gospel.


Alistair you were all guests of Trojan Horse International and you had not been privy to the itinerary and you had had arranged nothing. You had been invited to be involved and contribute ideas after the 15th on the debriefing session.


A critical Spirit


That Alistair is a, critical, carnal spirit. After we had introduced the team, to the inmates on the 15th, you were all asked to work together in ways that you were able. Your were invited to discuss ways that you could be involved and we were open to suggestions.

We did not dictate


We did not dictate anything to you but left the Lord to direct you all. You know what happen. You and Gordon both got upset with me and threatened to pull out of the work. That Alistair, I put to you that this was not of God because that was an attempt to control another’s by threats. (I call that manipulation).


Zeal without knowledge


You then go on to talk of your past experience and beginnings as a Christian and talk as though I was just the same as you were in our methods and ways working on our mission. I accept your zeal in the past may not have been according to knowledge, but my zeal and practice was not only according to knowledge but also tempered with truth. I had a commission from then Lord and I fulfilled it, much to the dismay of many enemies, which were those rose up against me on the mission. In respect to follow men I would like suggested that we are encouraged to follow the Lord and not men. We follow s in so far as they follow Christ. Men whom walk contrary to the scriptures, how

ever wise they may appear to be, are blind leaders and Jesus warned about such men.


Agreement with mature men


Alistair the things that you have mentioned as being the weak areas in your life, such as not going ahead with prayer and agreement with mature men, may have been your mistake but please do not imply that this way of conduct is necessarily biblical and that it is the prescribe way to reach men for Christ.

? It may be your opinion but that is all it is.


I have no problem with good counsel but where are such good men to be found? Have you not read that God often chooses foolish and unlearned men, not many wise, not many noble, to confound the wise and prudent, men full of faith! You take the characters of the bible and see how many of them walked in agreement with mature men. They were often alone moved by faith and directed by the lord him self.


You then talk of you using your financial strength to manipulate others into doing what you wanted, and other areas of sin such as lust, lack of prayer

and camouflaged areas of sin, which was a desire to be recognized by others. That was really a prime mover in you life therefore you were untrue and unfaithful. The implication of you letter is that this is your opinion of my motives. Your are wrong. I know the difference between glorifying self and glorying the Lord.


Bending a ministry


Your may have done many thing but I would never do such a thing as you suggest and I have never usurp his Authority. It is clear for your letter that you were both ignorant of the whole working arrangement between Lucas and I so I am directing you to the history of Trojan Horse International (TULIP) Phil’s. Incorporated. From this I hope you will see how wrong you were and have made a very serious miss judgment of me. Lucas had acted wrongly but you knew nothing of it.


Who is needed where?


I was given a mission by the Lord to fulfil and I was not prepared to leave it undone. This I have done against all the odds, when both you, Gordon and my

Church along with Gani and Lucas failed me. My return to the UK was delayed that was all. At the time I received your letter I had no knowledge you were all about to abandon ship. Michael is where the lord has placed him, like Joseph, his time for release is not yet come.


Your also appear to be ignorant of the problem with my former wife Helen and our daughter. The Lord has this matter in hand. My former wife is responsible for all her actions.


I also think David Hathaway would be horrified to hear you talk about him they way you have done. When you talk of the dust of his feet, this is idolatry not holiness. Authority comes from the Lord not men. It is the Pharisee who looks to men for authority. I have telephoned him and if the lord will be seeing him towards the end of August with the men from the Philippines.


The authority any Christian has is of the Lord and mine through the word of my testimony is like a small white stone, which is awesome for, as with David, when he directed his sling, it laid Goliath the Ghitite low. I do not desire any thing the lord

does not wish me to have.


I do think, upon reflection Alistair, that you and Gordon have misjudged me and the situation in the Philippines and I would like you to reconsider the things I have mentioned to you.


I really think it will be helpful to you to read the Brief History: Trojan Horse International (TULIP) Inc., Phils. Incorporated (Résumé) APPENDIX .


Appendix 06

Marrying after Divorce

in the case of adultery. By John Owen


This article written by Dr. Owen’s was first published in 1721 nearly forty years after his death.


In the year 1714 Britain invited a divorced man, George I, to the throne. English divorce laws were no different to that of the Papacy. Owen shows that divorce ‘mensa et thoro’ is a fiction imposed upon the state and the grace of the Gospel and hurtful is to mankind When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees

about divorce he was not talking about Separation and Dr. Owen calls the assertion “blasphemy”.


Article


It is confessed by all that adultery is a just and sufficient cause of a divorce betwixt married persons.


This divorce, say some, consists in a dissolution “vinculi matrimonialis”, and so removes the marriage relation as that the innocent person divorcing or procuring the divorce is at liberty to marry again.


Others say that it is only a separation ‘mensa et thoro’ and that on this account it doth not ought to dissolve the marriage relation.


I am of the judgement of the former; for:


What is true divorce?


First, This divorce ‘mensa et thoro’ only is no true divorce, but a mere fiction of a divorce, of no use in this case, nor lawful to be made use of, neither by the law of nature nor the law of God;

for,


  1. It is, as stated, but a late invention, of no use to the world, nor known in more ancient times: for those of the Roman church who assert it do grant that divorces by the law of nature were ‘a vinculo’ and that so they were under the Old Testament; and this fiction they would impose on the grace and state of the gospel, which yet makes indeed no alteration in moral relations and duties, but only directs their performance.


  2. It is deduced from a fiction, -namely, that marriage among Christians is a sacrament of that signification as renders it in dissolvable; and therefore they would have it to take place only amongst believers, the rest of mankind being left to their natural right and privilege. But this is a fiction, and as such in sundry cases they make use of it.


Secondly, A divorce perpetual “ a mensa et thoro” only is no way useful to mankind, but hurtful and noxious; for,


  1. It would constitute a new condition or state of

    life, wherein it is not possible that a man should have a wife, or not have a wife lawfully, in one of which estates yet really every man capable of the state of wedlock is and must be, whether he will or no; for a man may, as things be circumstantiated, be absolutely bound in conscience not to receive her again who was justly repudiated for adultery, nor can he take another on this divorce. But into this estate God calls no man.


  2. It may, and probably will, cast a man under a necessity of sinning: for suppose he hath not the gift of continency, it is the express will of God that he should marry for his relief; yet on this supposition, he sins if he does so, and in that he sins if he doth not so.


Thirdly, It is unlawful; for if the bond of marriage abide, the relation still continues. This relation is the foundation of all mutual duties; and whilst all that continues, none can dispense with or prohibit from the performance of those duties. If a woman does continue in the relation of a wife to a man, she may claim the duties of marriage from him. Separation there may be by consent for a season, or upon other occasions, that may hinder the actual discharge of

conjugal duties; but to make an obligation unto such duties void, whilst the relation doth continue, is against the law of nature and the law of God. This divorce, therefore, supposing the relation of man and wife between any, and no mutual duty thence to arise, is unlawful.


Fourthly, The light of nature never directed to this kind of divorce. Marriage is an ordinance of the law of nature; but in the light and reason thereof there is no intimation of any such practice. It still directed that they who might justly put away their wives might marry others. Hence some, as the ancient Grecians, and the Romans afterward, allowed the husband to kill the adulteress. This among the Romans was changed “lege Julia”, but the offence [was] still made capital. In the room hereof, afterward, divorce took place purposely to give the innocent person liberty of marriage. So that this kind of divorce is but a fiction.


The first opinion, therefore, is according to truth; for,


First, That which dissolves the form of marriage and destroys all the forms of marriage doth dissolve

the bond of marriage; for take away the form and any moral obligation, and the relation itself ceaseth. But this is done by adultery, and a divorce ensuing thereon. For the form of marriage consisteth in this, that two become “ one flesh,” Gen. ii. 24; Matt.

  1. 6; -but this is dissolved by adultery; for the adulteress becometh one flesh with the adulterer, 1 Cor. vi. 16, and no longer one flesh in individual society with her husband, and so it absolutely breaks the bond or covenant of marriage. And how can men contend that this is a bond which is absolutely broken, or fancy a “vinculum~ that doth not bind? and that it absolutely destroys all the forms of marriage will be granted. It therefore dissolves the bond of marriage itself.


    Secondly, If the innocent party upon a divorce be not set at liberty, then, -


    1. He is deprived of his right by the sin of another; which is against the law of nature; - and so every wicked woman hath it in her power to deprive her husband of his natural right.


    2. The divorce in case of adultery, pointed by our Saviour to the innocent person to make use of, is,

as all confess, for his liberty, advantage, and relief. But on supposition that he may not marry, it will prove a snare and a yoke unto him; for if hereon he hath not the gift of continency, he is exposed to sin and judgement.


Thirdly, Our blessed Saviour gives express direction in the case, Matt. xix. 9, “ Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. Hence it is evident, and is the plain sense of the words, that he who putteth away his wife for fornication and marrieth another doth not commit adultery. Therefore the bond of marriage in that case is dissolved, and the person that put away his wife is at liberty to marry. While he denies putting away and marrying again for every cause, the exception of fornication allows both putting away and marrying again in that case; for an exceptionalways affirms the contrary unto what is denied in the rule whereunto it is an exception, or denies what is affirmed in it in the case comprised in the exception; for every exception is a particular proposition contradictory to the general rule, so that when one is affirmative, the other is negative, and on the contrary. The rule

here in general is affirmative: He that putteth away his wife and marries another committeth adultery. The exception is negative: But he that putteth away his wife for fornication and marrieth another doth not commit adultery. Or they may be otherwise conceived, so that the general rule shall be negative, and the exception affirmative: It is not lawful to put away a wife and marry another; it is adultery. Then the exception is: It is lawful for a man to put away his wife for fornication, and marry another. And this is the nature of all such exceptions, as I could manifest in instances of all sorts.


It is to no purpose to except that the other evangelists (Mark x. 11,12, Luke xvi. 18) do not express the exception insisted on; for,


  1. It is twice used in Matthew, chap. v. 32, and chap. xix. 9, and therefore was assuredly used by our Saviour.


  2. It is a rule owned by all, that where the same thing is reported by several evangelists, the briefer, short, more imperfect expressions, are to be measured and interpreted by the fuller and larger. And any general rule in any place is to be limited

by an exception annexed unto it in any one place whatever; and there is scarce any general rule but admitteth of an exception.


It is more vain to answer that our Saviour speaketh with respect unto the Jews only, and what was or was not allowed among them; for,


  1. In this answer he reduces things to the law of creation and their primitive institution. He declares what was the law of marriage and the nature of that relation antecedent to the law and institution of Moses; and so, reducing things to the law of nature, gives a rule directive to all mankind in this matter.


  2. The Pharisees enquired of our Saviour about such a divorce as was absolute, and gave liberty of marriage after it; for they never heard of any other. The pretended separation “a mensa et thoro’”, only was never heard of in the Old Testament. Now, if our Saviour doth not answer concerning the same divorce about which they inquired, but another which they knew nothing of, he doth not answer them, but delude them; - they ask after one thing, and he answers another in nothing to their purpose.

But this is not to be admitted; it was blasphemy to imagine it. Wherefore, denying the causes of divorce, which they allowed, and asserting fornication to be a just cause thereof, he allows, in that case, of that divorce which they enquired about, which was absolute and from the bond of marriage.


Again: the apostle Paul expressly sets the party at liberty to marry who is maliciously and obstinately deserted, affirming that the Christian religion doth not prejudice the natural right and privilege of men in such cases: I Cor. vii. 15, If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” If a person obstinately depart, on pretence of religion or otherwise, and will no more cohabit with a husband or wife, it is known that, by the law of nature and the usage of all nations, the deserted party, because, without his or her default, all the ends of marriage are frustrated, is at liberty to marry. But it may be it is not so among Christians. What shall a brother or a sister that is a Christian do in this case, who is so departed from? Saith the apostle, “ They are not in bondage, and they are free, -at liberty to marry

again.”


This is the constant doctrine of all protestant churches in the world; and it hath had place in the government of these nations, for Queen Elizabeth was born during the life of Queen Katharine, from whom her father was divorced.


(John Owen’s Works, Volume 16, pages 254-

  1. Banner of Truth.)


    Appendix 07


    The Rules


    The FEMALE always makes The Rules.


    The Rules are subject to change at any time without prior notice.


    No MALE cannot possibly know all The Rules;


    If the FEMALE suspects the MALE knows all

    The Rules,


    she must immediately change some or all of The Rules. The FEMALE is never wrong. If the FEMALE is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding,

    which was the direct result of


    Something the MALE said or did which was wrong.


    The MALE must apologise immediately for causing the said misunderstanding.


    The MALE is always wrong.

    The MALE may be right if he agrees with the FEMALE, unless she wants him to disagree. The FEMALE may change her mind at any time. The MALE may never change his mind without

    the express written consent of the FEMALE.


    The FEMALE has every right to be angry or upset at any time.


    The MALE must remain calm at all times, unless the

    FEMALE wants him to be angry and /or upset. The FEMALE, under no circumstances, let the

    MALE know whether she wants him to be angry

    and/or upset.

    The MALE is expected to mind-read at all times. If the FEMALE has PMT, all The Rules are null

    and void. The FEMALE is ready when she is ready.


    The MALE must be ready at all times.


    Appendix 08

    Gender in the French Language


    A French teacher was explaining to her class that in French, unlike English, nouns are designated as either masculine or feminine.


    “House” is feminine-”la maison.” “Pencil” is masculine-”le crayon.”

    A student asked, “What gender is “computer’?”


    Instead of giving the answer, the teacher split the class into two groups male and female - and asked them to decide for themselves whether “computer” should be a masculine or a feminine noun.


    Each group was asked to give four reasons for

    their recommendation.


    The men’s group decided that “computer” should definitely be the feminine gender (“la Computer”), because:


    1. No one but their creator understands their internal logic;


    2. The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else;


    3. Even the smallest mistakes are stored in long term memory for possible later review; and


    4. As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your salary on accessories for it.


The women’s group, however, concluded that computers should be masculine gender (“le computer”) because:


  1. In order to do anything with them, you have to turn them on


  2. They have a lot of data hut still can’t think for

    themselves;


  3. They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they are the problem; and


As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you could of waited a little longer, you could have got a better model!


The women won!!


Appendix 09


How times have changed


Ladies can you please come back to reality. Remember you were made for your husband... an extract from Parish News Magazine


TIPS TO LOOKAFTER YOUR HUSBAND


(Extract from 1950 Home Economics Book)


Have dinner ready: Plan ahead the night before to have a delicious meal on time. This is away of letting him know that you have been thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they come home and

the prospects of a good meal are part of the warm welcome needed.


Prepare Yourself: Take l 5 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day may need a lift.


Clear away the clutter: Make one last trip through the main part of the house jus before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a duster over the tables. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order.


Prepare the Children: Take a few minutes to wash the children’s hands and faces (if they are small), comb their hair and, if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part.


Minimise all noise: At the time of his arrival eliminate all noise of washer, dryer, dishwasher or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet.

Be happy to see him. Greet him with a warm smile.


Make him comfortable: Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in allow, soft, soothing voice. Allow him to relax and unwind.


Listen to him: You may have a dozen things to tell him but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Don’t greet him with problems or complaints. Don’t complain if he is late for dinner. Count this as minor compared with what he might have gone through that day. Let him talk first. Make the evening his. Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or other places of entertainment. Try to understand his world of strain and pressure, his need to relax at home.


The goal: Make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can renew him self in body and spirit.