After 40 years, 'megachurch' pastor slams Christianity and quits, deacon claims he had affair
Dave Gass, a former megachurch pastor who most recently led Grace Family Fellowship in Pleasant Hill, Missouri, has renounced his Christian faith as a system rife with abuse that caused him â€śmental and emotional breaks.â€ť
A representative from his former church, however, has accused him of being an unrepentant adulterer.
Gass reportedly first made his announcement in a series of now protected tweets but not before they were copied and shared across multiple social media platforms.
â€śAfter 40 years of being a devout follower, 20 of those being an evangelical pastor, I am walking away from faith. Even though this has been a massive bomb drop in my life, it has been decades in the making,â€ť he began in the thread before moving on to compare Scripture to Greek mythology....
SC, I can give you my opinion, based upon scripture passages, and you can take it from there.
Matthew 19:7-9 KJV (7)Â They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8)Â He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9)Â And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
As I see it, the fornication clause is a discovery of unfaithfulness after betrothal but before marriage, and God permitted the "putting away" (divorce) of such. For example:
Matthew 1:19 KJV (19)Â Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
The reason Joseph is called 'her husband' is not because they are yet married, but because the betrothal is a binding arrangement and effectively married in God's eyes. _________
Tim, I will answer your question next, if you can be patient, i.e. longsuffering (Galatians 5:22). Thank you.
John, please respond.Perhaps you missed it (I was responding to Dolores' Scripture for an acceptable reason for divorce but understand it to not be license to remarry. Correct? : It would look, Dolores, as adultery would be the only acceptable reason for divorce but I don't see it as license to remarry. Of course, then we have many people who have remarried out of naivete or ignorance. I'm guessing that they should remain married and do follow what Scripture says from that point on...not divorcing and remarrying unless their present partner dies? Input again please. I'm glad that someone is listening, John. It seems so easy for us to go our own way as along as the church approves or condones without being diligent and obedient to Scripture.
Dr. Tim wrote: It would appear that some people would rather listen to a cold, dead fish expound the scriptures in a monotone than to hear a leather-lunged man of God lift up his voice like a trumpetâ€”which is entirely scriptural, by the wayâ€”and proclaim that â€śthus saith the Lordâ€ť with passion and conviction. Of course such people would have cringed at the preachin of Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter, and even Christ Himself. Entirely too undignified, you know. Oh well, as they say, thereâ€™s no accounting for taste.
Tim, a PP can be a speaker who speaks in a very quiet voice, even in a monotone. I'm not sure what a "cold, dead fish" preacher is supposed to mean, but I'm sure he could be a PP also.
It has NOTHING to do with volume. Nor passion. Nor emotion. The late Ian Paisley had all three, but was not a PP preacher. Brother Paisley EXALTED the LORD JESUS CHRIST. I shall never forget when he preached at my church in Lowestoft at the church's anniversary. There was a reporter there from the local paper, and he said to me that he had never, ever heard the Lamb of God so exalted in that way before. And he was a worldly man, non Christian.
Tim, please at least try to understand what I'm saying.
The most eminent of these, by our Lord's express declaration, is brotherly love. "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." No words could be plainer; and the consequence is equally plain, however hard it may bear upon any professors, that though they could speak with the tongues of angels, had the knowledge of all mysteries, a power of working miracles, and a zeal prompting them to give their bodies to be burned in defense of the truth; yet if they love not the brethren, they are but as sounding brass or tinkling cymbals: they may make a great noise in the church and in the world; they may be wise and able men, as the words are now frequently understood; they may pray or preach with great fluency; but in the sight of God their faith is dead, and their religion is vain. http://www.gospelweb.net/JohnNewton/newtonlovetobrethren.htm
MS wrote: No Frank, changing monikers was not what I was referring to ( I have done that myself) It is the acceptance and excusing of some on here who are clearly bent on being devisive with their babbling posts on RC heretics and known ecumenical crusaders such as Billy and Franklin Graham.
I modified my post. Check it out and see if you want to change your answer. I gotta go cook dinner. Yes, I am the primary cook in my house. :-)
Oh, the Grahams, the RCC and Madam Guyon were not part of this thread and were not brought up by me or John.
The reason I mentioned the moniker thing was John was called a hypocrisy when it happened.
No Frank, changing monikers was not what I was referring to ( I have done that myself) It is the acceptance and excusing of some on here who are clearly bent on being devisive with their babbling posts on RC heretics and known ecumenical crusaders such as Billy and Franklin Graham.
MS wrote: Quite disheartening to read these posts and to see the hypocrisy and decline of this forum..
MS, I hope you arenâ€™t referring to JohnUK switching monikers to John Lee. I donâ€™t know of anyone who was confused when he did that and he readily admitted it was him. Anyway, that certainly was not a case of hypocrisy. On one occasion I used a different moniker, but only once over the years and I donâ€™t remember why I did it.
I remember when I was a youth and went to catholic confession. It had to be done a specific way that was acceptable to the priest who was listening to it. I had to confess it; he had to forgive it; and then he would give me a penance to say. Then I could say I was forgiven. It had to be pleasing to the one who called himself my father.
Since my salvation, I try to confess my sins, but only because I have grieved the Holy Spirit. Unlike the legalism of the RCC, Christ forgives me simply because He has already paid for that sin. The RCC wanted me to pay twice?
Connor recently mentioned an article in the Babylon Bee. Canâ€™t say that I blame him. One could probably get as much spiritual edification from that source as from many of the comments posted here on SA. You may as well give up, LB. Heâ€™s never apologized, and it doesnâ€™t appear likely that he ever will. However, he does â€śforgiveâ€ť us poor brainwashed mortals (who, of course, canâ€™t help being the way we are because of all the Yee Haw preachers we listen to) when we point out his foibles, so I guess we must appreciate every little crumb that is thrown our way. It would appear that some people would rather listen to a cold, dead fish expound the scriptures in a monotone than to hear a leather-lunged man of God lift up his voice like a trumpetâ€”which is entirely scriptural, by the wayâ€”and proclaim that â€śthus saith the Lordâ€ť with passion and conviction. Of course such people would have cringed at the preachin of Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter, and even Christ Himself. Entirely too undignified, you know. Oh well, as they say, thereâ€™s no accounting for taste. Move over, Connor. From now on, itâ€™s the Bee for me.
John is having trouble posting, so he asked me to post this for him:
Frank wrote: Brother John Lee! There was a time in my â€śChristianâ€ť walk when I attended Pentecostal/Charismatic churches and totally believed in their movements. There was a time when I actually sent money to Jim Bakker ministries and other ministries that I now consider fraudulent. And, some of this took place even when I would not be considered to be a new Christian in Christ. From what I have heard about Madam Guyon, I would have probably embraced (past tense) her as well. All this is in the past, thank God for His guidance and mercy. Hang in there brother and fellow pilgrim.
His post below!
I'm hanging in, Pilgrim, thank you brother.
I gave up mentioning Madame Guyon, oh, was it two years ago, and I would never have mentioned her ever again on SA threads. This was a genuine repentance (that is, a change of mind concerning mentioning her) and I don't know why anyone brought it up again, unless it was to stir the pot and cause trouble.
**I will never again mention Madame Guyon here on the threads, and I hope that satisfies some people.**
John UK wrote: .. The question is: Why is it that in America there are 10,001 different Christian denominations? .. The figure of 10,001 is called, I think, a figure of speech, meaning a great number. In the UK, you often hear 'a hundred and one' ways to do something. Or an IFB might write a book and call it, "A thousand and One Ways to Disprove Calvinism".
Likely because of early experience with the English state church. Much better to have squabbles over the "proper" color of the carpet, or whether or not there be windows, or music, or the position of seating, etc, than to have one approved church. The worse thing today is not the multitudinous denominations, but the move toward the one world church. I'll take the 10001.
There was a time in my â€śChristianâ€ť walk when I attended Pentecostal/Charismatic churches and totally believed in their movements. There was a time when I actually sent money to Jim Bakker ministries and other ministries that I now consider fraudulent. And, some of this took place even when I would not be considered to be a new Christian in Christ. From what I have heard about Madam Guyon, I would have probably embraced (past tense)her as well. All this is in the past, thank God for His guidance and mercy.
John Yurich: All the problems in the world were caused by Democrats.â€ť Jim Lincoln: â€śAll the problems in the world were caused by Republicans.â€ť John UK: â€śAll the problems in the world were caused by independent fundamental Baptists.â€ť Satan: â€śI agree with John, Jim and John!â€ť
This is how ecumenism is birthed, "One thing you need to realise is that within Protestantism, numbers of Catholics from history are accepted as worthy of study for benefit, and some Catholic mystics have written hymns which I've no doubt you still sing in your own church, without giving it a second thought. So what exactly is your problem?" This is double speak.
Defending an RCC mystic just because Spurgeon did is no excuse. Spurgeon was fallible and should never be the reason why you accept wickedness and error. This song and dance from John has gone on for a long time. I did provide quotes from him on MG, but they were removed. So, when we attempt to point to his errors, they get removed...strange.
I have also provided, in the past, much proof and evidence of the dangers of MG, yet it fell on 'deaf ears'.
The runaround song and dance approach given when called into question is evidence of rotten fruit. There is never, ever a biblical reason to defend and support evil, like RCC mystics or ecumenical evangelists. Do NOT overlook this danger and do NOT continue to call an unrepentant sinner 'brother' or 'pilgrim' lest you be led down that ecumenical road.