As many know, Pat and I have recently made a public apology on our blog to Bill Randles. Behind the scenes there have been several back and forth emails between Bill and us. He came to us claiming Matthew 18:15:20. While we understood his desire for us to hear his grievances, we believed that Matthew 18 was not the appropriate process to go through. We decided to move forward with it for the sake of resolving what we could with Bill and thankfully some issues for Bill have been settled. However, ours have not. Another major concern for us is with the public apology and the comments that followed, we can clearly see that the entire exchange between us has left more unaddressed and unsettled than what was resolved.
Additionally, it is with concern that the application of Matthew 18 in circumstances such as with Bill Randles and us causes more confusion to the body than clarity. This is due to the fact that there has been no resolution for us in the matter and we have no where to take the matter since we don’t attend the same church body, so bringing it before the church is not an option as Matthew 18 reads. Also, since the entire content of the emails have been in the public forum in the past, except for our apology, we have decided to make them public to hopefully bring some understanding in these matters. More, importantly, we still desire a scriptural response from Bill concerning our issues.
1. All the emails have been placed here. There is a lot of information so we choose to put them separate so those who want to read through it all, may. Also, we will be quoting from the emails and this will make it easier to fact check what was said.
2. Comments are disabled on the email page. This post is where one would comment concerning the emails and a link to this post will be included on the email page.
The doublemindedness of Bill Randles is something that is well known from his articles and actions, of posting an article then taking it down or of contradicting himself from one paragraph to the next in the same post and or comments. We have encountered the same thing within our communications with him.
Here is Bill’s initial email to us claiming Matthew 18.
“Mike once again I appeal to you as a brother in Christ, to at least be willing to talk to me man to man. We are Christians, and we should be able to the glory of God to work out our differences. You call me out on ad hominem, but have you gone through your own comments on this blog, and seen your own attacks on me as a person? I am featured in at least fourteen of your articles, you have commented about my motives, our church split, my physical appearance, you have falsely accused me of cowardice, and of being jacob’s henchman…I would really like to get together with you and talk and pray in the Spirit of Matthew 18 and try to glorify Jesus between the two of us.
I was touched by your testimony, coming out of Spiritual abuse, and I am sure you have helped many many people already.
For some reason you seem to have a lot of hostility in your dealings with me, and I just don’t get that. I am even willing to come out to Indiana or wherever you are to meet with you and to try to be reconciled.
I am not joking when I say I think You and TBCKAWAii and obviously Treena ,are every bit the railers that Jacob is, you are just more selective. Just peruse the mean spirited banter among you after the articles you posted about me.
Please hear me out, this couldn’t be the will of God and I am more than willing to communicate with you as long as we can be civil. I am not on trial (that I know of) I haven’t hurt or abused anyone, that I know of. My differences with David were theological. I ask you in the name of Jesus to please be willing to dialogue, either in person or by e-mail…Pas Bill Randles”
- Notice that Bill says once again and then lays claim to Matt. 18 as if he had come to us claiming that scripture before. Bill first contacted us in April of this year but did not invoke Matthew 18 and included wanting to “dialog” with Frank Rogers and tbcawaii as well. Certainly not a Matt. 18 senario
- We also saw that he added Frank Rogers to the email. We assumed as a witness. Bill never made mention of Frank to us. Again, if Bill is to follow Matthew 18 correctly, he would have emailed us without adding Frank. At the very least he should have mentioned the fact that he cc Frank. Now we assumed it was for “witness” purposes, but we really don’t know for sure. We too added Treena Gisborn in our response to him and stated clearly why, for a witness. Bill was inconsistent with the Matthew 18 process. He would add Frank to one email and not the other and he never included Treena in any. Which we pointed out to him.
- Another point of concern was Bill said:
“For some reason you seem to have a lot of hostility in your dealings with me, and I just don’t get that. I am even willing to come out to Indiana or wherever you are to meet with you and to try to be reconciled.”
- “. I ask you in the name of Jesus to please be willing to dialogue, either in person or by e-mail…Pas Bill Randles”
- And he brings up meeting face to face again here:
“We have an issue. Matthew 18 is the way to resolve the issue. I am proposing that we go that way. Where is the problem , exactly brother?
I think it worthwhile that we do this, and patiently work through our misunderstandings, prayerfully also. I would love to meet with you, are you in the Midwest? Sincerely, pastor Bill Randles”
I have some concerns here, in Bill’s first email to us he says we can dialog in person or by email. Our thoughts went immediately to Frank and if we were to meet face to face, was Bill also going to pay to fly Frank over and bring Frank with him too? Secondly Bill states that:
“I believe it would be best to do this in bits and pieces, as there is so much of a different way of looking at this between the two of us, for example, …”
Our thoughts were how long were you planning on staying once you got here? It seems Bill’s response of being perplexed on what we said concerning Matthew 18 would have caused Bill’s stay here to be an extended period of time as Bill’s response to us was only concerning his confusion on our Matthew 18 concerns, which we stated were strictly for the record. Add to the fact we have added Treena as a witness. Were we to bring her over also to meet? None of this made sense to us and Bill seems to be disconnected from what Matthew 18 requires and wants to add a witness then remove them then meet in person without witnesses…
Thirdly Bill now spins this into a lie by stating:
“I will gladly meet with you two or talk by phone or continue to dialogue with you, since you just can’t let this go. You are the one who refuses to meet, and when you do apologize, you just can’t resist going back to the subject the next day. And what hypocrisy, calling me out for putting out “negative comments ‘ about you, after all you have written about me? What I said about you is mild and true.”
We never refused to meet, we choose to attempt to work this out through email and yes we did shut down the communication as Bill did invalidate the Matthew 18 process and disqualified himself from any form of serious communication with us; he was consistently inconsistent with adding even his own witness. Then he comments on a fb post where he speaks ill of us; while we were in the process of communication with him on a resolution. This is how he spins and justifies his actions:
“I didn’t choose to invalidate the reconciliation process, You did, by rejecting my Matthew 18 initiative. My comments came in the period when you told me you would have to “pray about reconciliation and seek counsel about it”. As long as those comments remained in the public for all to see, I have no problem with calling you out as a hypocrite for posting them. “
We never rejected his Matthew 18 “initiative”. He invalidated himself with his actions and behavior. The screen shot of his comments were taken just a few days before we finalized our response that Bill knew was coming and had agreed to wait for. Also note Bill’s comment dates 10/09/19 by that time we had already removed and amended the comments and articles.
Sun 10/27/2019 10:01 AM Bill Randles; Frank Rogers
Bill, I will need to take counsel and seek the matter in prayer. It will take some time as I have much going on right now so it may be a few weeks.
Bill Randles <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sun 10/27/2019 10:46 AM You
Not a problem, I think it would behove both of us and the body of Christ to be reconciled… Tanks for considering and praying. I was touched by your testimony …pas Bill
As a seasoned pastor one would think that a little self-control in responding to a fb comment would be certainly the wiser. And wouldn’t it have benefited the body better to have commented that Bill and us were in some type of dialog resolution?
Now the issues we have with Bill have remained unanswered by him, not just in this forum but Bill has never addressed our concerns scripturally or otherwise concerning David Nathan and continues to malign David Nathan. These issues we will continue to address in further articles. However, if anyone has questions we will certainly try and answer them.