Letter To Pastor Ron Fleck of the Newport Church

February 15, 2012
To Pastor Ron Fleck
Newport Seventh Day Adventist Church

Pastor Ron,

You and others have composed a letter to clarify the official church position regarding the “Controversy in Newport” and have again asked me for a response. I refer you to the original response given by me in writing on January 31, 2011. However I would like to take this opportunity to comment on your latest letter.

To begin with, your opening paragraph, under “Why this paper,” reads as such: “For many months our local church has experienced conflict and division because certain teachings advocated by Jeff Pippenger and his supporters have been earnestly (and sincerely) presented to our members and even to first-time visitors, as being part of a Latter Rain, Present Truth, Life or Death Message from God.” It fails to acknowledge that these “certain teachings” were brought in by Pastor Ron Fleck of the Newport SDA Church. I personally had never heard of Jeff Pippenger until Ron Fleck began showing a series featuring him in our Wednesday night prayer meetings. Furthermore, Ron as the pastor of the Newport church preached and advocated the 2520 and various other components of this message from the pulpit of the Newport SDA Church. This was done under his official leadership of the church. He brought Jeff Pippenger personally into the Edgemere church and endorsed him and also brought Darrio Taylor who teaches the same views into the Newport Church and personally attended and also endorsed him. As a result, I have diligently studied out whether or not these things are so. Here is my point; Who is the divisive one here?? You have a pastor here who “earnestly (and sincerely)” brings in a message to the Newport church and then asks his congregation to be good Bereans and study it out! I and others have done so and concluded from Scripture and SOP that these things are indeed so! So now after having been introduced to this and diligently and prayerfully studying it out, I am now being branded as divisive and insubordinate? And now the consequence of this label will result in my disfellowship? This is really quite amazing. How about you Ron? If, like you, Steve and the others who maintain that I am in error and in sin because of this, is not my blood upon you??? What is the consequence to you? A slap on the hand? You’ll promise not to do it again? You have stated to me that the Conference called you in and you were told “You brought this in, you get it out.” Apparently there is little or no concern about possible casualties or collateral damage that could occur. You should hope they don’t deal with you like you are dealing with me. You won’t even let me transfer my membership without an attachment that I am “divisive.” That was stated by you at the January 25 meeting.

Another point I would like to address is your use of someone outside of this church to characterize my position and beliefs. This is found under point number three beginning with the sentence, “One Jeff Pippenger supporter who frequently attends our church…” The person referred to is Glenn Woiler, and he started a website in response to a website put up by Charles Lawson of White Horse. Did I start the website or write the parable? No. Do I agree with either?

No. Did you or any one else ask me if I agreed with it? No. Do I go around the Newport church wearing a T-shirt with the 1843 and 1850 charts on it? No.  Then how, may I ask, is it possible for you to accuse me of something based on someone else’s view point and actions? I have nothing against Glenn Woiler other than to say that I don’t necessarily agree with his point of view. Yet because of his actions I am now being held accountable? Again I find this quite amazing.

What about the use of Glenn Woiler and Gilbert Navarro. I call it that because that is precisely what it was. Why were they invited to the January 25 meeting? Your letter of January 20, 2012 clearly states this meeting was only for members of the Newport church so I fail to understand why Glenn Woiler was invited. To say it was an oversight is to ignore your own admission referenced above that he is a “supporter who frequently attends our church.” You knew he wasn’t a member of the Newport church yet you invited him anyway. As I have read your “Controversy in Newport” letter I understand now that it was your intent to use him to unfairly represent my views and beliefs. Is this honest? How is it that I can respect dishonest leadership?

How about Gilbert Navarro? Again the question, why was he invited to the January 25 meeting? Was Gilbert an active elder or had he resigned? He was not present at our elders meeting held in October and we were informed by you that he had resigned. I had lunch with him January 23, which as you can see, was just two days before our big meeting. At that lunch I asked him a personal question about why he had resigned as an elder in the Newport church. He stated some personal reasons and then said he would like to be reinstated some time in the future. I would be very surprised if he was reinstated within two days. So why was he invited and not other inactive elders such as Jerry Hart, Peyton Furman and others that still attend the Newport church? I think the reason is clear: Gilbert is part of the “White Horse team” and Steve Wohlberg knew how Gilbert would “vote.” It is interesting to note that out of six leaders present opposing this “message” and seeking my disfellowship and that of others, three belong to White Horse. It is also interesting to note that Steve Wohlberg, by his own admission in an elders meeting earlier in 2011, received a request from UCC president Bob Falkenburg to “use his influence to remove this message from the Newport Church.” There was also a message posted on Facebook from one of our Newport members stating that Steve Wohlberg was on his way to “straighten out Ron Fleck and Randy Bierwagon and that it was about time.” Ron Fleck has admitted that it was his “study” with Steve Wohlberg that led him to reject his earlier views concerning in particular the 2520, but also those of the Daily, and the close of probation for Adventism at the Sunday Law. Is this what White Horse is about, coming in and taking over churches and using its influence to steer the church, to rid it of any opposing viewpoint that doesn’t conform to what it perceives as the message or truth? Is this the function of independent ministries? More to the point, is it correct for the conference to use an independent ministry to accomplish its dirty work? Is this not the same as when the USA secretly funds and arms rebels or dictators to take out those whom they disagree with? Again, this reeks of dishonesty, and the abuse of power. Steve Wohlberg is a prominent speaker and supporter of ASI. Are they aware of the level of his involvement and of his attitude and stance that the Adventist Church has the right to control what I think and study and share privately? Independent ministries should be made aware of this and it should cause them to think seriously about the role of White Horse in this situation, both in how the conference used them and how they have misused their own influence, and the ripple effect it could have to their own ministries.  I doubt the mission statement and charter of White Horse would allow this gross misuse of influence. Does Steve Wohlberg and White Horse have all the truth? Have they exhausted the meaning of the Scriptures? I think not. It is hard for me to put my trust in this kind of leadership.

Under the heading Revised, Resolved there is a statement printed that is hard for me to comprehend. It isn’t the meaning of the statement that is hard, but the fact that you actually put it in writing and that it represents your view. The sentence states: “If you chose the first option, then you will not promote Mr. Pippenger’s material on our church premises, or privately.” Does the Adventist Church now have the right to control what I do in my own home? Do they now think they can control what I think or what I study? How does this line up with your statement under the heading “Four Issues” found in paragraph 1 which states: “Nor will we ever forbid honest belief and inquiry either way?” Your next sentence reads “But we see a larger issue.” So do I. You seem to take offense when you are compared to the Sanhedrin or the Papacy yet one thing the three of you have in common is the desire to control men’s thoughts and actions. I’m at a loss for words to adequately convey to you the profound disgust I have for your statement. In the scheme of things there is only, and ever have been, two ends of the spectrum-one is ignorance, the other is arrogance. The next step for you, if you were capable, would be for you to enforce this by the use of force, as your reasoning has not worked. By your use of the word “privately” you are now operating on the same principle as the Papacy itself. They chained the bible to a desk, written in Latin, a language the common people could not understand, and claimed that only the priests and the pope were capable of interpretation. The only difference is the language has changed to Greek and Hebrew which the common people cannot understand, and is to be interpreted by the ministers and the B.R.I. Was not this the issue with the Jews in Christ’s time as well? The real issue here with the 2520, the daily, and the close of probation for Adventism at the Sunday Law is one of interpretation. I maintain that “Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled “Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,” Father Miller gives the following simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study and interpretation:– {RH, November 25, 1884 par. 23} I strongly suggest you look these up and follow the counsel as given by Mrs. White.

In the end there will only be two classes of people. One class will be proclaiming a message from God to the world. They will be sealed with the seal of the living God and will have Christ formed within, the hope of glory. The other class will actively oppose them by use of dishonesty and force, even killing them in the name of God. I find it startling to see this being played out right here in my own church. In your secret little council with other local churches there are plans laid to “root out the hated sect. It will be determined to strike in one night a decisive blow, which shall utterly silence the voice of dissent and reproof.” GC 635 I “solemnly urge you to read these quotes carefully. Then read them twice. Perhaps even a third time. As you do, I pray that “the Spirit of Truth” (John 16:13) will speak to your heart and mind.”

If you choose to disfellowship me you are free to do so. By yourselves you do not have the authority to carry that out but can only recommend to the church board and then to the church body. It is then up to them to decide if I am guilty of your accusations.

I liken this to a public hanging. Christ himself was guilty of speaking out against the corrupt leadership of his time.

He received the same treatment, a public crucifixion. Is the servant greater than his Master? It is on record that the leaders of the Jews caused the ruin of their nation. See COL 305.1, DA 737.6, 4SP 238.1, RH July 7, 1896 par.8, RH Dec.28,1897 par.15, RH March 26,1901 par.7, ST April 9, 1902 par2, 16MR 5.1

I will be very happy to share with any one of you my views from Scripture and SOP regarding your “taboo” subjects. My wife, in reading your first letter prohibiting the discussion of these three subjects called it “Thou shalt not, Thou shalt not, and Thou shalt not.” She was raised as a Catholic and commented that you sounded more Catholic than Adventist. Godly men and women whom I have sought counsel from regarding this matter have likened you to Jesuitism and called it heavy-handed. I hope you think clearly for what you are about to do.

In closing I would like to share a quote with you from Franklin Roosevelt: “The truth is found when men are free to pursue it.” I hear loud and clear what you are telling me. Now I want you to hear what I am telling you. I will pursue truth at any and all cost to me or to my reputation. Anyone who knows me at all will attest that my life lines up with this statement. When I am arraigned at the bar of God, you will not be there to represent me, nor will the conference, or the B.R.I. It is not up to you to decide what I accept as truth and I reject your presumed authority to tell me what I can or cannot study out privately.

Yours truly as an Elder, Sabbath School teacher, and member in good standing of the Seventh Day Adventist Church,

Glen Frachiseur

 

5 Responses to Letter To Pastor Ron Fleck of the Newport Church

  1. Lyne Shima says:

    Thank you for posting this on your website,. I’ve just been made aware of what is taking place at the Newport WA church and am praying for all of you who are involved there. I never seem to be amazed how the Lord works and how He makes those things that need to be out in the open and reveal those things that take place behind the scenes and in secret, for He knows those things that take place in darkness as well.
    May you continue to be strong in His strength and courage to those who have held up His truth as promoted by Brother Jeff Pippenger. It is just the beginnings that we shall be seeing taking place on a much higher scale… May God be with all of us as we hold the banner of truth high. Lyne

  2. Jonah says:

    Thank you for sharing this letter. The news that conflict over the messages is heating up reminds us that the end of sin is drawing to a close. Our prayers are with you and the group being placed through “the fiery trials which are to try you” Hold fast and be encouraged.

    “When the religion of Christ is most held in contempt, when His law is most despised, then should our zeal be the warmest and our courage and firmness the most unflinching. To stand in defense of truth and righteousness when the majority forsake us, to fight the battles of the Lord when champions are few—this will be our test. At this time we must gather warmth from the coldness of others, courage from their cowardice, and loyalty from their treason.”—Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 136.

  3. Obert Fakanya says:

    Brother Thank you for your letter,would you please send me all the responses and accusations they accused you of!!!
    Sometime last year I received a mail from Mother temple with the topic Tragedy at Newport and I thought it was just to mobilize us in our Dark Southern African Country Zimbabwe. This truth will help our disfellowshipped group which is Eating the Little Book with Brother Jeff, Darrio Taylor, Jamal Sankey and the Others. We are praying for you also But just remember that Daniel 2 explains clearly this issue when the stone is cut out of the mountain, we never heard anything about the Mountain but the stone cut out without hands becomes the new Mountain.
    God be with you Brother

  4. OBERT FAKANYA says:

    Brother thank you for publishing this for others like ourselves in Dark Corners of Zimbabwe, we were just send the Pdf by brother Jeff titled tragedy at New Port.
    I only encourage you to keep on contending for the Faith which was once delivered unto the saints(Jude 1vs3), and also knowing that there is nothing new under the sun, History is to repeat read Testimonies to the Church Volume 5 page 94.1 and 94.2
    Would you send me all the letters so as to Help others who are crying for going back whilst being dis fellowshipped.

  5. Roy Alonzo says:

    Thank You for the letter Brother Glen. Is it possible for you or Brother Jeff to give my email address to Fakanya in the Dark Southern African Country of Zimbawe as I am trying to reach them with Study Bibles (King JamesVersion) with Commentary
    from Ellen G. White/Spirit Of Prophecy/ and Jeff’s King of the North along with The Time of the End.

    To Your Health In
    JESUS CHRIST

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>