1 Corinthians 11:19 "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." Ephesians 5:11 "Have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." and as Christ Jesus said in Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Read Caution :Made public-July 22, 2000-These are the documents presented to Dr. Tom McDill, et.al., and serve as a continuing witness: Beginning in 1984, many Elders have come and gone, a few pastors have come and gone (Aug 07: NEW PASTOR "Upon the unanimous recommendation of the Pastoral Search Committee, the Church Council and the Elders, the WEFC church body voted on July 29 to extend the call to Mike Weber.  Mike has accepted, and will begin to serve as our Senior Pastor in October") , a few district pastors have come and gone, and a few presidents of the Evangelical Free Church of America have come and gone (Dr. Thomas A. McDill, Dr. Paul Cedar and currently Dr. Willliam J. Hamel--all have rejected reconciliation)...Pastor Dr. Lou Diaz  has come and gone now current pastor Rev. Mike Weber (2007): this case is still open and waiting reconciliation. Many sermons have been preached about reconciliation. Many projects of reconciliaiton have been started, but all have denied this case as a part of those efforts. May Christ your teacher teach you from our example...Bill Fields

Where Are They Now?

Dr. R. Ivan York-iyork12@comcast.net
Regional Superintendent
http://gld-efca.churchsites.com/ivanyork.asp

Dr. Lou Diaz lou@efcchico.org
http://www.efcchico.org/pastors.php
Lou Diaz is the Senior Pastor at EFC Chico.
Moderator of the Evangelical Free Church of America.

Rev. Bruce Love, Associate Pastor, Pastoral Care
http://wefc.org/pages.asp?pageid=46

Dr. Gary Gulbranson-garyg@westminster.org
Senior Pastor of Westminster Chapel in Bellevue, Washington
http://www.alphaconnected.org/clt_bio.aspx
http://www.westminster.org/about/meet-pastor-gary/
http://www.westminster.org/about/ministry-team/

Dr. Paul A. Cedar
Chair/CEO of the Mission America Coalition
http://www.missionamerica.org/Brix?pageID=13211

Dr. William J. Hamel
http://www.efca.org/about/history/index.html

A Door article with more Metro Chicago Youth For Christ background can be read at http://www.peacemakers.net/peace/doorpmi.htm

TELLING IT TO THE CHURCH
Third Step in Church Discipline of the Leadership Wheaton Evangelical Free Church

As members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church it is now your responsibility to hear and judge if the charges, that the leadership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church are violating Biblical principles, are false or true, and what action should be taken to correct the situation.

These charges are being made public at this time due to the fact that the current leadership has ignored earlier attempts for over a year at resolving these conflicts, (steps 1 & 2, see Matthew 18:15-17 & 1 Timothy 5:19-22). These "leaders" are continuing their ungodly use of carnal power by removing me from church membership because I will not cooperate with their ungodliness, because I have Biblically confronted them, and in fact minister to those hurt by them.

Those charged are Dr. R. Ivan York, Rev. Bruce Love, Mr. Kevin Thorwall-Church Chairman, Paul Haraldsen-Chairman of the Elders, and The Elder Board.

BRIEF SUMMARY Documentation available upon request

SPRING 1984: Ms.O.: Dr. R. Ivan York often refers to the events surrounding the conflict of how Ms O left the church as when people began to misunderstand him and/or when a disgruntled few began to be rebellious toward him and his leadership. I will address this issue in sequence as to when and what I learned was both York's and Ms. O's story.

FEBRUARY 1985: BACK TO BACK. I wrote Bob Spreckels a letter in essence saying...

As a regular member of our church, who is not currently serving in a formal leadership capacity, it nevertheless is my perception that the manner in which the "Back To Back" presentation has been handled has resulted in mixed acceptance, and in reality is the major issue, not the idea itself.

In fact, some members who wish to take an active part in helping the church, feel quite alienated by the process. Some upset members have even projected that the current leadership appears to be arrogant and interested in demonstrating personal power and are not fully interested in meeting the needs of the people in the pew.

This is not only unfortunate, but quite dangerous and unless dispelled, will lead to further breakdown of church unity.

As you see in my presentation, I believe there must be a healthy dynamic tension between Biblical leadership which through Godliness gains the respect of the congregation, and the need for Godliness by the congregation to respect the church leadership. I believe that for quite a few members this is no longer true, and that the negative reaction to the "Back To Back" plan is only a example of the breakdown of that trust.

Further, I sense that the problem of church attendance both in overall numbers and Sunday PM Service is a result of much more complex problems/needs than this plan will ever address. In addition, I believe that if the tenor of our church is in fact close to my observations and is effecting a large portion of the congregation, then immediate steps to correct the spirit of the church is necessary.

It was unfortunate both in the Jan 13Th. meeting and the Jan 20Th. New Life presentation, that we as members were told that we really had no say on such matters. If that in fact is the attitude of the church leadership, is it any wonder why recruiting and giving are so difficult! Surely, the least the leadership could offer, is adequate opportunity for discussion.

Assuming that these statements are an accurate presentation of the leadership's views on church government, then I would offer, that once again the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church is headed toward the same pit that has the congregational form VS ecclesiastical form of government splitting the church. This must not happen again! In Christ, Bill Fields

There was no response to this letter! I raised the questions, and it seemed that it was me that was out of step with the desires of the congregation. Yet, the exodus from the church began and it is now evident through many decisions and actions later, that the leadership does in fact view it's role as having received absolute authority from the congregation and now the exercising of their leadership appears as lording power over the congregation rather than as Christ says in Matthew, they are to be servants.

REV. R. IVAN YORK D.MIN: WINTER 1984. Ivan contacted me for lunch to talk about his idea of bringing Bruce Love on staff. At that meeting, I told Rev.York that because the discipline against Bruce was not completed, and that the charges made by the board as well as staff were not public, that Rev.York was to contact MCYFC's chairman to get a report as to why Bruce was given the chance to resign or be fired. I also told Rev.York that I felt Bruce needed a capabilities profile done to help understand the gifts and abilities Bruce possessed. There some questions raised that Bruce was functioning outside his ability in an administrative role. Also, I felt that if a careful study of these abilities, the problems at MCYFC and the needs at the WEFC all matched in a positive way then I could give my blessing about hiring Bruce. (I later discovered [spring of 1986] that none of my suggestions were followed yet Rev. York used me as giving my blessing to Bruce's hiring. That is, as you see, not true.)

BRUCE LOVE: FALL 1985. I was asked by the Outreach Board if I would serve as Editor for the Roadside Echos. I accepted until I discovered that Bruce was to be the overseeing pastor.

I had been intently involved with the staff and Board of Metro Chicago in attempting to bring reconciliation between them and Bruce, without success, since the spring of 1984, now almost a year and a half later. I called Bob Spreckels, then Elder Chairman, and explained the situation that I was willing to serve in the church, but was unable to work with Bruce since there were so many issues yet to be resolved. Also I indicated to Bob that since the discipline process with Bruce was going badly, that the Elders might need to get involved, but I had been asked by MCYFC's board chairman to wait even longer, and I agreed to that and so did Bob.

REV. YORK: JANUARY 1986. I had called Rev.York to explain to him that the discipline process with Bruce was bogged down and that it was time to bring it before the elders of the WEFC.

York indicated that he was willing that only Rev. York, Spreckels and myself meet to discuss the charges. I said that I felt this was unwise to try and have so few understand the issues (I believe this was a major error in how MCYFC handled the matter) and would be willing to have several elders take part. Rev. York said that he would not allow that and that he felt the elders could not handle such complicated issues.

It was at that time I felt Rev. York's tone and power play was unnecessary and that he was confirming my earlier doubts as to his desire to be objective, and whitewash the whole mess since many elders and members felt that Bruce was hired under less than favorable conditions and process.

Rev. York also said that Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's chairman, Rev. Gary Gulbranson, had suggested to wait with my process, that maybe Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's process would restore Bruce.

The Chairman of Metro Chicago Youth for Christ had told me that he wanted to come to the pastors and elders of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America and be my witness that all through the discipline process I had been righteous and was fired wrongly.

THE ELDERS: Rev. York, FEBRUARY 1986. After Rev. York had refused to respond to my request for a hearing with several elders, I responded to the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America constitution (which does not address issues between two members, or of one member and another Christian) by following the example of writing the charges down of Bruce Love and now with Rev. York, and giving them to the elders. I also raised the issue that Rev. York had disqualified himself from sitting on the elder board's hearing, since per his own statement that since Bruce is his responsibility, he should be in on the deciding process. On several occasions, Rev. York would tell me my sins and how I was wrong and how I was unrighteous, yet Rev. York had never heard my side of the story, or without even hearing the facts from the many witnesses. This did not stop Rev. York from presiding in the meeting, either formally or informally.

THE ELDERS: BRUCE LOVE, FEBRUARY 1986. I gave to the elders the information that on many occasions with several witnesses and under the authority of the Metro Chicago Youth For Christ board and at meetings with the Chairman of the Board, that we were unsuccessful in bringing reconciliation of Bruce with the staff or the board. I also explained that this process has been taking place over the last two years, yet there was no success, and that I need the elders help is reconciling Bruce and myself. I also explained how Biblically, I felt Bruce was disqualified from serving as a pastor, until these many violations of scripture were resolved, and that I could not in any conscience attend any service where Bruce played a role.

Rev. York, AND THE ELDERS: FEBRUARY ELDERS SPECIAL MEETING. In the meeting, I was subject to ridicule, called a child, accused of being bitter, resentful and vengeful. I was told that it was none of the WEFC's business what happened at Metro Chicago Youth For Christ and what arrogant idea did I have to bring an employer/employee matter before them. That I should just forget it, I was being unforgiving and that was that. They asked if I would meet with some of the elders on the following Saturday to give my answer and asked if I would accept Bruce's asking for forgiveness. I was told that the Elders would not call any witnesses and since I had no witnesses there were no valid charges. And, I was disqualified from teaching my adult Sunday School class until further notice. (This was a major irritation with Rev. York and others, because the class was viewed as malcontents, when in fact many were very hurting people, some who had been hurt by Rev. York. This fact was to become very significant later.) Also, I was accused of leading a rebellion, since I was going to the New Life Sunday School class, and then going to teach the elective the second hour, instead of going to worship service. Yet to this day many people teach in one hour and go to sunday school class the other, and they have yet to be singled out or disciplined. Needless to say I was devastated, and went from being the one asking for help to heal a broken relationship to being the recipients of the discipline. (I was later to discover, that many of the elders resented the way Rev. York had railroaded Bruce's appointment as associate pastor, and I now feel that the elders would have been embarrassed by the disclosures of the charges against Bruce, since 1 Timothy 5:19-21 would call for public confession.

Rev. York, THE ELDER'S COMMITTEE, & LOVE: MARCH 1, 1986. I was once again subjected to, the facts as the elders saw them, that it was me who was wrong, that they had no intention of hearing witnesses, and just wanted me to accept the past and start coming to worship service again. Bruce made no definitive statement of wrong "If I hurt you will you forgive me?" and I was given the choice to accept the elder's authority or suffer discipline (veiled threat) and that the elders would decide if anything else should be done. But they couldn't see why since Bruce hadn't done anything wrong that they could see. I was also instructed that I was to demonstrate my sorrow of being wrong (which I did not feel) by attending worship services and at some point the elders would reinstate me to teaching, when they felt I had shown them I was repentant. (The elders were very adamant that if I were really forgiving Bruce I would expect no restitution or demonstration of proof of confessed sin, yet when applied to me they enforced a penalty and a demonstration -- hardly consistent.)

MARCH 2, 1986. Staying up all night as I had done for many months during this very stressful and traumatic ordeal, I felt God would have me give an unconditional forgiveness to Bruce, even though the Bible is very specific about confessing sins and submit to the elders. I thought that maybe I was confusing them with so many issues and that if I backed off, maybe now they could care for Bruce. Unfortunately the elders would totally drop the subject and disregard the scriptures. Yet I had agreed that as far as my personal issues with Bruce were concerned I would consider the matter closed. However, I did write, "Since full fellowship is what we all seek and since there has come to our attention significant differences as to the application of Biblical values and the process of encouraging righteous, I would like myself, the Pastors, the Elders and other you may choose, to join in a through study of these issues, so that we may continue in the unity of Ephesians 4. I waited for the elders to contact me concerning the study of Church Discipline. There was to be no such study or interest. I contacted Bob Spreckels and said if these issues were not dealt with by the annual meeting, I would be forced to bring this whole matter before the church membership. I was given several assurances that the elders and the pastors were making headway and that I should be more patient. I agreed to be more patient and in fact called for the annual meeting to be adjourned. I waited and waited. I began talking to elders and discovered some very troublesome information...

MARCH 1986: THE MISSION COMMITTEE. Without going into too much detail, the mission committee began to request significant detail of the operations of PeaceMakers.net, under the facts that they were in the process of re-writting the mission policies. This missions process was to incompass several phone conversations, meetings and reports to the mission's committee. For some reason, there was never enough information, or there was significant questions to my qualifications, or questions if the PMI board was really in charge. The mission's Pastor, Greg Carter and the Chairman, Tom Gill were never satisfied that the answers we were giving were the truth. In fact in more than one case, these men communicated slanderous information concerning myself. Later, Jack Gordon (pmi note: Jack Gordon would later be disciplined and removed from PeaceMakers) would ask the mission's comittee to consider his calling as a pastoral counselor within the ministry of PeaceMakers Intl. After several meetings, over 10 months, where Jack's gifts and PeaceMakers' integrity have been significantly challenged, Jack has been declined. I might add, it's been the actions of the board of PMI and their attempt to care for Jack, that PMI has had any imput. One certainly gets the feeling that the mission board's minds have been made up by someone else, or are we just seeing coincidence at work here? Carter now tells me (March 1987) that there is currently actions by the elders pending that will have bearing upon whether I will be on the mission's budget for 1986-1987.

MID-MARCH 1986: JOHN BLACK, HOWARD RUSSELL, THORWAL, SPRECKELS. John Black and Howard Russell, two members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America and board members of PeaceMakers Intl. asked for a meeting with Thorwall and Spreckels. Later on March 14Th. a letter was sent to Spreckels and Thorwall reiterating the following points, in essences saying...

1. Bill came asking for the elders help in restoring he and Bruce so that he could return to worship and a close friendship.
2. Bill became the guilty party and was denied the Biblical and constitutional rights of having witnesses or advocates for his own behalf.
3. Rev. York acted as Bruce's advocate, ran the meeting and denied Bill an advocate (in fact all Elders refused their constitutional duty to act as an advocate), all the while being in conflict with Bill.
4. In spite of the above violations of Scripture, Bill submitted to the elders. They then raised the issue of Church Discipline, and the need to study the subject, especially in light of their many infractions. There were no actions taken!

LATE MARCH: Ms. O. In the course of one of PeaceMakers Intl. Bible Studies, Ms. O and husband, were invited to attend. After several weeks, I asked if we could talk about the hurt they felt about the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America and Rev. York. They agreed. In summary since to fully discuss the matter publicly now while the issue is still open, is unwise. There were several issues that needed to be resolved, and that none of the hurt was associated with not "getting the job" but in fact how they were treated in and during the decision making process by Rev. York, and how Rev. York had violated them. I discovered that the O's had been contacted by Jack Schrader and Kevin Thorwall and had given them their side of the issues, but that nothing had ever been resolved nor had any further meetings or attempts had been made by anyone, even though the O's were led to believe that these men were going to confront Rev. York to bring reconciliation.

APRIL 10TH 1986 THE ELDER BOARD MEETING. Howard Russell and Bill Luck, were my witness, (since I kept getting killed and misunderstood, I felt it was time to bring a witness [step two in Matthew 18] to witness all that was said). I once again addressed the fact that I believed that the elders and pastors had significantly missed handled the Biblical values of Church Discipline, and that many people were hurting and leaving the church. I began by reporting that Rev. York and I had met a few days before in an attempt to resolve all personal issues. I accepted that they were resolved. On the other hand, Rev. York and I could not reach agreement on two very significant issues -- Rev. York does not feel (I believe contrary to Matthew 5:23-24, and Matthew 18:15-17, and Gal. 6:1), the O's case, that if there is an offense between him and the O's, that he should go and make it right, regardless if the wrongs were intentional or unintentional, with those who had issue with him. Rev. York believed that he didn't have to do that part, that the O's knew where he was, and that he had done all he could. I said that if Rev. York and the O's or anyone else could not resolve the issues between them, that they needed help from the elders or others. Rev. York was unwilling to consider that an option. Plus the elders were not willing to consider getting involved and/or a selected committee to handle the issues.

Issue Two, that the elders had been asked to clear my name for nomination from the floor as an candidate for elder, and that Rev. York felt that "not enough time had elapsed since the recent issue with Bruce." Rev. York said that a large group in the church was quite upset with the process I had started, and would not accept my being an elder. I asked, how is it that they know about the issue in the first place, and secondly, since I had been now assured I was not being punished, why couldn't Rev. York and the elders stand before the congregation and clear my name. Rev. York's response was that he didn't want to do that. Once again, I was being slandered by somebody, and my own pastor would not help clear my name. Later, several elders would tell me that my name was regular slandered in the elder meetings. Finally, I again shared that there were many broken relationships within the church and while there were evidences of good things, there were many leaving out the back door because of little trust for the elected leaders and the Pastors, while the remaining, who are committed to working in various programs are being disenfranchised. (Unfortunately this continues to be the case!) In conversations with Rev. York, he complained that he didn't count on or trust the ability of the elders.

In conversations with Spreckles and Thorwall, they communicated not being able to hold the pastor accountable and felt a lack of freedom to resolve difficult spiritual conflicts. Some elders complained that the do not say or act in the elders meetings in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs. There appears to be a spirit of intimidation, inadequacy, and a lack of courage to confront. I made several recommendations:
A. The pastors, elders and other church leaders should immediately undertake a formal study of Church Discipline.
B. Initiate a formal reconciliation process by contacting those who have expressed broken trust and/or relationships with the pastors, elders, or other leadership, within the next 30 days.
C. Provide a forum for those members, and nonmembers who seek restoration with others in our church. There has been no action taken, and recently Rev. York told a member of the church, that there would be no further talks about church discipline.

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION BOARD, MAY: RICH DEVRIES. The Chrisitian Education board was requested to allow the elective class I was teaching to become a regular adult S.S. class. They would later deny the class to continue, even though there were many who had been growing, and who had strongly requested that the class continue, since it was meeting a very important need in their lives. The reasons given by the CE Board were that there wasn't enough space and that the second hour didn't need another adult class (even though that was a stated goal in the Back to Back plan), yet repeatedly class members would hear that the Pastors and other leaders considered these people troublemakers. It's important to note here, that at no time did any leader or pastor ever confront anyone in the class with these charges, yet these people were constantly slandered.

MID-SUMMER: KEVIN THORWALL. Kevin called and asked it we could get together, I agreed. Kevin... "some people might get the idea that you're leading a class of malcontents." I assured him that was not the case and was not my intention and that he was more than welcome to attend the class and express his concerns. He did not attend! Kevin also expressed how difficult is was to work with Rev. York and that Rev. York was not open to be confronted or challenged. That it took a special way to get Rev. York's attention and that one had to learn how to get along with Rev. York. Kevin also expressed that he was aware of people who were hurt or offended by Rev. York, (mentioning the O's) but that if we spent all the time it took to restore relationships, that would take all year, and the work of the church wouldn't get done. I shared that it was my impression from the Bible, that the ministry of reconciliation was THE ministry of the Body of Christ. Kevin also brought up the case of the O's, and said that he had tried to bring reconciliation, but that Rev. York would not listen to pursuing the matter any farther. Kevin also said that he really wasn't able to hold Rev. York accountable, and neither were the elders, and that he was sympathetic with Rev. York because he was the son of a pastor. I then shared with Kevin what I had said to the elders on April 10Th. and that I still held that this was the proper course. I also said that I considered Kevin's weakness in holding the pastor accountable (i.e. not following through with the O's case), a major part of the problem and that he should consider resigning or act according to his spiritual responsibilities, because the church was headed for a major conflict and/or split -- it was only a matter of time.

AUGUST 16, 1986: PAUL HARLDSEN, JACK GORDON. Jack Gordon (Elder) had asked if I'd be willing to meet with him and Paul Harldsen to talk over the issues as I saw them. Jack had felt that Paul might be open to further understanding what I was trying to say. Paul was on the elder board through all of this, yet maybe now, as chairman, he might see his role as different and be open to rethink the issues. We met and had lunch. Paul expressed that he still felt as he had all through the process, and that he felt Rev. York was difficult to work with, and that this was really a matter of wills and since Rev. York was the pastor I had to learn to submit. (I find it interesting that almost everybody agrees [privately] that Rev. York is hard to work with and is pretty insensitive to peoples needs -- yet no one is willing to say that this is wrong and is willing to risk Rev. York's wrath to help him!)

Paul did try to listen and understand my positions on many of the matters, but never understood, and maintained his positions. I explained to Paul that I felt I had done all I could and would now need to take this information to the congregation, unless he could show me hope that things were going to be dealt with. I said if the elders and the pastors would study the biblical process of resolving broken relationships and Church Discipline and set out to begin restoring those relationships by the next elder meeting I would not take these matters before the congregation by writing a letter.

In fact, I promised Paul I would not interrupt any worship service or command the pulpit. We shared how destructive to the congregation this kind of behavior had been during the last split, and it was both our desires that the innocent would not be harmed. There were no further actions taken, and the elders once again passed over another meeting without bringing these issues to resolution. The pain and hurt was now so excruciating to myself, my family and to many others. The elders were totally uncaring and/or unable to understand and act scripturally.

LABOR DAY 1986: HENRY NELSON. While in the New Life Class one Sunday Henry (class teacher) and I began talking and I shared that I was really troubled about what was happening in the church. We briefly reflected how it was when we first really got to know each other, when we both were trying to bring reconciliation during the last church split. We decided to get together and share and pray. After sharing with Henry the above information, I told him that as far as I could ascertain from the Bible, I had followed all the steps to help bring these issues to resolve, but now the only step was to make the whole congregation aware of what I considered a very ungodly leadership. Henry and I prayed, and then Henry encouraged me that of the options we had considered, that maybe the best, in order to give the leaders more time to consider the urgency of the matter, was to tell them, they had disqualified themselves from leadership and that I no longer considered the Pastors or the Elders my spiritual authority, and that I would submit myself to others who I believed to Godly in their leadership. I agreed that this might be a good step, and later that week after praying and fasting for several days, I called Paul Harldsen, the new Elder Chairman and gave him my decision.

SEPTEMBER 1986: S.S. CLASS, ELDERS. The members of the adult elective that I was teaching, that was denied to continue, requested that the elders give the class the ability to meet as a S.S. class. The request was denied, but the group was told they could meet as a Shepparding group. It was unclear by several accounts if that meant that the class could meet when they wanted.

DECEMBER 1986: S.S. CLASS, ELDERS. The elders gave a final answer that the group could only meet during the week, (even though most of the class members had stated that for many reasons, most of them being jobs in the church, they couldn't take another evening out).

ALL THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS: Often there were times when individuals whom I've never met would say slanderous things about me to people who knew me. I would try and believe that in time this would stop, but in truth it continued to grow. It's now to the point, I have no idea who knows or believes what, and there is little hope that even reconciliation will clear my name. The gossiping people will never know how much hurt they have caused me or my family. And they can never know how much damage they have done to those who were seeking PMI's help in their crisis.

JACK SCHRADER'S FUTILE ATTEMPT HOW CAHILL & GORDON HAVE BEEN ABUSED

SUMMARY: WHO'S FAULT IS IT? I believe the answer is us. I believe the congregation has failed the men in leadership positions, and I feel the men in leadership positions have failed the pastor, and I feel the pastor has failed the congregation.

Documents:

A.

Mr. Robert Spreckles
Wheaton Evangelical Free Ch.
520 E. Roosevelt Rd.
Wheaton, Il. 60187

Dear Bob, As Chairman of the Elders of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, I'm addressing my comments to you, concerning the current plan titled "Back To Back Services". When this plan was introduced to the combined Adult Sunday School on Jan. 13, 1985, it was stated quite strongly that this plan was created because our church was not growing due to crowded quarters. Also stated were facts and figures to support that premise, and that the "Back To Back" plan would be a major step in solving our growth problems, and that there are other factors to be considered in a long range planning program. This letter then is my own personal observations of how I, as one with a degree of organizational systemic understanding, believe many people are responding to the presentation and the way in which our leadership has handled this situation, and of course the opinion of my wife and myself, as two members. First, let me set the framework of my discussion. As you know current managment thought, accepts the following as a standard approach to problem solving:

1. Specifically define the need/problem as is understood, by all those effected.

2. Upon agreed definition of the need/problem, break it further down into managable segments to establish measurable goals.

3. Develop a long list of options that will meet each goal.

4. Choose that option and the resultant gains and costs, that will best meet each goal.

5. Try it, fix it, and then do it better.

As a regular member of our church, who is not currently serving in a formal leadership capacity, the "Back To Back" presentation began the change process at step #3, and has therefore resulted in mixed acceptance. In fact, some members who wish to take an active part in helping the church feel quite alienated. Some upset members have even projected that the current leadership appears to be arrogant and interested in demonstrating personal power and are not fully interested in meeting the needs of the people in the pew. This is not only unfortunate, but quite dangerous and unless dispelled, will lead to further breakdown of church unity. As you see in my presentation, I believe there must be a healthy dynamic tension between Biblical leadership which through Godliness gains the respect of the congregation, and the need for Godliness by the congregation to respect the church leadership.

I believe that for quite a few members this is no longer true, and that the negative reaction to the "Back To Back" plan is only a example of the breakdown of that trust. Further, I sense that the problem of chuch attendance both in over-all numbers and Sunday PM Service is a result of much more complex problems/needs than this plan will ever address. In addition, I believe that if the tenor of our church is in fact close to my obervations and is affecting a large portion of the congregation, then immediate steps to correct the spirit of the chuch is necessary.

It was unfortunate both in the Jan 13th meeting and the Jan 20th New Life presentation, that we as members were told that we really had no say on such matters. If that in fact is an attitude of the church leadership, is it any wonder why recruiting and giving are so difficult! Surely, the least the leadership could offer, is adequate opportunity for discussion. Assuming that these statements are an accurate presentation of the leaderships views on chuch government, then I would offer, that once again the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church is headed toward the same pit that has the congragational form VS ecclesiastical form splitting the church. This must not happen again!

Therefore, I suggest, in order to give the "Back To Back" plan an adequate chance as one of the "long list of options" to our space needs -- not our church growth problem, and to reestablish the necessary trust levels to the delicate balance between Godliness in leadership and Godliness of congregational respect, that this plan be given more time and input by the members. Also, I believe if the "Back To Back" plan were to be put on hold until a more fuller expression by the congregation can be achieved, then the trust levels, which seem to be broken, will be regained.

Next, I would suggest the formation of tasks force teams, that would help the church leadership in defining and developing solutions to the other problems that are felt keeping our church from being all that God intends us to be. The result would be the full function of the Biblical concept of the whole body and it's gifts being led by the Holy Spirit, toward a more successful plan of growth. As leaders, we must never forget that the head of the body is Christ, and that boards, ministers, laymen are all parts of the body that must function in unity. Elsewise, we will be defeated. I have many additional thoughts that address other perceptions I have concerning the needs of our church and the necessary steps to effectively implement growth in numbers and in maturity. I would be willing to answer your questions, and I await the leaderships call. Now, concerning specifically the "Back To Back" plan. Since this plan is being offered as a solution to a space need, and we do not posess personal knowledge of any space problems, other than the need for more space if we grow -- then my wife and I feel this plan is putting the cart before the horse if implemented at this time. And in fact, do not understand why NOW versus LATER at the sacrifice of adequate congregational input.

The rush for March 3, as a new quarter begins, seems premature. And why upset a major portion of the congregation now, if the growth is not immediately at hand. We feel, a more timely approach will give everyone an opportuinty to grow into this plan, rather than, as some feel, be pushed. Right now, we feel if we push for the plan, we'll lose more trust and most likely more members. However, we also feel that if the church just gives in to pressure to not change and "trash" the current plan, then we may in fact be losing the "best" option available. It's just to premature to know! In my work, when the conditions exist as I sense they do, then it's a wrong time for implementation and it's a good time for more prayer and talk. Therefore, Penny and I regret, that at this juncture to inform you, we DO NOT SUPPORT this plan nor it's implementation.

We offer our personal support to you as our representative of our beloved church, and offer these thoughts, as our show of support. Sincerely, William & Penny Fields C.C. Rev. Ivan Rev. York C.C. Mr. Richard DeVries C.C. Mr. Ray Chase

B. Letter to Members:

Third Step in Church Discipline of the Leadership of the Wheaton Evangelical free Church

As members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church it is now your responsibility to hear and judge the charges that the leadership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church are stubbornly violating Biblical principles. It is your Biblical responsibility to decide what action should be taken to bring reconciliation to the situation. There are available resources and information to each member as to how to proceed in a Biblical manner in reconciling these issues and people.

These charges are being made public because the current leadership has ignored earlier attempts for quite some time at resolving these conflicts. See steps 1 & 2, of Matthew 18:15-17 & 1 Timothy 5:19-22. These leaders are continuing their ungodly use of carnal power.

These men are disqualified as spiritual leaders because of their unwillingness to repent, confess their sins publicly, and to be restored to spiritual responsibility. 1 Tim. 3:1-7 & Titus 1;5-10. It is now the responsibility of the members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church to hear these issues and to bring unity, and healing to our church.

There is a summary document available (MEMBERS ONLY) of the issues and a brief history of how these issues have been attempted to be resolved. Included are some recommendations that will help. To receive a copy of this document please fill out and return the following form.

ONLY MEMBERS OF THE WHEATON EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH FIRST NAME________________________ LAST NAME_______________________________ ADDRESS____________________________________________ CITY___________________ STATE______ ZIP CODE______________ HOME PHONE____________________________

To Recieve by Mail, mail to: Bill Fields, 411 Kipling, Wheaton, Il. 60187
To Pick up, go to: Suburban Graphics, Randy Sampson 128 N. Main St. Wheaton

C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Long version

The Issues and Summary of Charges............................... page 2
Biblical Values violated........................................ page 3
Whose Fault Is It............................................... page 5
Recommendations................................................. page 6
Brief Summary In Chronological Order. (available on request).... page 7
1. January 1984: Ms. O................................. page 7
2. February 1984: Back to Back................................. page 7
3. Winter 1984: Rev. York...................................... page 8
4. Fall 1985: Bruce Love....................................... page 8
5. January 1986: Rev. York..................................... page 8
6. February 1986: The Elders & Rev. York....................... page 9
7. February 1986: The Elders & Bruce Love...................... page 9
8. February 1986: The Elders & Rev. York....................... page 10
9. March 1, 1986: The Elders & Rev. York & Bruce Love.......... page 10
10. March 2, 1986: Letter to The Elders & Bruce Love............ page 11
11. March 1986: The Mission Committee........................... page 11
12. Mid-March: Russell, Black, & Spreckels, Thorwall............ page 12
13. Late March: Ms. O................................... page 12
14. April 10, 1986: The Elders.................................. page 12
15. May 1986: Christian Education Board & S.S.Class............ page 14
16. July 1986: Kevin Thorwall, Church Chairman.................. page 14
17. August 16, 1986: Paul Haraldsen, New Elder Chairman......... page 15
18. Labor Day 1986: Henry Nelson................................ page 16
19. September 1986: The Elders.................................. page 16
20. November 20, 1986: Jack Schrader, New Elder................. page 16
21. December 1986: The Elders & The Sunday School Class......... page 17
22. February 1987: Jack Schrader................................ page 17
23. Throughout process: Slander & Gossip........................ page 17
24. Other Victims Including: Mr.C. & Jack Gordon.......... page 18
25. The Churches Responsibilities and Admonition................ page 19

Third Step in Church Discipline of the Leadership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church

As members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church it is now your responsibility to hear and judge the charges that the leadership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church are stubbornly violating Biblical principles. You must also decide what action should be taken to bring reconciliation to the situation. These charges are being made public because the current leadership has ignored earlier attempts for quite some time at resolving these conflicts. See steps 1 & 2, of Matthew 18:15-17 & 1 Timothy 5:19-22.

These leaders are continuing their ungodly use of carnal power. These leaders perceive many members and regular attenders as being less than Godly because they will not cooperate with their ungodliness. These members have Biblically confronted the leaders, and minister to those hurt by their ungodly leadership. Those principally charged are Rev. Ivan Rev. York: Rev. Bruce Love: Mr. Kevin Thorwall, Church Chairman: Paul Haraldsen, Chairman of the Elders: and The Elder Board. There are many others who have intentionally or unwittingly followed the unBiblical example.

THE SUMMARY OF CHARGES

1. The leadership has functioned as "Head of the Body" and therefore lorded over the people. They should be members and servants of the Body.
2. Leadership often exercises the value of serving the institution. They should be using the program to meet the needs of the people.
3. Leadership has promoted that up to 10% of the people who have needs can be disenfranchised and should leave the church if not satisfied with the church program.
4. The leadership has demonstrated a lack of ability to tolerate divergent opinions, and has not practiced deference toward others.
5. The leadership has practiced alienation and ostratization toward those who hold divergent views and ideas.
6. The leadership has failed to exercise Biblical values in reconciliation matters.
7. The leadership consistently drew out the process of decision- making, rather than acted reasonably to meet the needs of the people.

BIBLICAL VALUES VIOLATED
1. Told falsewitness' against others: Ex. 20:16, Ex. 23:1, Prov. 14:5, 25, & Prov. 19:5, 9.
2. They have created divisions in the body of Christ: John 17, I Cor. 1:10 & Eph 4:3.
3. They have refused a timely process of reconciliation: Matt. 5:21-26.
4. They have refused the Biblical process of reconciliation: Matt. 18:15-20, Gal. 6:1, & Luke 17:3-4.
5. They have lacked spiritual discernment: Heb. 5:13-14.
6. They have refused the Biblical process of Elder accusations: 1 Tim. 5:19-20.
7. They have refused the Biblical command of impartiality: 1 Tim. 5:21.
8. They did not keep their promises/words: Num. 30:2 & 1 Tim. 1:8-11.
9. They are revengeful and cause suffering to many: Rom. 12:17-21. Exhitibed to fruit of the flesh: Gal. 5:16-21.
10. They have an unforgiving spirit: Col. 3:13.
11. They have not confessed sin: James 5:16.
12. They have led others to violate Biblical Values: Matt. 5:21-22 & Luke 17:1-2.
13. They have exercised personal vision to detriment of others: Rom. 12:10.
14. They have exhibited the fruit of the flesh: Gal. 5:16-21
15. They do not show Godly love: 1 Peter 4:8 & John 13:34-35.
16. They do not speak truth in love: Eph. 4:15-16.
17. They treated others as less valuable: Rom. 12:3. Phil. 2:1-4.
18. They did not live in harmony: 1 Peter 3:8-9 & Rom. 14:19.
19. They lorded over others: Matt. 23:5-12, Rom. 12:10, Rom. 15:7, Phil. 2:3-4 & 1 Peter 5:1-5.
20. They caused harm to weaker brothers: Rom. 14:1.
21. They were not gentle, patient, or humble: Eph. 4:2.
22. They were not poor in spirit: Matt. 5:3.
23. They were not mournful: Matt. 5:4.
24. They were not meek: Matt. 5:5.
25. They were not merciful: Matt. 5:7.

These men are disqualified as spiritual leaders because of their unwillingness to repent, confess their sins publicly of the above violations, and be restored; 1 Tim. 3:1-7 & Titus 1;5-10. It is now the responsibility of the members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church to hear these issues and to bring unity, and healing to our church. NOTE: "Because we are an independent body," said Wes Johnson, Dist. Supt. of the Evangelical Free Church, "all matters about the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, is the business of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church. The District has no jurisdiction."

SUMMARY: WHOSE FAULT IS IT? We believe the answer is all of us! We believe the congregation has failed the men in leadership. We feel the men in leadership have failed the pastor. We feel the pastors have failed the congregation. Each year a nominating committee selects those people that are to serve at all levels of the church. Over time, we as members have lost sight of just what an Elder is and how to decide who's an Elder and what Elders should do.

Over the years we have shirked our responsibilities in the overall aspects and directions of our church. We've lost the purpose of why we are a church. We've allowed the world's values and processes to now dominate our decision making and value setting processes. It's time for the whole congregation to be a part of answering Why the WHEATON EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH? This step has been lost by the planning for the new building.

We recommend that all read "THE PROBLEM OF WINE SKINS" and "COMMUNITY OF THE KING", written by Howard Snyder, published by Inter-Varsity Press. We have placed into leadership positions men who desire to serve God. Yet they have lacked direction and lack the necessary gifts for being Elders. We have caused these men to fail. Their failure is on our heads. We expect these men to care for the needs of the church pretty much by themselves, while still working 50+ hours a week to care for their families. We also expect to let the Elders make all the "all most important" decisions while telling them they are our spiritual leaders. This just isn't going to work. And quite truthfully, it never really has. Therefore, when the Elders are underequipped, underskilled overworked, and we expect them to lighten the load for the pastors. We expect them to hold the pastor accountable, meet the pastor's spiritual needs and in essence be supermen. That isn't going to work ... and it hasn't. We expect our pastor to have all the gifts, all the time, and all the resources, and all the energy to do everything. Heaven forbid that he tries this impossible task or even sells himself that he is all that we want. When we discover he has clay feet, we all leave him alone to his own failure. He dies slowly, and then we can say "God has called him somewhere else." We should be ashamed. And if a pastor is foolish enough to trust a congregation like us, to be open and vulnerable, we'll hurt him. We don't want any weakling around our church. We need a pastor that knows how to play hurt! We need a pastor that acts and lives like a saint! So you see, we've all sinned. We've all failed all the people who have left the church. We've all failed the Elders. We've all failed the Pastors. We've all failed each other. God Help Us, we have allowed Satan to ruin our fellowship.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Senior, Administrative and Missions Pastors: Elders: and Church Chairman be given a sabbatical until there is resolution of these spiritual matters.
2. That an outside panel (agreed upon by those involved) help in the resolution of these conflicts and spiritual issues. Those either in the church and/or outside the church should be encouraged to participate in this process reconciliation.
3. That the pulpit be filled with men honored for their knowledge and experience in Church Revival and Church Renewal. 4. That the business affairs of the Church be handled by the Executive Boards. The spiritual issues are brought to the congregation, until Biblical values and Godly personnel can be reinstated.
4. That an outside group do a thorough spiritual health analysis of our church and make recommendations for improvement and growth.
5. That all decisions concerning the future planning of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America be put on hold until there can be resolution of the spiritual issues and suggestions from the spiritual health analysis.
6. That all elections for Elders be on hold until the membership can seriously study what an Elder is and how they are identified and how are they are to function in the body.
7. That the membership study the Biblical concepts of The Body of Christ, and its implementations within our church.
8. That those who have left the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America be kept up to date on the progress and invited to be a part of the studies and suggestions, so that we can once again care and love them as members of our body.

BRIEF SUMMARY: IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER Documentation available upon request

1. JANUARY 1984: Ms.O. Rev. York often refers to the events surrounding the conflict of how Ms. O. left the church as when people began to misunderstand him. He also believes this began disgruntled few to be rebellious toward him and his leadership. I will address this issue in sequence as to when and what I learned was both Rev. York's and O's story.

2. FEBRUARY 1985: BACK TO BACK. I wrote Bob Spreckels a letter in essence saying... As a regular member of our church, not currently serving in a formal leadership capacity, it nevertheless is my perception that the manner in which the "Back To Back" presentation has been handled has resulted in mixed acceptance, and in reality is the major issue, not the idea itself. In fact, some members who wish to take an active part in helping the church, feel quite alienated by the process. Some upset members have even projected that the current leadership appears to be arrogant and interested in demonstrating personal power and are not fully interested in meeting the needs of the people in the pew. This is not only unfortunate, but quite dangerous and unless dispelled, will lead to further breakdown of church unity. As you see in my presentation, I believe there must be a healthy dynamic tension between Biblical leadership which through Godliness gains the respect of the congregation, and the need for Godliness by the congregation to respect the church leadership. I believe that for quite a few members this is no longer true, and that the negative reaction to the "Back To Back" plan is only a example of the breakdown of that trust. Further, I sense that the problem of church attendance both in overall numbers and Sunday PM Service is a result of complex problems/ needs than this plan will ever address. In addition, I believe that if the tenor of our church is in fact close to my observations and is effecting a large portion of the congregation, then immediate steps to correct the spirit of the church are necessary. It was unfortunate both in the Jan 13Th meeting and the Jan 20Th New Life presentation that we as members were told that we really had no say on such matters. If that in fact is the attitude of the church leadership, is it any wonder why recruiting and giving are so difficult! Surely, the least the leadership could offer, is adequate opportunity for discussion. Assuming that these statements are an accurate presentation of the leadership's views on church government, then I would offer, that once again the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church is headed toward the same pit that has the congregational form VS ecclesiastical form of government splitting the church. This must not happen again! There was no response to this letter! I raised the questions, and it seemed that it was I who was out of step with the desires of the congregation. Yet, the exodus from the church began and it is now evident through many decisions and actions later, that the leadership does in fact view it's role as having received absolute authority from the congregation and now the exercising of their leadership appears as lording power over the congregation rather than as Christ says they are to be servants.

3. REV. IVAN Rev. York: WINTER 1984. Rev. York contacted me for lunch to talk about his idea of bringing Bruce Love on staff. At that meeting, I told Rev. York that because the discipline of Bruce was not complete, and that the charges made by the board as staff of Metro Chicago Youth For Christ were not public, that Rev. York was to contact Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's chairman to get a report as to why Bruce was given the chance to resign or be fired. I also told Rev. York that I felt Bruce needed a capabilities profile done to help understand the gifts and abilities Bruce possessed. Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's board raised questions if Bruce had administrative gifts. Also, I felt that if a careful study of these abilities, the problems at Metro Chicago Youth For Christ and the needs at the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America all matched in a positive way then I could give my blessing about hiring Bruce. (I later discovered [spring of 1986] that none of my suggestions were followed yet Rev. York used me as giving my blessing to Bruce's hiring. That is, as you see, not true.)

4. BRUCE LOVE: FALL 1985. I was asked by the Outreach Board if I would serve as Editor for the Roadside Echos. I accepted until I discovered that Bruce was to be the overseeing pastor. I had been intently involved with the staff and Board of Metro Chicago in attempting to bring reconciliation between them and Bruce, without success, since the spring of 1984, now almost a year and a half later. I called Bob Spreckels, then Elder Chairman, and explained the situation that I was willing to serve in the church, but was unable to work with Bruce since there were many unresolved issues. Also I indicated to Bob that since the discipline process with Bruce was going badly that the Elders might need to get involved, but Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's board chairman asked me to wait even longer, and I agreed and so did Bob.

5. Rev. York: JANUARY 1986. I called Rev. York to explain that the discipline process with Bruce was not successful and it was time to bring it before the Elders of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America. Rev. York indicated that he was willing that only Rev. York, Spreckels and I meet to discuss the charges. I said that I felt it unwise to try to have only a few understand the issues (this was also a major error in how Metro Chicago Youth For Christ handled the matter) and would be willing to have several Elders take part. Rev. York said that he would not allow that and that he felt the Elders could not handle such complicated issues. It was at that time I felt Rev. York's tone and power play was unnecessary and that he was confirming my earlier doubts as to his desire to be objective, and whitewashing the whole mess since many Elders and members felt that Bruce was hired under less than favorable conditions and processes. Rev. York also said that Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's chairman had suggested to wait with disciplining Bruce, that maybe Metro Chicago Youth for Christ's process would restore Bruce. However, the Chairman of Metro Chicago Youth for Christ had told me that he wanted to come to the pastors and Elders of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America and be my witness that all through the discipline process I had been righteous and was wrongly fired, and that they had asked and received my forgiveness. Howard Russell was a witness to this meeting.

6. THE Elders: Rev. York, FEBRUARY 1986. After Rev. York had refused to respond to my request for a hearing with several Elders, I responded to the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America constitution (which does not address issues between two members, or of one member and another Christian) by following the example of writing the charges against Bruce Love and now against Rev. York, and giving them to the Elders. I also raised the issue that Rev. York had disqualified himself (for lack of objectivity) from sitting on the Elder board's hearing, per his own statement that since Bruce is his responsibility, he should be in on the decision process. On several occasions, Rev. York would tell me my sins and how I was wrong and how I was unrighteous, yet Rev. York had never heard my side of the story, nor did he hear the facts from the many witnesses. This did not stop Rev. York from presiding at this meeting, either formally or informally.

7. THE Elders: BRUCE LOVE, FEBRUARY 1986. I gave the Elders the information that on many occasions with several witnesses and under the authority of the Metro Chicago Youth For Christ board and at meetings with the Chairman of the Board that we were unsuccessful in bringing reconciliation between Bruce and the staff and the board. I also explained that this process has been taking place over the last two years, yet without success, and that I needed the Elders' help in reconciling Bruce and myself. I also explained how Biblically, I felt Bruce was disqualified from serving as a pastor, until these many violations of scripture were resolved, and that I could not in good conscience attend any service where Bruce played a role.

8. Rev. York, AND THE Elders: FEBRUARY Elders SPECIAL MEETING. In the meeting, I was subject to ridicule, called a child, accused of being bitter, resentful and vengeful. I was told that it was none of the WEFC's business what happened at Metro Chicago Youth For Christ and what arrogant idea did I have to bring an employer/employee matter before them. That I should just forget it, I was being unforgiving, and that was that.

They asked if I would meet with some of the Elders on the following Saturday to give my answer and asked if I would accept if Bruce asked for forgiveness. I was told that the Elders would not call any witnesses and since I had no witnesses there were no charges. I was told that I was disqualified from teaching my adult Sunday School class until further notice. (The class was a major irritation with Rev. York and others, because the class was viewed as malcontents [without foundation], when in fact many were very hurting people, some who had been hurt by Rev. York. This fact was to become very significant later.) Also, I was accused of leading a rebellion, since I was going to the New Life Sunday School class, and then going to teach the elective the second hour, instead of going to worship service. Yet to this day many people teach in one hour and go to Sunday School class the other, and they have yet to be singled out or disciplined. I was devastated, and went from being the one asking for help to heal a broken relationship to being the recipient of the discipline. I was later to discover that many of the Elders resented the way Rev. York had railroaded Bruce's appointment as associate pastor, and I now feel that the Elders would be embarrassed by the disclosures of the charges against Bruce, since 1 Timothy 5:19-21 would call for public confession.

9. Rev. York, THE Elder's COMMITTEE, & LOVE: MARCH 1, 1986. I was once again subjected to the facts as the Elders saw them: that it was I who was wrong, that they had no intention of hearing witnesses, and just wanted me to accept the past and start coming to worship service again. Bruce made no definitive confession of wrong by saying "If I hurt you will you forgive me?" and I was given the choice to accept the Elder's authority or experience discipline, and that the Elders would decide if anything else should be done with Bruce. They couldn't see that Bruce had done anything wrong. I was instructed that I was to demonstrate my sorrow of being wrong (I did not feel I was wrong), by attending worship services and at some point the Elders would reinstate me to teaching, when they felt I had shown them I was repentant. (The Elders were very adamant that if I were really forgiving Bruce, then I would expect no restitution or demonstration of proof of confessed sin, yet when applied to me they enforced a penalty and a demonstration -- hardly consistent.) IMPORTANT NOTE: At no time did the Elders tell me of any sin I had committed. They never came to me to correct me. If I am in the wrong, they still are at fault because they haven't followed the scriptures in caring for me.

10. MARCH 2, 1986. Staying up all night as I had done for many months during this very stressful and traumatic ordeal, I felt God would have me give an unconditional forgiveness to Bruce, even though the Bible is very specific about confessing sins and submitting to the Elders. I thought that maybe I was confusing the Elders with so many issues and that if I backed off, maybe now they could care for Bruce. Unfortunately the Elders totally dropped the subject and disregarded the scriptures. Yet I had agreed that as far as my personal issues with Bruce were concerned I would consider the matter closed. However, I did write to the Elders, "Since full fellowship is what we all seek and since there has come to our attention significant differences as to the application of Biblical values and the process of encouraging righteousness, I would like myself, the Pastors, the Elders and other you may choose, to join in a thorough study of these issues, so that we may continue in the unity of Ephesians 4. I waited for the Elders to contact me concerning the study of Church Discipline. There was to be no such study or interest. I contacted Bob Spreckels and said if these issues were not dealt with by the annual meeting, I would be forced to bring this whole matter before the church membership. The Elders assured that the Elders and the pastors were making headway and that I should be more patient. I agreed to be more patient and in fact called for the annual meeting to be adjourned. I waited and waited. I began talking to Elders and discovered some very troublesome information...

11. MARCH 1986: THE MISSION COMMITTEE. Without going into too much detail, the mission committee began to request significant detail of the operations of PeaceMakers.net, under the guise of rewriting the mission policies. This missions process was to encompass several phone conversations, meetings and reports to the Mission's Committee. For some reason, there was never enough information, or there were significant questions as to my qualifications, or questions if the PMI board was really in charge of the ministry. The Missions Pastor, Greg Carter, and the Chairman, Tom Gill, were never satisfied that the answers we were giving were adequate or the truth. In fact in more than one case, these men communicated slanderous information concerning myself and PMI to others. Later, Jack Gordon asked the Missions Committee to consider his calling as a pastoral counselor within the ministry of PeaceMakers Intl. After several meetings, over 10 months, where Jack's gifts and PeaceMakers' integrity have been challenged, Jack has been declined. I might add, because of the actions of the board of PMI and their attempt to care for Jack, that PMI has had any input. One certainly gets the feeling that the Mission Board's minds have been slanderously influenced by someone else. Carter recently told me (March 1987) there are current actions pending by the Elders that will have bearing upon whether I will be on the missions budget for 1986-1987. The Elders are considering removing me from the membership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America, even though no one has come to me.

12. MID-MARCH 1986: JOHN BLACK, HOWARD RUSSELL, THORWALL, SPRECKELS. John Black and Howard Russell, two members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America and board members of PeaceMakers Intl., asked for a meeting with Thorwall and Spreckels. Later on March 14Th. a letter was sent to Spreckels and Thorwall summarizing the following points from that meeting...
1. Bill came asking for the Elders' help in restoring Bruce and himself so that he could return to worship and a close friendship. 2. Bill became the guilty party and was denied the Biblical and constitutional rights of having witnesses or advocates for his own behalf.
3. Rev. York acted as Bruce's advocate, ran the meeting and denied Bill an advocate, all the while being in conflict with Bill.
4. In spite of the above violations of Scripture, Bill submitted to the Elders. Russell and Black then raised the issue of Church Discipline, and the need to study the subject, especially in light of their many infractions. There was no response to the letter or meeting.

13. LATE MARCH: Ms. O.. In the course of one of PeaceMakers Intl. Bible Studies, The O's. were invited to attend. After several weeks, I asked if we could talk about the hurt they felt about their experience at Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America. They agreed. Briefly, since to fully discuss the matter publicly now while the issue is still open is unwise. There are several unresolved issues, and none of her hurt was associated with not "getting the job" but is in fact about how the O's. were treated in and during the decision making process by Rev. York, and how Rev. York had violated them. I discovered that the O's were contacted by Jack Schrader and Kevin Thorwall and had given them their side of the issues, but that nothing was resolved nor had any further meetings or attempts had been made by anyone, even though the Onzick's were led to believe that these men were going to confront Rev. York to bring about reconciliation.

14. APRIL 10TH 1986 THE Elder BOARD MEETING. Howard Russell and Bill Luck were my witnesses, (since I kept getting attacked and misunderstood, I felt it was time to bring a witness to witness all that was said). I once again addressed that the Elders and pastors had significantly mis- handled the Biblical values of Church Discipline, and that many people were hurting and leaving the church. I began by reporting that Rev. York and I had met a few days before in an attempt to resolve all personal issues. I accepted that they were resolved. On the other hand, Rev. York and I could not reach agreement on two very significant issues -- Rev. York does not feel (contrary to Matthew 5:23-24, and Matthew 18:15-17, and Gal. 6:1), in the Ms. O. case that if there is an offense between him and the Onzicks, that he should go and make it right, regardless if the wrongs were intentional or unintentional, with those who had issue with him. Rev. York believed that he didn't have to do that part that the Onzicks knew where he was, and that he had done all he could. I said that if Rev. York and the Onzicks or anyone else could not resolve the issues between them, that they needed help from the Elders or others. Rev. York was unwilling to consider that an option. Plus the Elders were not willing to consider getting involved and/or select a committee to handle the issues. Issue Two that the Elders were asked to clear my name for nomination from the floor as an candidate for Elder, and Rev. York felt that "not enough time had elapsed since the recent issue with Bruce." Rev. York said that a large group in the church was quite upset with the process I had started, and would not accept my being an Elder. I asked, how is it that they know about the issues in the first place, and secondly, since I had been now assured I was not being punished, why couldn't Rev. York and the Elders stand before the congregation and clear my name? Rev. York's response was that he didn't want to do that. Once again, I was being slandered by somebody, and my own pastor would not help clear my name. Later, several Elders would tell me that my name was regularly slandered at the Elder meetings. Finally, I again shared there were many broken relationships within the church, and while there were evidences of good things, there were many leaving out the back door because of little trust for the elected leaders and the Pastors, while the remaining, who are committed to working in various programs, are being disenfranchised. Unfortunately this continues to be the case! In conversations with Rev. York, he complained that he didn't count on or trust the ability of the Elders. In conversations with Spreckels and Thorwall, they communicated not being able to hold the pastor accountable and felt a lack of freedom to resolve difficult spiritual conflicts. Some Elders complained that they do not speak or act in the Elders meetings in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs. There is a spirit of intimidation, inadequacy, and a lack of courage to confront. I made several recommendations at this meeting: A. The pastors, Elders and other church leaders should immediately undertake a formal study of Church Discipline. B. Initiate a formal reconciliation process by contacting those who have expressed broken trust and/or relationships with the pastors, Elders, or other leadership, within the next 30 days. C. Provide a forum for those members, and nonmembers who seek restoration with others in our church. There has been no action taken, and recently Rev. York told a member there would be no further discussions about church discipline.

15. CHRISTIAN EDUCATION BOARD, MAY: RICH DEVRIES. The Christian Education board was requested to allow the elective class I was teaching to become a regular adult S.S. class. They would later deny the class to continue, even though there were many who had been growing, and who had strongly requested that the class continue, since it was meeting a very important need in their lives. The reasons given by the CE Board were there wasn't enough space and that the second hour didn't need another adult class (even though that was a stated goal in the Back to Back plan), yet repeatedly class members would hear that the Pastors and other leaders considered these people troublemakers. It's important to note here that at no time did any leader or pastor ever confront anyone in the class with these charges, yet these people were constantly slandered.

16. MID-SUMMER: KEVIN THORWALL. Kevin called and asked if we could get together; I agreed. Kevin... "some people might get the idea that you're leading a class of malcontents." I assured him that was not the case and was not my intention and that he was more than welcome to attend the class and express his concerns. He did not attend! Kevin also expressed how difficult is was to work with Rev. York and that Rev. York was not open to be confronted or challenged. That it took a special way to get Rev. York's attention and that one had to learn how to get along with Rev. York. Kevin also expressed that he was aware of people who were hurt or offended by Rev. York, (mentioning the Onzicks) but that if we spent all the time it took to restore relationships, that would take all year, and the work of the church wouldn't get done. I shared that it was my impression from the Bible that the ministry of reconciliation was THE ministry of the Body of Christ. Kevin also brought up the case of Ms. O. Ms. O., and said that he had tried to bring about reconciliation, but that Rev. York would not listen to pursuing the matter any further. Kevin also said that he really wasn't able to hold Rev. York accountable, and neither were the Elders, and that he was sympathetic with Rev. York because he was the son of a pastor. I then shared with Kevin what I had said to the Elders on April 10Th and that I still held that this was the proper course. I also said that I considered Kevin's weakness in holding the pastor accountable (i.e. not following through with the Onzick's case), a major part of the problem and that he should consider resigning or act according to his spiritual responsibilities, because the church was headed for a major conflict and/or split -- it was only a matter of time.

17. AUGUST 16, 1986: PAUL HARALDSEN, JACK GORDON. Jack Gordon had asked if I'd be willing to meet with him and Paul Haraldsen to talk over the issues as I saw them. Jack had felt that Paul might be open to further understanding what I was trying to say. Paul was on the Elder board through all of this, yet maybe now as chairman, he might see his role as different and be open to rethink the issues. We met and had lunch. Paul expressed that he still felt as he had all through the process, and that he felt Rev. York was difficult to work with, and that this was really a matter of wills; and since Rev. York was the pastor, I had to learn to submit. I find it interesting that almost everybody agrees [privately] that Rev. York is hard to work with and is pretty insensitive to peoples needs -- yet no one is willing to say that this is wrong and is willing to risk Rev. York's wrath to help him! Paul did try to listen and understand my positions on many of the matters, but never understood, and maintained his positions. I explained to Paul that I felt I had done all I could and would now need to take this information to the congregation, unless he could show me hope that things were going to be dealt with. I said if the Elders and the pastors would study the biblical process of resolving broken relationships and Church Discipline and set out to begin restoring those relationships by the next Elder meeting I would not take these matters before the congregation by writing a letter. In fact, I promised Paul I would not interrupt any worship service or command the pulpit.

We shared how destructive to the congregation this kind of behavior had been during the last split, and it was both of our desires that the innocent would not be harmed. There were no further actions taken, and the Elders once again passed over another meeting without bringing these issues to resolution. The pain and hurt was now so excruciating to myself, my family and to many others. The Elders were totally uncaring and/or unable to understand and act scripturally.

18. LABOR DAY 1986: HENRY NELSON. While in the New Life Class one Sunday Henry and I began talking and I shared that I was troubled about what was happening in the church. We briefly reflected how it was when we first really got to know each other, when we both were trying to bring reconciliation during the last church split. We decided to get together and share and pray. After sharing with Henry the above information, I told him that as far as I could ascertain from the Bible, I had followed all the steps to help bring these issues to resolve, but now the only step was to make the whole congregation aware of what I considered a very ungodly leadership. Henry and I prayed. Then Henry encouraged me that of the options we had considered that maybe the best, to give the leaders more time to consider the urgency of the matter, was to tell them, they had disqualified themselves from leadership and that I no longer considered the Pastors or the Elders my spiritual authority, and that I would submit myself to others who are Godly in their leadership. I agreed that this might be a good step, and later that week after praying and fasting for several days, I called Paul Haraldsen, the new Elder Chairman, and gave him my decision.

19. SEPTEMBER 1986: S.S. CLASS, Elders. The members of the adult elective I was teaching was denied to continue, requested that the Elders give the class the ability to meet as a S.S. class. The request was denied, but the group was told they could meet as a Shepherding group. It was unclear by several accounts if that meant that the class could meet when they wanted.

20. NOVEMBER 20, 1986: JACK SCHRADER. I had heard that Jack was interested in talking to me so I gave him a call at work, and we agreed to meet at his office 11/20. I attempted to communicate the issues and to help Jack see the tremendous impact the mishandling of the issues had had on me, my family, and the many others who had been treated like me. Later Jack wrote that he felt overwhelmed by me and that maybe we should meet again. We did meet on 12/8 at Wag's with two friends we have in common. Once again Jack said he wanted me to come back to the church and that the church need my gifts and that he thought he had a special position of being able to confront Rev. York and hold him accountable. Jack insisted, against my judgment, that I give him copies of all the letters I had given to the Elders, prior to him becoming an Elder. I consented and he photocopied the letters. I called Jack later to ask what he thought after reading the material. Jack's response was that he was deeply sorry and asked forgiveness on behalf of the Elders for the way I was being treated. Jack also indicated that he would go to Rev. York and try to bring reconciliation. I advised him there had been many attempts both privately and in Elder meetings where the attempts were unsuccessful, and that I thought he needed to choose at least two other men to go with him. Jack disagreed and felt he should go alone.

21. DECEMBER 1986: S.S. CLASS, Elders. The Elders gave a final answer that the group could only meet during the week, (even though most of the class members had stated that for many reasons, most of them being jobs in the church, they couldn't take another evening out).

22. FEBRUARY 1987: JACK SCHRADER. Jack called and asked if we could meet. Jack indicated that the purpose was to help bring healing so that I would come back to church. I asked if the Elders and Rev. York were willing to recognize their errors. Jack responded that everyone felt that I was the problem and that he just wanted to show me that he loved me. I shared with him that he now had the evidence and talked with the others, and was now on his way to correct me, and that I wanted no part of going through all this over and over. That the real solution is to create a panel/environment where the issues can be addressed in a Biblical manner. Also, I said that I would come back to the church if according to 1Tim. 5:20, the leaders would confess their sins before the congregation and clear my name, and that the Elders would help Love be reconciled to the many brothers formerly with Metro Chicago Youth For Christ. Jack said he would present these ideas, but he didn't think it would be accepted. Jack argued that it wasn't the church's position to get involved with conflicts outside the church. I suggested that any conflict that involved a member was a matter of the Elders and that it was Biblical. Jack also indicated that no matter how ungodly I thought the leadership was that I should submit to that authority. I communicated that I felt that was not Biblical and had serious reservations as to why he held that position. Plus, I communicated to Jack, that Howard Russell and Randy Sampson, were now caring for this matter because of its continued trauma to my family and myself and PMI. I encouraged him to call them. I have not heard of any further progress by Jack, and there has been no improvement in the resolution of the issues.

23. SLANDER AND GOSSIP: ALL THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. Often there were times when individuals whom I've never met would say slanderous things about me to people who knew me. I would try to believe that in time this would stop, but in truth it continued to grow. It's now to the point, I have no idea who knows or believes what, and there is little hope that even reconciliation will clear my name. The gossiping people will never know how much hurt they have caused me or my family. And they can never know how much damage they have done to those who were seeking PMI's help in their crisis. They may never know how their gossiping hurt Rev. York or the leaders.

24. OTHER VICTIMS OF UNGODLY LEADERSHIP: Jack Gordon, Mr.C, and many, many others. In the fall of 1985 Mr. C. came to me to work through some pretty heavy feelings he was having. In the course of our conversations it became clear that the major cause for Mr. C's depression and his battle with his allergies was the personal attack upon Mr. C. by Rev. York. I will leave Mr. C's story to Mr. C, but will summarize that Rev. York had significantly destroyed Mr. C and his relationship and Mr. C's. freedom to act in good consciences; and since that had been a very important relationship, Mr. C. was in tremendous pain and in a spiritual dilemma. An outburst by Rev. York, over Mr. C.'s speaking his opinion that was in opposition to Rev. York's, was witnessed by several Elders, yet not a one of the Elders took responsibility to correct Rev. York's tyrannical behavior. They functionally put everyone on notice, that anyone who opposes Rev. York is on their own. Mr. C. was so devastated that it sent him in a tail spin and a loss of faith. Also, the Elder board and Rev. York, never cared for Mr. C. or for the most part ever took the time or had the discernment to know that Mr. C. was hurting.

Jack Gordon, on the other hand, had been a very close friend and colleague with Rev. York at Williams Bay, but when Jack voted negatively on a matter that Rev. York really wanted, Rev. York attacked Jack in the hallway and significantly challenged his loyalty and said he would never trust Jack again, and they could never be friends either. Both Mr. C. and Jack have attempted several times to be reconciled with Rev. York to no success. They are now considered second class members of the Elders and are testimonies to any other Elder, of what will happen to them if they dare go against Rev. York. Schrader agrees that these men are viewed as such by Rev. York and other Elders.

THE CHURCHES RESPONSIBILITIES AND ADMONITION Jay Adams, Handbook of Church Discipline.... "There is no direct biblical instruction about this (note:the whole church being disciplined) because there were no denominational problems in the first century (although there were inter-church dealings such as the council described in Acts 15). But using the approach stipulated by the Words of Christ in Matthew 18, it would seem that the following procedure should be followed...." Page 102-104 Handbook of Church Discipline in summary:

1. Urge the Church (Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America) to follow the Scriptures.
2. If step one is fruitless, take witnesses and confront again.
3. If step two is fruitless the church (Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America) should be declared "AS HEATHEN AND PUBLICANS." That is to say, they should declare the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America as "NO CHURCH" since they will not draw a line between the world and the church by exercising discipline.
4. In the case of a nondenominational congregation (Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America) or one in which the denomination does not function in cases of church discipline, it might be advisible to call in one or two other congregations in the community to intercede; if nothing results from this, have those congregations agree also to declare the contumacious (ed.note stubbornly disobedient) congregation to be NO CHURCH.

RECOMENDATIONS:
1. That the Senior, Administrative and Missions Pastors: Elders: and Church Chairman be given a sabbatical until there is resolution of these spiritual matters.
2. That an outside panel (agreed upon by those involved) help in the resolution of these conflicts and spiritual issues. Those either in the church and/or outside the church should be encouraged to participate in this process reconciliation.
3. That the pulpit be filled with men honored for their knowledge and experience in Church Revival and Church Renewal. 4. That the business affairs of the Church be handled by the Executive Boards. The spiritual issues are brought to the congregation, until Biblical values and Godly personnel can be reinstated.
4. That an outside group do a thorough spiritual health analysis of our church and make recommendations for improvement and growth.
5. That all decisions concerning the future planning of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America be put on hold until there can be resolution of the spiritual issues and suggestions from the spiritual health analysis.
6. That all elections for Elders be on hold until the membership can seriously study what an Elder is and how they are identified and how are they are to function in the body.
7. That the membership study the Biblical concepts of The Body of Christ, and it's implementations within our church.
8. That those who have left the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America be kept upto date on the progress and invited to be a part of the studies and suggestions, so that we can once again care and love them as members of our body.

MARCH 15, 1987: The Elders Receive Draft of this Document.

MARCH 22, 1987: The Congregational Meeting
A. Motion to accept Longrange Planning Commissions report.
B. Spiritual values addressed and Third step of Matthew 18.
C. Rev. York, & Elder Chairman Haraldsen.
1. The leaders had not assured that it was members only.
2. Defamed character.
3. Public charges, without following steps 1-2.
4. Falsely charged me, 1 Tim.5:19-20 need two witnesses.
5. Violated my Ministerial Credentials.
6. Untimley charges.

MARCH 23, 1987: Letter mailed to known members.

MARCH 24, 1987: Began distribution to members above document.

MARCH 24, 1987: Emergency meeting of Elders, Pastors & Executive Leaders
A. Met and discussed charges of March 22nd.
B. All attending were unBiblically sworn to secretcy.
C. I was not there to give my side.
D. Unity decision.
E. Others identified as needing Church discipline.
F. Sampsons dismissed without Biblical charges or process.

MARCH 25, 1987: Recieved from Elders & Rev. York offical charges. (put letter here)

MARCH 25, 1987: Replied to charges (put letter here)

MARCH 25, 1987: LETTER TO CONGREGATION

MARCH 26, 1987: Hearing rescheduled for April 7th.

MARCH 27, 1987: Asked Bill Luck & John Westra to be witnesses April 7th.

APRIL 7, 1987: MEETING WITH ELDERS

APRIL 8, 1987: PHONE CALL WITH THORWALL

APRIL 9, 1987: LETTER FROM ELDERS

APRIL 10, 1987: MEETING WITH Rev. York

APRIL 12, 1987: LETTER OF CONFESSION TO MEMBERSHIP

APRIL 21, 1987: RESPONSE TO ELDERS LETTER

APRIL 22, 1987: ELDER MEETING TO REMOVE FIELDS

APRIL 25, 1987: 24 HOUR LETTER

APRIL 28, 1987: ANNUAL MEETING STATEMENTS & PROCEDURES

D.CONDENSATION OF ISSUES BASIC UNDERSTANDINGS...

1. That Pastor Rev. York, the Elders and the Church Chairman are men who desire to serve God to the best of their ability.

2. That these men have to the best of their ability exercised their gifts.

3. That these men have strengths and weaknesses and their strengths are good and they need help in their area of weaknesses.

4. That in strength or weaknesses, these men have logical reasons and motives for their actions, regardless of the consequences of their action or nonaction.

5. That a destructive cycle has begun sometime, someplace with someone. The following cycle is presented without blame or judgement.

1. ISSUES:

1. Pastor Rev. York and others have tried to be reconciled where there was offense and broken relationships. (Step one of Matthew 18.)

2. Pastor Rev. York and the other parties, failed to involve two or three witnesses when reconciliation was not achieved, (did not exercise step two of Matthew 18 - take two or three witnesses) - and therefore failed to exercise faith and Biblical values.

3. The Elders and Church Chairman were aware of broken relationships and broken unity, yet did not hold Rev. York or the other parties accountable to their Biblical responsibility.

4. The Elders want to care for the needs of the Pastor and the congregation. Yet they lacked the necessary Biblical knowledge and/or gifts, that would have demonstrated understanding and care.

5. The Elders did not recognize this weakness. Therefore they 1. failed to ask for or 2. they rejected, the help they needed to care for the pastor and the people that could bring reconciliation, healing and unity. 2.

CONSEQUENCES:

1. The result has been and is broken relationships within the church, within the community and with those who have left the church.

2. A segment of the congregation has limited confidence that these leaders are able to assist them in reconciling their broken relationships with the church leadership, family, or the community.

3. this realization has caused additional pain and suffering, plus confusion and mistrust - the exact opposite of the leadership's intent.

4. The mistrust and confusion over the leadership's public statements of intent to care and the leadership's failure to follow scripture has resulted in many in the congregation to view the decisions made by the leadership as uncaring.

3. LEADERSHIP'S REACTIONS:

1. The leadership has viewed the negative responses by members of the congregation as rebellious, unspiritual, insensitive to the leadership, and deserving only a modicum of response and negative support for the members issues.

2. This in turn has resulted in NOT following the Biblical values of reconciliation which would have opened communications and called for Godly motives and actions.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. This cycle continues to repeat itself, causing greater hurt, confusion and misunderstanding.

2. Rev. York has been Biblically confronted with his sin of not using the full Biblical principles of reconciliation. Mat.18, 1Tim.5

3. The Elders have been Bibically confronted with the facts they do not hold Rev. York accountable to Biblical reconciliation and that they allow by their nonaction division, disputes and broken relationships.

4. That Rev. York and the Elders have been repeatedly confronted, encouraged with calls, meetings, books, and materials, and many proposals, for over a year, to practice Biblical reconciliation within our church.

5. Now Rev. York and the Elders have filed unbibical charges in an unbiblical process against Bill Fields for being divisive and not submitting to their authority (meaning drop all charges, forget the past and act like nothing wrong is happening).

6. Rev. York and the Elders are now planning to remove Bill Fields from membership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church.

7. This action will be reported to the Evangelical Free Church Ministerial Assoc. for the judgement and removal of my Ministerial Credentials.

8. That unless the congregation moves swiftly, to hold Rev. York and the Elders accountable for their unBiblical actions, the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America will be once again known in the community for their lack of spiritual purity.

NOTES: See Church Responsibilities and Recommendations on page 18 and 19 of Third Step In Church Discipline document)

E. Bill Fields' Public Confession:

While asking God to search my heart to show me where I have sinned, I saw that I needed to ask your forgiveness for violating the following Biblical values while trying to be reconciled to the Pastors and Elders...

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit. There were times that I was quick to understand and believe that it was I who knew the truth. This led me to be closed to others perceptions.
2. Blessed are those who mourn. There were times when I did not mourn and pray correctly for others. I therefore held an ungodly view of others.
3. Blessed are the meek. I acted on behalf of my own personal rights and desires. I did not care for the needs and rights of others.
4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. At times I was more interested in being right than being who God wanted me to be. I then believed that others had wrong motives.
5. Blessed are the merciful. There were times that I wanted to be sure others got what was coming to them. I pursued others too aggressively.
6. Blessed are the pure in heart. My motives were mixed and competing, rather than holy and fully submissive to our Lord.
7. Blessed are the peacemakers. My actions, and my motives were at times rebellious, and competitive, causing division and alienation.
8. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness. There were times when I was challenged for ungodly tones, actions, and words and I rejected those corrections.
9. There were times that I was not humble, gentle, patient and bearing with others in love.

I believe my sins and violations of God's values have caused harm and suffering to you and to the Body of Christ by causing confusion, and offense to others, especially in how I communicated in the document and in the distribution of the document. I ask for your forgiveness. I also want to know how or what I can do to make it right between you and me. I ask Christ for wisdom and love as we work towards reconciliation. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Bill Fields:

F. Letter Seeking Reconciliation

I am attempting to write this response in a spirit of love and a desire for peace and unity, with gentleness, patience, and humility. I recognize that for me to write the enclosed document I must make certain judgements that you may not agree with.

They seem accurate to me, and I pray without error in my attitudes. I desire reconciliation. I've asked for forgiveness for those wrong attitudes that may have clouded how or what I've said or done.

However, the issues remain. I ask that you understand that it is my desire to obey God that commands that these issues and disagreements be resolved. The Elders and the Pastors have not exercised God's Word in church discipline, and have failed to repent and confess their sins publicly. Instead, they have pursued me, asking me to violate my beliefs and practices of God's Word (including many theologians) in the matters of church discipline and reconciliation. I believe that resolving these issues and disagreements will bring greater unity and therefore glory to God. I also recognize that there is a risk of failure to achieve reconciliation, which will mean great harm to the Body and witness of Christ.

Therefore I pledge to the best of my ability, to serve Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord, and be obedient to His Word. That includes being a member of Christ's Body, submissive to His authority as other members work within His authority. I surrender all personal rights and issues. In the name of Christ, William R. Fields P.S. I ask that you agree to all issues being temporarily set aside, for a mutually agreed upon panel to study the Word and the issues with us, placing highest priority in time and effort at reaching agreements on practices for the future and report back to the congregation on May 31, 1987.

G. Removal from membership

Twenty Four hours after receiving your registered letter stating that I had been removed from membership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, I asked myself.. Am I really a nonbeliever? Am I a Heretic?

It would be easy to "power up" my emotions and move into high gear a political process that I would believe would show you guys who's right and that you have really messed up this time! But honestly, all I can do is weep and mourn. You know, I really can't tell now, but have I totally surrendered to God, regardless of the cost, Matthew 10, and have been used of our Lord as a sword to divide the true church from the apostate -or- have I lost my mind, and now I've become a fanatic, just another one of those "Religious Nuts" whose gone off the deep end.

Were the issues of how the Body of Christ should behave, and how we should love and demonstrate that love through teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so that everyone would be adequate and equipped for every good work, wrong? Am I just sick?

Well team, where do I go from here and what is our next step.... For me, I will pray and take sometime off to draw closer to the Lord to continue to search my heart and surrender to Him. I will continue to share Christ's message with the sick, imprisoned, and those in bondage, in hopes of Christ, setting the captives free. You? I'll pray for you, as you face into the issues and the responses of your actions and non-actions. Maybe with me out of the picture, You'll be able to see and hear what my heart and spirit wanted to share with you. I wanted to work together for His Kingdom in solving these problems, but it seems my own corruptness interfered with you knowing my heart's desires. I hold no judgement, anger, or malice for you. I pray that we can be united soon in the name of Jesus Christ. I miss you deeply! His, Bill Fields

H. Letter to Elders

The Elder Board Wheaton Evangelical Free Church
520 E. Roosevelt Rd.
Wheaton, IL 60187

Dear Elders,

Monday evening, May 4th, 1987, the PeaceMakers.net Board of Trustees met to discuss the recent actions of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church Board of Elders. We want to assure you we continue to desire reconciliation in the issues brought before you. We desire reconciliation of the broken relationships. We want to offer for your consideration the use of an outside panel to oversee this trauma within our church:
1. The Evangelical Free Church of America Ministerial Association
2. An independent panel - suggested members:
1. Dr. Jay Adams, Westminster Theological Seminary, CA
2. Rev. Don Baker, Pastor Rockford First E. F. C., IL.
3. Dr. Lloyd Perry, Lancaster Bible College, PA.
We believe the issues, if resolved, would provide the basis for the beginning of glorious restoration and healing. We request your response, in writing, by May 14, 1987. Sincerely, Howard A. Russell Chairman

I. THIRD STEP AND BEYOND MARCH 15, 1987:

Paul Haraldsen, Chairman of the Elders received a draft of "Third Step in Church Discipline of the Leadership of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church," with a note that it will become a public document. The reason for giving the elders the materials was to give them another opportunity to see the issues and to address the issues before the next step was taken. At this point, over a year had passed. It was later confessed by Haraldsen, that he did not tell anyone about the document. There was no response from the leadership!

MARCH 22, 1987: The Congregational Meeting. The Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America holds only one scheduled congregational meeting a year. In 1986, I had agreed not to make any issues public because I had been given strong promises that all issues would be addressed. Those promises were broken. In fact, as you will read, several attempts were made on my part and others to address the issues,over a long period of time, with many suggestions on how to proceed, but it was all to no avail. Therefore, it was decided in the fall of 1986, that instead of writing to the whole membership, I would be patient and wait until the next annual meeting. However, the leadership called for a congregational meeting to discuss The Master Plan. It was decided that I would raise the issues at that meeting, since in the Master Plan page 8, 1st paragraph, the mission statement addressed the spiritual weakness and failures of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America.

A. Presentations made to persuade congregation to adopt plan. A. Motion to accept the Master Plan was made.
B. The congregation was asked for questions. When the Chairman was pressed he agreed he would accept other responses. C. I then addressed the page 8 statement and suggested that in fact the weaknesses and failures were quite significant, (I did not bring any charge concerning anyone at this point) to the point that any vote on the Master Plan would demonstrate a split in the congregation. Therefore I motioned for the tabling of the vote. The tabling motion failed by approximately 200 to 100.
D. Other members of the congregation then agreed or disagreed on the problems and several motions were made by others and they were defeated.
E. Rev. York, was asked for his statement and desire for reconciliation. He then proceeded to dress me down and to promote his view of the reconciliation process. Rev. York asked me to stand and then he continued to demean and then he publicly falsely charged me. I was asked by Rev. York if his views and accusations were correct. It was at this point, I responded by saying that for sometime I had been asking for reconciliation and that the leadership, i.e. Pastors, The Elders, and the Church Chairman were in consistent and stubborn violation of the Bible, concerning these and other matters. The Elder Chairman, Haraldsen, was then asked to make a statement as to the elders desire for reconciliation. Haraldsen then angrily told the congregation not to listen to me, that I was going be disciplined and that I was a troublemaker, that the elders had done everything they could.

The following violations were made by the Church's leadership...
1. The leaders knew it was not members only. I didn't.
2. They defamed my character, and told falsehoods.
3. They made public charges, without following steps 1-2. 4. They falsely charged me, 1 Tim.5:19-20 -two witnesses.
5. They Violated my Ministerial Credentials.
6. They acted politically, by acting with untimley charges, and violating the Matthew 18 process.

MARCH 23, 1987: Letter mailed by Russell to known members. See sample

MARCH 24, 1987: Began distribution to members the "Third Step" document.

MARCH 24, 1987: Mr. & Mrs. Sampson were removed from leadership in the youth program without any spiritual reasons given, or without a hearing or a biblical process.

MARCH 24, 1987: Emergency meeting of Elders, Pastors & Executive Leaders (verbal testimony by elders available upon request)
A. Met and discussed charges of March 22nd.
B. All attending were unBiblically sworn to secretcy.
C. I was not there to give facts or issues.
D. Unity decision. Some attending were not in agreement. See one response, by Rev. Jack Gordon.
E. Others identified as needing Church discipline.

MARCH 25, 1987: Received from Elders & Rev. York official charges. Letter dated March 17, but not received until March 25th.

MARCH 25, 1987: Reply to charges, see letter. MARCH 25, 1987: Letter to congregation by Church Chairman, Elder Ch.

MARCH 26, 1987: Hearing rescheduled for April 7th. MARCH 27, 1987: Asked Elder John Westra to be Elder Advocate. See page. APRIL 5, 1987: Called Haraldsen and requested witnesses. See page.

APRIL 7, 1987: MEETING WITH ELDERS: (verbal testimony from witnesses is available upon request.)
1. Witnesses allowed but could not participate.
2. I had been told by two Elders this was an opportunity for reconciliation, yet the meeting took on the air of interrogation and harassment.
3. Later I discovered, that at the 3/24 Emergency meeting, the mission's Pastor and Rev. York had proposed my removal from the missions budget, in fact indicating no hope for reconciliation.
4. A proposal for reconciliation was presented by me, (see page) and it was not addressed except to reject.

APRIL 8, 1987: PHONE CALL WITH THORWALL: For over three hours, Kevin and I attempted to find a way in which the leaders could save face, yet address the issues presented. We molded a process of mutual confession, asking for forgiveness, and a pledge to work out the problems and report back to the congregation. We felt that we were reconciled, and it gave us hope that we may have found a solution to bring reconciliation to everyone. Kevin said he would set up a meeting with Rev. York to discuss our findings.

APRIL 8, 1987: LETTER FROM ELDERS: See page.

APRIL 10, 1987: MEETING WITH Rev. York: Those present were, Thorwall, Rev. York, Howard Russell (witness for me) and myself. During the two hour meeting it was discovered that Rev. York possesses a unique, if not unbiblical, view of Matthew 18. Rev. York believes that if two brothers at least talk, then they have heard, then step two and three are not called for. If the sinning brother continues to sin, then that person is a malcontent, unspiritual, and only to be tolerated. I was stunned, yet that would certainly explain why Rev. York continued to see no need to get help from witnesses, or would not allow others who had offense with him, to bring witnesses, and that he was not interested in the model that Thorwall and I had worked out. Rev. York also, stated that he would be responsible to contact the Evangelical Free Church district, and tell them I was disqualified as a minister. Further, Rev. York rejected all efforts to find a way to be reconciled accept to submit to his views and actions, as were expressed by the elders. After all, it was the Elders who were disciplining me, and his hands were tied.

APRIL 12, 1987: LETTER OF CONFESSION TO MEMBERSHIP: See page. I received two notes from elders concerning my letter of confession. One thanked me and hoped that this meant I repented from all my ways, and issues. I called that elder and said I repented of attitudes that the Holy Spirit had shown me that I had had at various times, during this process but that the issues remained. Two wrote that the letter was not sufficient repentance, and the elders expected a more full response. The leadership seemed confused by the letter, and later accused me of lying to the congregation, that I didn't repent. No one bothered to ask me to clarify my intent or purpose, yet refused to accept my verbal explanation.

APRIL 21, 1987: RESPONSE TO ELDERS: I gave the Condensed Issues material with a cover letter to the elders. See letter and materials.

APRIL 22, 1987: ELDERS MEET TO REMOVE FIELDS: See letter. Verbal testimony may be available. Three elders could no longer be a part of the process and removed themselves from what they felt were unbiblical attitudes and actions.

APRIL 25, 1987: MY REQUEST TO MEET WITH KEY ELDER - DENIED: I called Jack Schrader, recognizing it was very early in the morning, and he might be busy, to ask if we could talk and maybe find a way for reconciliation. It was my desire to try again to find another way, another process to bring reconciliation and not involve the whole congregation any further. Jack had been identified by another elder as being key to the elders current frame of mind and perceptions. He was too busy. I discovered later, the elders had already decided to shun me.

APRIL 25, 1987: 24 HOUR LATTER: No response.

APRIL 28, 1987: ANNUAL MEETING:
1. Elder's statement, Fields removed from membership.
2. Elder's call to congregation to shun Fields.
3. I'm not allowed to speak or present the issues or to correct the many falsehoods, or tell how the scripture was being violated.
4. Rev. York's public violation of another member.
5. Elder Chairman's violation of another member.

MAY 8, 1987: NEW ELDER CHAIRMAN'S LETTER TO PEACEMAKERS INTL.

MAY 12, 1987: NEW ELDER CHAIRMAN'S LETTER TO FIELDS.

BEGINNING AND CONTINUING: Each step of the way, I or someone else would contact the elders, pastors or leadership and share what the next step will be, and ask if at all possible, could we find a way to bring reconciliation before that step was taken. Each time the response would be no response or no. At no time have the elders and pastors been willing to sit down and study the Bible together and come to some agreement as to the meaning of these passages and the application to our situation. Many phone calls and personal appointments, initiated by us have resulted in elders and leaders agreeing in private that the issues raised are correct and to the painful point. However, we would be told, because Rev. York is in "authority" and is "quite fragile," great care and patience should be exercised. In the meantime, many others have suffered and continue to suffer while the problems are not addressed.

J. Letter to Elders

March 25, 1987

Mr. Paul Haraldsen Elder Chairman
Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America
520 E. Roosevelt Rd.
Wheaton, IL 60187

Dear Elders,

I look forward to the opportunity of discussing the charges filed against me. However, due to my family's vacation plans, (I bought our airline tickets Oct. 1986) I will be out of town on March 31, 1987. Also, I just received (March 25, 1987) your letter dated March 17, 1987. I realize your request for the March 31st meeting would have been valid then, however based on your mailing date of March 23, 1987 and my receiving this notice today, in the enclosure Sec. C paragraph 1. of the Constitution of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, it states that the meeting is to be called not more than two weeks and not less than one week from my being notified. Therefore, I give you my assurances that I wish to be reconciled with you. I'm willing to get together with you, as soon as possible with my witnesses. I would also like to once again say, as to the charges...
1. I did not take a leave of absence from membership.
2. I do not reject spiritual authority of Elders.
3. I do not reject spiritual leadership of Pastors. Sincerely, William R. Fields

K. Letter to Rev. Wes Johnson

PeaceMakers.net
June 8, 1987

Rev. Wesley Johnson Great Lakes District EFCA
960 RT. 22 Suite 201
Fox River Grove, IL 60021

Dear Rev. Johnson: In reference to your conversation with Mr. Randy Sampson, on Friday, June 5, 1987, the PeaceMakers' Board is sending the enclosed materials for the Great Lakes District Board's consideration. We hereby request to meet with the District Board as soon as possible. The issues involved go beyond pastoral licensing and address more significant issues. In response to your letter of June 4, 1987, to Bill Fields, we would like to inform you that an Evangelical Free Church is willing to give Bill Fields membership and will be a sponsoring Church of his ministerial credentials. The sponsoring Free Church is fully aware of the facts and circumstances addressed in the enclosed materials. We believe that if the National Committee on Ministerial Standing was able to review the enclosed materials they would have made a different choice of action. We would also like to meet with that committee.

In your conversation with Mr. Sampson, you mentioned that the correct process begins with the District Board. We would like the process to begin as soon as possible, as we desire healing and reconciliation not only for Bill Fields but for the whole Wheaton Evangelical Free Church.

The Board of PeaceMakers is committed to fully following the Biblical process of accountability and authority to resolve these issues in hopes of reconciliation. Mr. Sampson also stated that you were under the impression that the leaderhip of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America was unified in these actions. Upon request, the names of several Elders and Church leaders will be supplied, who feel that unbiblical attitudes and actions were taken against Bill Fields.

Since you have been in contact with the National Committee on Ministerial Standing and the Great Lakes District's Board, we would appreciate the names and addresses of each member of these boards so that we may provide them with materials for their information. If you have any question or comments, please feel free to contact Mr. Randy Sampson, as he has been appointed to act as our representative in this matter. Randy's home phone is xxx-xxx-xxxx

Sincerely, Fred Pigott secretary

cc: Rev. Thomas McDill

L.Letter to Elders

July 1, 1987

Mr. Jack Schrader
Wheaton Evangelical Free Church
520 E. Roosevelt Rd.
Wheaton, IL 60187

Dear Jack, Because of some recent developments, we the board of PeaceMakers, thought it was time to share some of our thoughts and recent decisions. First, I would like to draw your attention to your letter to Howard Russell on May 8, 1987. In your letter you indicated 1) No interest in pursuing the option of asking the Great Lakes District or an outside panel for help in resolving the issues. Because the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church has aggressively sought to communicate to the GLD that Bill Fields was under discipline and removed from membership, we have decided to ask the GLD for help.

1) I think it is important to note that at no time has a pastor, or an elder sat together with Bill, either before or after, to study the scriptures and work out a mutual understanding. In fact, it seems that your only response has been to ignore the issues and make Bill Fields the issue.

2) The Elder Board would undertake a campaign of listening. Yet there are others beyond Bill Fields who have expressed issues and you have yet to listen to them.

3) You will contact Bill and hope that sometime in the future he will restore confidence in you. We can say, that with no personal contact from anyone in leadership to discuss the issues or events, or the continued errors in actions or lack of actions to resolve these issues, plus your recent actions to cause Jack Gordon's ministerial credentials to not be renewed, Bill or this board has no reason to restore confidence.

Concerning Jack Gordon, we are appalled that you have acted in what seems clear as acts of punishment and vengeance. First this man is ignored as an Elder when trying to bring many of the same issues before the Elders, even before he contacted Bill about PeaceMakers. Secondly, this man asked for help to be restored with Rev. York, and you have failed to care for this matter. Then, Jack is overwhelmed with the error of the Elders and Rev. York, and all he gets is ridiculed, misunderstood and not cared for. Now, you have taken actions against him and his ministerial credentials. Schrader, July 1, 1987 page Two It is hard to see how, as Church leaders, you are demonstrating the spiritual values as Elders. Yet if in this last action, it was not your intent to be so insensitive, then we urge you to take action immediately to withdraw statements and/or actions that would impact Jack's ministerial credentials.

On July 10, 1987, the board of PeaceMakers will be meeting with the Great Lakes District to discuss these issues. Please act quickly to clear Jack's name. In the event you do not take actions to correct these actions, PeaceMakers intends to continue to pursue a Biblical remedy.

M. Letter to District Board members

PeaceMakers.net 411 Kipling Wheaton, Illinois 60187

June 29, 1987

Rev. Howard Mattson Village Evangelical Free Church
169th & So. Park
South Holland, IL 60473

Dear Rev. Mattson, Mr. Fred Pigott, Secretary of PeaceMakers.net informed me of his phone conversation with you on June 25, 1987. Mr. Pigott indicated that you desired a copy of materials and a statement of the issues. I have enclosed for you the same materials that were sent to Rev. Wes Johnson, and Rev. Tom McDill. You may note that the Condensation of Issues addresses the issues within the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, with the appendices giving supporting documentation.

Also, There are Elders, Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America Church leaders and members who strongly disagreed with the actions and lack of actions taken in this matter. These men and women are available for verbal testimony. The issues that PeaceMakers wishes the Great Lakes District to address are the following:
1. There are many unresolved spiritual issues in the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church conflict that cause disunity, harm and shame to the name of Jesus. Will the Great Lakes District of the Evangelical Free Church of America step in and attempt to bring reconciliation? We at PeaceMakers International are advocates of the ministry of reconciliation, and have been used of God in resolving conflicts on the national and local levels within the Body of Jesus Christ. Yet it causes us great concern when a national association, claims autonomy for their local churches when the sins of the church are blatant, or destructive to the name of Jesus Christ. Shouldn't there be spiritual accountability beyond organizational lines? Especially within the same association?
2. The issue of renewing my (William Fields) Ministerial Credentials addresses the issues of spiritual and organizational values. A. It seems the GLD should investigate a conflict between two of its ministers. Rev. York, many of the Elders and Church leaders have been charged with significant violations of the Scripture. Yet when I (a minister) brought charges, without organizational position, and the church leadership acts to excommunicate me (a nonpositioned pastor), shouldn't the GLD seek to have reviewed the issues before accepting Rev. York as unbiased, without contacting me, before nonrenewal? H. Mattson, June 29, 1987 page Two
B. The GLD has stated that it is responsible to insure that Ministerial Credentials are in order, including a sponsoring Church as well as a membership in an Evangelical Free Church. Yet, when indicated to Rev. Wes Johnson, and to you, that there is an Evangelical Free Church, who has been fully advised of the conflict, has interviewed me and is willing to accept me into full membership and sponsor my ministerial credentials in the EFCA, the GLD's response seems to be those actions and facts will not impact it's decision.

PeaceMakers is confused with your view of autonomy. Since it has been the GLD's formerly stated position that they would not review the issues of this conflict, and that each church is autonomous, then it's quite confusing when GLD's passes judgement without benefit of reviewing all the issues, decides not to credential me, and at the same time refuses to accept another autonomous church's decision to accept me and sponsor me for credentials. Would you please explain how this is consistent?

It has occurred to PeaceMakers that GLD holds values that I'm no longer above reproach therefore not renewing my credentials is right. But that would seem to indicate the GLD and the EFCA hold the position of of NOT giving the accused a hearing. Is it your intent to recognize that those who were charged with violating the Bible are qualified to pass judgement on their own culpability and upon the one bringing the charges? Please help us understand your values and actions! It is not our desire to be rebellious or argumentative, as we have been wrongly accused, but to raise issues of values and behavior in comparison to God's Word. It is our desire, prayer and hope, that there be healing within the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church.

Healing would also mean the reinstatement of my credentials. However, if the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church persists in their stubborn violations of Scripture, then I ask that you recognize that fact, and reinstate my Ministerial Credentials. If the GLD decides not to act as peacemakers, and decides not to review the issues, then we would request that you accept that I have met the requirements of EFCA church membership and sponsorship for credentials, and issue my license and restore my reputation. In the event, that the Great Lakes District fails to Biblically address and reconcile the individuals or issues, then it is PeaceMaker's position to pursue a Biblical remedy.

Serving In Christ's name, William R. Fields

P.S. I've written this letter personally, because of the time restraints and the members of PMI's board not being available. I believe these thoughts fairly represent them.

N. Follow up letter to District Board

November 7, 1987

Rev. Howard Mattson Village Evangelical Free Church
169th & S. Park
South Holland, IL 60473

RE: Letter of response to GLD to be distributed to all Board Members

Gentlemen: In the hope of clarity we, the board of PeaceMakers Intl. would like to respond to your letter of September 25, 1987 and to the issues at hand at the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church. First let us assure you that in no manner are you being requested to further act on the behalf of wronged members, PeaceMakers, Bill Fields, and Jack Gordon. PeaceMakers responsibilities of Biblically attempting reconciliation, and acting as watchmen, have been fulfilled.

Therefore you, the Pastors, Elders leadership, and the congregation, of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, bear the responsibility for the continued shame and destruction of believers due to sin.

Secondly, you were asked to help bring reconciliation between brothers and restore Godliness to the congregation of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America. Your actions however were TO ACT AS JUDGE AND JURY, without benefit of talking to those wronged. You DID NOT LISTEN to all parties, you DID NOT BRING the parties together for discussion of issues and possible new understanding. In short YOU FAILED YOUR BIBLICAL RESPONSIBILITY to act as Peacemakers.

Thirdly, you were cautioned over and over, both in our meeting, telephone calls, and in all our letters, that the major purpose for calling upon the GLD was to address the issues of Pastoral sin, Elder sin and the results upon specific members and the congregation, in hopes for reconciliation. Instead you choose to act in prejudice, and taking the side of those charged with sin, focused upon Bill Fields as the issue. Therefore this letter is a rebuke for failure to act in a Biblically manner, and a charge that you acted as a political agent of those charged with serious sin. Therefore a caution, it's better for a mill stone to be places around your neck than to cause one of His children to sin. With love and compassion we break fellowship with you in hope that you will see your error and return to righteousness.

O. Letter to Wheaton Evangelical Free Church of America Elders

I'm writing this letter as a status report from my perspective as of Aug. 13, 1987. There are several issues...

1. Recently I contacted Jack Schrader to inform him that on at least two occasions your leadership has communicated to non-members of the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church (current clients of PeaceMakers) information that is considered slanderous. Jack said that he would instruct the leadership not to communicate this information with non-members and that he would send a copy of the elder agenda with that instruction typed on the agenda. I have received no such confirmation. There are two major points here.

A. In one case a client's very life is threatened and your leader's lack of discernment and failure to care for this family, (even though there has been repeated pledges to help) has been extremely poor.

B. Secondly, I believe your attorney will verify, that slander (the communication of wrongful information to non-members) has been the primary reason that lawsuits have been awarded against churches. Though I don't intend to use the courts to remedy this error, if this continues, I do reserve the right to pursue a Biblical remedy.

2. When Bob Hall called just before your last elder meeting to ask about our health and our medical needs, it confirmed that many of you have a heart of love and care. Yet I was not calling into account your hearts, but your level of care in the areas of extreme spiritual conflicts. Several points here...

A. Still no one (before or since), has been willing to study the Bible or pray with me on the issues.

B. I hear (in private) that most elders agree that most of the issues I raised are valid, yet I've yet to hear the elders say this publicly or give a plan to address the issues.

C. I've been told that Rev. York has asked for forgiveness for not showing love in his ministry the last year or so. Does this confession of sin extend to me, my family?

D. I have shared with several elders the needs of my family, (they are still members) and not one visit has been made to hear of their needs and cares. The conclusion therefore is that nothing has changed of significance, and that the issues still remain and there is little hope of a Biblical reconciliation. With sadness and regret, Bill Fields
 
 

*************************************

1 Corinthians 11:19 "No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval." Ephesians 5:11 "Have nothing to do with fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." and as Christ Jesus said in Matthew 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Made public-July 22, 2000-These are the documents presented to Dr. Tom McDill, et.al., and serve as a continuing witness: Beginning in 1984, many Elders have come and gone, a few pastors have come and gone (currently Rev. Lou Diaz-who's rejected reconciliation) , a few district pastors have come and gone, and a few presidents of the Evangelical Free Church of America have come and gone (Dr. Thomas A. McDill, Dr. Paul Cedar and currently Dr. Willliam J. Hamel--all have rejected reconciliation)...this case is still open and waiting reconciliation. Many sermons have been preached about reconciliation. Many projects of reconciliaiton have been started, but all have denied this case as a part of those efforts. May Christ your teacher teach you from our example...Bill Fields

********************************************
steward@peacemakers.net