Public Apology

Some years ago, I was doing a teaching series, while teaching I said something that was in error.  After the service was over one of the elders approached me upset and with rebuke.  I asked him to let me review it and that I would get back to him.  That week I discovered  I had indeed taught something in error.  The following week I publicly apologized to not only the elder but to the entire congregation followed by a correction and proper understanding of the error in question.  It is in the same spirit that we submit the following.

Please let it be known that there have been some statements and comments from us that have been removed, in part or full, from this article   and others that we have commented on. The fact is that some statements and comments were snide and snarky and for that we apologize and ask forgiveness from, not only, Bill Randles but our readers. This truly is not how we ever intended to conduct ourselves. As stated, in response to  Bill:

“I would also like to say that I am certainly willing and able to try and rectify things that I have said, in snide or snarky ways, that have caused you discomfort, grief or pain. Of equal importance, I want to put this right so that no one in the body of Christ is caused to stumble. It is difficult at times, in our work at closingstages, not to take a shot even when we know we shouldn’t. God has helped us in the past to control the impulse to say things we shouldn’t. We are thankful for that and pray that God will continue to work in us. 

While the truth may not always be pleasant it shouldn’t be sprinkled with barbs. It is meant to bring understanding, life and healing. Again, our apologies to the body of Christ and Bill. Certainly, we will rely on God’s grace and mercy to walk in this much better than we have.

Mike and Pat

18 thoughts on “Public Apology


  2. As far as I understand it, David Nathan has publicly repented of everything, with one exception .. he did inform me that he still holds to his millennium teaching, though he has retracted his comment about “the blood of Jesus”.
    Jacob Prasch was in full agreement with David’s millennium teaching as per Frank’s video.
    Prasch himself stated: “Once the harpazo transpires, the Lord will refocus His primary intentions on the salvation of Israel, although not salvation in the sense that we understand it, NOT BY GRACE, it will ?? revert back to the Old Testament way of dealing with man and the nations.”
    I profoundly disagree with BOTH OF THEM on the denial of salvation by grace during the millennium.. but even they changed their view, I would not feel I needed to “forgive” anything.
    Can Bill Randles clarify what exactly he will not “forgive”. If it is on the millennium question, then It is not for Bill Randles to “forgive” a doctrinal error.. only the Lord can do that. We forgive one another our sins against each other, not doctrinal error. We “expose” false teaching – that is all.
    “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” Ephesians 5:11.

  3. As you know Treena these were all of our concerns, and more, with Bill initiating Matthew 18 as a resolution with the issues that are between us. We have created a page and added an article for comments, the page is on our home page titled “Bill Randles Correspondence” and the article is “Bill Randles Resolution”, we believe this will be a better forum for these issues to be discussed. All of this has been in the public arena for several months now and Bill has yet to answer or respond as to why he will not accept David Nathan’s repentance. A man that he has traveled with, shared platform with, spoke at his church and he at Bills church and yet Bill still sides with Jacob Prasch even within the past few videos and articles Bill has put out, saying Jacob was right. You rightly point to Bill ignoring Jacob’s agreement with David. Bill won’t even call Jacob’s teaching of Metatron heresy. He want’s to reconcile with Jacob an unrepentant man but not David Nathan.

  4. Bill Randles illogical behaviour really is something to behold!

    Matthew 18 v15 – stage 1 = “If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. v 16 – stage 2 = But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. v 17a – stage 3 = If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. v17b – stage 4 = And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

    Some thoughts: All this has taken place in a public domain.. it is therefore not an issue that can easily be settled privately by the Matthew 18 process. (stage 1) Nevertheless you did listen to him and took appropriate action. (stage 2). However, he does not listen to you, which necessitates the involvement of one or two others. (stage 2). If he will not listen to one or two others, and as you are not in a church setting, you cannot “tell it to the church”. As such stage 3 does not apply. At that stage if there is no resolution, I think you would need to decide whether to regard him as a “pagan or a tax collector”. In a church setting this would mean that his company is to be shunned. (stage 4).

    In any event, Bill invalidated the whole process when he vilified you publicly after Matthew 18 was initiated and after he had agreed to await your response.

    A further problem is that Bill copied another person into his email responses to you erratically without consulting you and without your permission.

    A further problem is that Bill is now adding to his list of original grievances.

    When I asked Bill to read my intra-seal critique on Prasch, he agreed but he did not keep his word.. and yet he was all too quick to condemn David Nathan.

    Another point is that Prasch thoroughly agreed with David Nathan’s millennial views. Bill has never acknowledged that fact – and that was his main bone of contention with DN!

    Furthermore… Bill refuses to acknowledge my grievances with him – he completely ignores me. Is that scriptural?

    In my view, resolution with such an irrational person will be very difficult indeed.

    God bless.

  5. In an earlier comment we stated “Our greatest concern is that other believers reading all of this will be left with a confusing sense of Matthew 18 and the process and what do we do now?”
    We have and will keep this in prayer and have asked counsel on this. We are planing on addressing the Matthew 18 claim and process and how it doesn’t truly apply to our circumstance with Bill Randles, along with other issues that arose as we tried to move forward with it.
    Just so there is no misunderstanding on our original post here, we indeed are sincere in what we said and continue to thank God for it all.

  6. Thank you Mike and Pat, and thank you for all you do. You’ve helped me a great deal in so much. This blog, and others that post here, have been a blessing, to those looking for answers. One thing I love so much about this blog…when you have a question…people actually answer it over here. Please keep doing what your doing!!! God Bless!

  7. Just one little point there and it shows how 2 different people can see the same thing and come away thinking 2 different things. I stated “Bill you have stated often how you stuck up for Deborah and Stewart Menelaws but yet you removed the post and Jacob thanked you for doing so”. End comment I should have used a comma or worded it like this. Bill you have stated many different time’s about how you “stuck up for the Menalaws”. My point was he said he stuck up for the Menelaws in the post he did on them repeatedly. Many times. All referring to the one post but really Bill thats a little petty. So for the record Bill has mentioned several times in different places where he stuck up for the Menelaws through the post he wrote. Umm just a little clarification there.

  8. Bill, we addressed the issues you listed to us in our correspondence. And followed through by removing and making public our apology etc..What you say in your comments here, concerning Sergio and Moriel posts, were not in the list of grievances you held against us. We can only address what you presented. Now it appears that you are creating a new list. We sought your forgiveness and you said you gave it. All we wanted from you to address our grievances also. It became clear as stated in our first comment here that you were not sincere. We sought not only prayer but counsel from faithful believers before we responded to you. Your reluctance to address any of our issues is apparent not only from the comments here but else where. You laying claim to Matthew 18 was, as we had stated to you, a bit problematic but for the opportunity to resolve what we could we moved forward with it. Still keeping this in much prayer and continued counsel. Our greatest concern is that other believers reading all of this will be left with a confusing sense of Matthew 18 and the process and what do we do now?

  9. In their own words from the Moriel TV Facebook page, dated October 16th: “The following is a copy of the comment that was made publicly and directly to Bill Randles, by Sergio Mariani.” One can only deduce from this that the comment was made by Sergio at some point as a reply to a recent blog post or Facebook post written by Bill Randles. So Moriel re-sourced an already public comment for further public consumption. While one can debate the ethical motives of that, does this really implicate Mike and Pat Rogers in any wrongdoing or “transgression” simply by posting what was already public (of which the original source was not Moriel to begin with). To somehow paint them as hypocrites is far-fetched. Just look back at Mike Rogers’ own words introducing the article here on Closing Stages. He expresses his opinion (which is not a sin by the way), and says “…so sharing this information is not meant to be taking one side or the other. My prayer is both would repent.” Hypocrisy? It’s an absurd argument really.
    Of more interest perhaps is, what exactly is it about Sergio’s statement that qualifies it as “lying” as Bill Randles claims? What is the criteria here that determines whether Sergio is telling the truth or lying? Since the statement in and of itself cannot be a “lie”, it then has to something said within it that is “lying” (perhaps Bill Randles can back up his claim with something more specific to address that).

  10. Hey Bill, would it be possible to get an apology from your wife?
    After Jacob publicly denounced you, your wife went on Servus Christi’s page trying to pick a fight with him. She said, “TO: Servus Christi aka: Josh Chavez, An important question that many inquiring minds need to know: What Christian ministries ARE you in SUPPORT of?” It being a public page, made for people to comment back and forth, I commented to her and basically asked, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black…didn’t your husband follow the same guy for years? I remarked that a pastor’s wife shouldn’t be trying to pick fights publicly like this, better to ask in private. Well….she went to my personal page, commented on a few of my posts to look at my PM…that she messaged me. She began by making fun of my cover photo at the time (which said Jesus loves you) then rudely attacked me, basically stating we didn’t know each other, so why am I speaking to her on Servus Christi’s page, and stated how did I know she didn’t privately ask Josh the same question. I commented back that I was shocked at her behavior as a pastor’s wife, and that I felt she was trying to pick a fight with Josh, and was asking her to just stop. (I wasn’t the only one, three other women on her personal page asked her to stop as well…she removed their comments). She commented back, and went into a rant about Jacob Prasch, which by the way, I never mentioned, nor did I follow, I was talking about Josh. She commented about being close friends with Jacob’s wife, and how much y’all have done for Jacob’s family….stating his son stayed with you in your home for months. At this point, I have no clue what she’s ranting about….again, I was asking her to stop trying to pick a fight with Josh, and I replied that I had no clue why she was talking about Jacob…that I was talking about Josh, have a great day, kind of thing. I then, messaged YOU. I told you what your wife was doing, what she said, I told you she was out of control, I said, as a pastor, you should have control of your wife, she was trying to pick fights, you never answered me back, but she blocked me.
    What an odd experience that was. I was quite taken back by the whole thing. I believe as a Christian, asking a pastors wife to behave herself, and to stop trying to pick fights with the “team” that just publicly denounced her husband, wasn’t out of place. And, again, I wasn’t the only one, three other women asked her to do the same.
    I’ll add this, because you stated on Frank Rogers Youtube page, on Mike’s video, that your wife was asking a legitimate question. She implied she asked Josh in private, and he didn’t answer her. So, she asked him on his Servus Christi page, which is where I asked her to stop, and he blocked her from seeing the comment. So, she posts the same question on her personal page, where three women asked her to stop, and she removed their comments. And, you’re saying she’s not trying to pick a fight??? Not the behavior of any pastor’s wife I’ve ever known.

  11. Tim, correction. I didn’t say I “often stuck up for Deborah and Stewart”, I merely said “I stuck up for them. As I hav explained before, the fact that Jacob thanked me for taking down the blog post, has nothing to do with why I took it down. By that time Jacob and I were estranged and nothing has changed since then. I took the post down for my own reasons which had/have nothing to do with Jacob.

  12. sigh… that didn’t take long ! You two can’t just apologize for your very real transgressions against us, you have to follow up with a public accusation against us? The “negative comments ” I made before your recent letter , happen to be true. You really were(are) being hypocritical, by posting things Moriel released (denouncing me and Sergio’s rant), while at the same time condemning Moriel. Which is it? Is Moriel a toxic source, or should we read Moriel releases, as long as they slime Bill Randles. Don’t worry Mike, I still accept your apology.

  13. Bill you have stated often how you stuck up for Deborah and Stewart Menelaws but yet you removed the post and Jacob thanked you for doing so. Can you explain why you did this since you removed the post publically and Jacob Prasch thanked you publically?-Tim

  14. Bill.. Mike and Pat have humbled themselves and have done more than you and Kristin have done. Do you not think that you should apologise to them, to me, and also to David Nathan? You called me a “feminist” and provided no evidence. You followed up that lie by calling me an “abusive reviler”. Your wife Kristin has said all kinds of wicked things against David Nathan, as recorded on my post:
    You have both broken the scriptures by making ad hominem remarks and accusations you are not prepared to back up with specific examples and facts. (2 Corinthians 13:1).
    Do you think you are immune from the repentance process?

  15. Bill, we did what we told you we would do, only instead of adding it to the article we choose to post it alone. We appreciate that you have accepted our apology and have forgiven us. It’s unfortunate that you choose to invalidate the reconciliation process (Matthew 18) by putting negative comments out about us during the time you knew we were in the process of responding to you. While we are thankful that your grievances against us have been resolved, our issues that we brought to you remain unanswered due to your actions; not only with the negative comments but with the Matthew 18 process itself. You would include a witness in one response and exclude them in the next and not include ours at all. You show yourself as untrustworthy and insincere in answering our issues that we have brought against you. Make no mistake, when we presented our issues concerning you and your conduct, we too expected a reasonable scriptural reply, as we have given you. You gave none but rather wanted to focus on minor details that were non-issues. You have subverted the process. Our issues remain unanswered from you of which we will continue to address here as we have been doing. Now there is yet another level of distrust added to this from your actions. We do continue to pray about this, but we are moving forward and pray that you do the same.

  16. Dear Mike and Pat, thanks so much for the apology and for demonstrating humility an honesty in the service of Christ. Apologies accepted. Freely we have all received, freely we (for)give. I really hope we can work through any further differences we have, if need be, in the name of Jesus and fr the Glory of God. Pastor Bill Randles

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.