Excuse my juvenile ‘Indiana Jones’-like blog page title but today I’ll conclude my 3-part series on the three travelling teachers that brought to us, at MCF (Melbourne Christian Fellowship) in the 1992-2016 period, the cultish BCF (Brisbane Christian Fellowship ) word and then all three men . . mysteriously . . disappeared, in many cases/locations, without explanation during 2014-2016.
I consider Keith Tucker (MCF) a friend, and to a certain point he stood by me in my battle with the elders.
Nevertheless, although he brought the BCF word gently to us, in his methodical manner, he certainly brought it as a word not to be compromised with.
And, Keith, I stand by my statements, that, just as with David Falk (Part I) and Murray Wylie (Part II), the new Vic Hall theologies were twists on existing understandings within Christendom, but without Scriptural backing for the twist!
Keith, do you remember ever reading Jeff Hammond’s book, based on his Masters thesis, called The Biblical Church Pattern? Well, in that book, Jeff and Annette go to great lengths to Scripturally justify the original restorationist teachings of MCF.
And, with a few minor exceptions, that book holds up. And it’s because he showed in at least two or three out of five ways – on each point – that the restorationist teachings (eg on Priesthood of All Believers) were Biblical:
- Multiple New Testament teaching passages in the gospels and the epistles supported it. And perhaps OT as well, or in shadow.
- The way the early church lived in Acts, or narrative passages of the epistles, demonstrated the teaching
- There often was even evidence that that was how the early church had acted from historical documents
- Mainstream scholars agreed, upon reflection, with Jeff Hammond that this core thesis was Biblical
- There was some spiritual evidence and fruit of it working when gently tested in our church
That took hard work! It’s what young men do. (It’s the period of my life that I lost BTW).
And it was important. It showed me that we were on solid ground. And it’s not as if any of the teachings carried great dangers. How can multiple eldership harm anyone?
But what you brought us from BCF was twists on conventional understandings with very poor evidences via (1) above and almost nothing from (2) – (5).
And dangers? The word on ‘guru headship‘ was chock full of great dangers and no care was exercised in enacting it! None at all. The presbytery prides it self on not knowing what David Bonham was doing to me. But that is an example of the lack of care. And it’s not true anyway because Laurie Holland, whilst on the presbytery, knew fro 100% sure).
Keith stood by me until when, near the end, I went berserk as I found the presbytery elders lying through their teeth and horribly provoking and rewriting history. That is their way I’m afraid.
I got angry. In the end, I broke windows. I lost the plot. I swore.
But they lied and provoked and had no compassion and took no care or accountability and paid no attention to common decency or expectations of Biblical justice.
Not even prepared to sit in a room with myself and the perpetrators.
Not once . . not once.
That’s the MCF/BCF way.
Ironically, for me, Keith, only a few months later, was shifted out of leadership and teaching because he had been identified as harshly counselling his flock in Sheperton.
Three out of three of our messengers fell in one way or another after teaching thousands of people . . crap, that was put immediately into action by unchecked elders across the nation.
That’s not a coincidence.