Persecution and Reflection, Part 11

4/22/09 - 3rd Day - Late. I ended the last part by saying "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! (Luke 17:1)". The Bible also says "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom 16:17-18)". Paul publicly "marked" an offender by saying "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works" (2Ti 4:14).

Now, who was this guy Alexander whom Paul publicly turned over to Satan for blasphemy (1Ti 1:20) and who Paul here marks as an enemy who did him "much evil"? Most able commentators believe he was once a professing Christian brother of Paul, who earlier was almost martyred for his profession of faith during a riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:33). It is possible that there were two different famous Alexanders from Ephesus, but it is more likely that Paul decided to make this particular Alexander famous (by publicly and openly exposing his apostasy and evil works) specifically because Alexander had once been seen as a friend and co-worker with Paul. Alexander had likely been not only a false brother who walked away from his duty and obligations as a Christian, but he also went further and became an open attacker of the Apostle Paul. Woe unto this man Alexander and to all those who feign friendship for personal benefit, and who, when exposed, become wolves and attackers of God's servants.

In light of the events that have occurred in my life over the last ten years, this story has always intrigued me. Modern Christianity - soft, fat, and sensitive - has no stomach for what Paul did here, publicly outing a former brother. I've often laughed to myself when I consider what Paul's emails would be like, or what modern Xtians would say about him on forums today. But then again, I really don't have to wonder...

Paul, you really should not be talking about people's past sins. I mean, what if Alexander has repented privately? What if you are attacking one of God's sheep? And even if he has not repented, Jesus said you should turn the other cheek. You should never mention these people by name. You should be more like Jesus and stop attacking everyone who wrongs you. I will pray for you.

Paul, you sniveling, whining, wimp. Why do you always complain in your letters? Jesus wasn't a complainer. Listen to yourself... "Oh, I have a thorn in my side" (2 Cor. 12:7). "Oooooohhh, Alexander did me wrong!" (2 Tim. 4:14). "Ohhh, the evil Jews keep beating me, and I am often thirst and hungry!" (2nd Cor. 11:27). "Ooooohhhh, Peter gets to bring his wife on trips, but everyone attacks me and not him!". Boo Hoo. You should try to be more like Jesus and quit with the martyr and persecution complex.

Paul, Maybe all these things have happened to you because you are an arrogant jerk? Ever thought about that? You're not perfect you know.

Paul said he was "In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea", but it seemed to trouble him most that he was perennially "in perils among false brethren" (2Co 11:26).

Modern Apostate Xtianity seems to believe and teach that persecution only comes from the heathen. The modern evangelical persecution ministry business is a billion dollar industry, and it gets bigger every year. Worldling "christians" are forever willing to empty their pockets and wallets to give money to charlatan representatives of Jesus Christ, Incorporated who are marketing experts at selling persecution stories from abroad. It would trouble many of these givers of tax-free donations if they were to ever learn that most of them are as guilty of true persecution as the Christ-haters in the Sudan, or in Indonesia. It is easy to think of Abdul the Jihadist as a persecutor of God's people, but it is much more difficult to conceive of the idea that the average modernist wordling professor as a true persecutor. Most of us who have followed Jesus Christ on the narrow and separate path have been brutally attacked, slandered, defamed, etc. by our own family members, our own former friends, and even those with whom we used to worship. Indeed, I know what it is to be "in perils among false brethren". Trials and great tribulation, through which all true Christians must enter the Kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), are more real and more painful when they are brought against us by those we once considered to be our friends. Anyone who has ever truly considered the story of Jesus ought to recognize the truth of that. Christ was abandoned to the cross by those whom He called "friends", and his purpose in going to that cross was to make eternal friends of enemies who were at enmity with Him. In the end, one of His inner circle betrayed Him. It wasn't Abdul the Jihadi who betrayed Christ.

Alexander the coppersmith was likely a Jew (Acts 19:34) like Paul. He was, it seems, at one time a fellow co-worker in God's vineyard. The story, though not explained in over-much detail, is not really too hard to figure out. The riot in Ephesus was drummed up by one Demetrius the silversmith. Demetrius and his fellow metal craftsmen were a bit perturbed that they weren't going to be getting the profits from idolatry that they had expected (It seems that Christianity had caused an idolatry recession). One of their own (a metalworker and a member of the metalworkers guild), a man named Alexander was known to be associated with (or at least loosely connected with) the sect of Christians whose teaching was doing so much damage to the idol-making trade. Alexander was there in the square with Gaius and Aristarchus, two men who were friends and traveling companions of Paul, and when the rabble had been really worked into a frenzy, the crowd grabbed a few of these professing "christians" and ran them into the theatre amongst all the rioters. Paul was struggling to go into the theatre as well, but his disciples prevented him from doing so, knowing that he would likely desire to speak and would probably get them all killed. They had faith, but not yet that much faith. Certain of the elders from Asia minor who were friends of Paul, sent out word to Paul that he should not at all attempt to go into the theatre because things were going from bad to worse in there.

This is where the details get interesting. The Jews, being nominal monotheists and generally enemies to blatant idolatry, were the focus of the anger for a moment because for most uninformed worshipers of Diana, Paul's religion was just an offshoot or corollary to Judaism. The Jews saw that they were likely to catch some of the fury and flack directed at Paul, and they were desirous of turning this anti-idolatry rage in the direction that would be most beneficial to themselves. Besides they didn't like Paul or the Christians anyway. Paul being absent, Alexander was pulled out by the Jews and was thrust in front of the rioters where he was likely to be pulled apart, stoned, fed to the lions, or some such thing. He was ready and willing to make a defense when God suddenly intervened. It seems God was unwilling that the false brother Alexander be seen as a valiant defender of the faith. God instead raised up townclerk who calmed down the crowd and eventually dispersed them all.

The point is that somewhere between Acts chapter 19 where we find this story and 1st Timothy: 1:20, Alexander became, not just estranged from Paul, but a vocal and active attacker and enemy. Alexander was participating in active evil, defamation, and attacks against the Apostle Paul. We see in this story a bit of what actually happens today in the real world. Paul, who was already hated by the world and by religious idolaters, was spared from their fury by Christ, only to be exposed to the hatred and attacks of a man who professed to be a "christian" and a co-worker. It was frightening, but emboldening and even maybe desirable to be attacked by a heathen crowd. It is sad, gut-wrenching, and horrible to be attacked by someone you thought was a friend. Here is an even more interesting thing to consider...

Ok, follow me here... Alexander was an Ephesian who was likely a professing "christian" who became an enemy and attacker of Christ's servant Paul. Now, remember Demetrius the silversmith? The guy who started the riots? Demetrius the idolater who made the idols to Diana and profited thereby? Well, the Apostle John, who later lived and labored as the head of the Ephesian Church that Paul had once planted there, sent an epistle to Gaius in Ephesus concerning just who Gaius ought to trust there in the Ephesian Church. John said (and I paraphrase here, read it for yourself in 3 John), "don't trust Diotrephes who attacks us and who refuses to receive us. Instead, there is a man there named Demetrius who has a good report of all men and of the truth". John goes so far as to support and lift up Demetrius the Ephesian as a truthful and honest man who can be trusted. Wouldn't it be interesting if this Demetrius was the same Demetrius that had once attacked the faith and stirred up the riot against Paul 30 years earlier? I know that some of the best commentators insist that this must be a different Demetrius, but for some reason it makes perfect sense to me that this might be the same man. No commentators that I read had any real reason for thinking that this was another Demetrius, except that the first Demetrius had been an enemy of the Gospel. But, weren't we all at one time enemies of the Gospel and at enmity with Christ?

In my own experience, some of my most vehement enemies have, through time, become my friends; while some who I have considered to be close friends and neighbors have become my most vehement enemies. I find much comfort in the thought that Demetrius may have become a true servant and worker for Christ, while Alexander was given over to a reprobate mind to attack and slander God's servants.

Now we come to the question in view though. Obviously Paul and John felt it necessary to publicly name and "mark" those who were enemies to the ministry and those who could not be trusted. Yet I am almost daily condemned for telling the stories of enemy persecution, when in most cases I have not even mentioned the names of those who have done the wicked deeds! My general policy has always been to refuse to defend myself against personal attacks. I try to look at the whole situation and I ask myself "Who is being attacked here?" If it is only me, then I have always let it go. I have, for many years, received such attacks daily. Most of the time I have deleted or ignored the inane rantings of haters. Some time ago, on rare occasion, I would release some of the attacks via private email to my supporters and friends (I called it "count it all joy mail"), but I did not usually publicly publish the names or identities of the attackers although I was free to. If the attack is focused on others (individuals in our homegroup, or the group as a whole), or if the attack was focused on the ministry, or on a particular doctrine we teach, then I was usually more willing to publicly make a defense for the person, doctrine, teaching, or for the group as a whole.

Mind you, all of this is taking place in a watered down society and psuedo-"christian" culture that has a hypocritical and twisted view of how "pastors" are supposed to act. I am constantly rebuked for writing about or exposing these evil acts, while the attackers are not publicly exposed or rebuked at all. That reminds me of the people who email me excoriating me for daring to ever speak evil of anyone. They do not know their Bibles at all. They actually don't see any irony in the fact that they are writing me to rebuke me for rebuking others' nor do they see the delicious irony of them telling me that by me rebuking error, I am showing a distrust of Christ who asks us to trust that He will repay! One lady actually told me that I should never rebuke, chastise, or correct anyone, because "that is Jesus' job". Hmmmm.... so why exactly are you writing me to correct and chastise me I ask? Of course I got no response from that question.

I digress... and you probably get the point. So I will move on.

Recently, as most of you all know by now, some horrendous and sickening accusations have been made publicly about me and about the ministry and our community here. The worst I have heard or have seen in the last decade of ministry. I would say almost everyone who has read this public defamations have been offended by the content and the spirit of the attacks. An attorney who is a specialist on internet defamation (libel/slander) law wrote me and said that the attacks that were published on several online discussion forums about me were some of the most blatant and obvious violations of the laws against defamation and libel he had ever read. A normal "win" in an easy defamation case like that one would be over $150,000. Not to mention that the particular libel and defamation in this case was also a violation of criminal laws. And it was not just me that was defamed, if it was, you would likely have never heard me say much about it. But others here in the community were libeled as well. You know, I took Mass Communications Law in college, and I used to think that winning a libel/slander defamation case was very difficult. Not anymore, especially in the internet age. In fact, I always assumed that, as they say, "the truth is a defense" (not that what these wolves said was true), but I figured if they thought they could get one another to testify and witness to one another's lies, then they would probably be able to win. Not so. Even if... EVEN IF... what they said was true (and it is most assuredly not), then it would still have to pass a threshold of PRIVACY, meaning that they would have to prove that I am a public figure (like an elected official, or a TV star) and that the information would not adversely affect my reputation. I think saying an agrarian preacher spends all day drunk and online playing poker, probably adversely affects my reputation. Now, of course what they are saying is not true, BUT EVEN IF IT WAS they will have committed a crime. For example, if I had a dreaded or heinous disease (like say... AIDS) they could not just post an internet post that says I have AIDS, even if I did have AIDS. That would be a violation of privacy. So, I was shocked to learn from this attorney that these people not only slandered and libeled me; not only did they defame me, but even if they thought they were telling the truth, what they did was a criminal violation of privacy. Now, in the internet world, when these people purposely post these lies on an internet forum that is available in many countries, someone who wants to do so can now sue them in every country from which anyone accessed the defamatory comments! It is common practice now for internet defamation attorneys to file suit in most European countries before they file suit in Amerika. And - it far easier to prove defamation in Europe and Asia than it is in the US. Frankly, according to this internet expert, if I was of the mind to - I could sue every one of the people who can be linked to these latest attacks, and I would absolutely win. No doubt.

The offensive and false accusations were not only published online, but the online comments were basically all loosely derived from the 40 page attack publication that was then handed out to others. This proves that the document was published in print (more than 1 or 2 people received it, meaning it was published and broadcast). It was also published via email to some folks in Oregon (we have proof) and probably to many others. It was handed out in town here locally, even to unbelievers (which we have proved) and none of the internet libels were original, since they all had their origin in the published book, which was signed as the work of 5 individuals, meaning that all 5 are equally guilty in the eye of the law of having published every word published in the book, and of any internet postings that are derived from the original published work. Wow.

Now. I currently have no plans to sue anyone. Not because these people are Christians and because we are not supposed to take Christians to court, but because I am a Christian.

When the defamatory book was published, I said nothing.

When the book was handed out in town, to people unaffiliated with the ministry, I said nothing.

When the book was emailed to others who are unaffiliated with the ministry, I said nothing.

I chose not to defend myself, even though others in the group (and the group as a whole) were being defamed by these actions.

Then they took the accusations and began publishing them online on internet forums. They published the absurd and stupid accusations under the subject title of my book name (Swarms of Locusts) meaning that the search engines would find and list the accusations when someone was looking to purchase my book. This amplifies the offenses I have listed according to the law, because one of the thresholds that really can make defamation expensive for those who are found guilty of it, is when the defamation costs someone personal contacts, social contacts, business contacts, or money. Now, as I said, prior to these accusations being posted in internet forums, I said nothing. However, after the internet comments were posted online (on a UFO forum), I personally sent an email to the offenders asking them to repent publicly of what they had done and what they had written and to apologize publicly for it. They have not done so. I also expected them to have the comments removed from the internet. They have not done so.

I sent the requests to:

Thomas Marcic
Susan Marcic
Logan Ante
Kris Ante
Joseph Honaker

I soon received an email from the Marcics claiming authorship of the email (not too smart if you don't plan on fixing what you did or repenting of it, since now I have proof that they wrote the posts). They claimed that they wrote the posts "under emotion" and that the other 3 people did not write the posts (It doesn't matter, because legally they are responsible for the posts, even if they did not write them). They semi-halfway-almost apologized for writing out of emotion, but have not repented, not publicly apologized, and have since refused to take the posts off the internet. I learned afterward that they re-posted the comments on another forum after they were posted on the UFO forum. I received a private email from the Antes disavowing what was written in the internet posts, and partially apologizing for the spirit and content of them. However, the Antes are still fully responsible for the content of the posts, and I have asked them to PUBLICLY apologize and repent of what they have done. Since the internet posts were derived wholly from the book published and handed out by the Antes, they are also responsible for all defamation (libels) in the book, and any violations of privacy that are in either work. Joseph Honaker has completely refused to recognize his error, to respond, to repent, or to apologize for his errors.

For those who intend to send me a dissertation on 1 Cor. 6:1-11, please save your virtual ink. First, I have already said that I do not now intend to seek any type of redress in the courts. Second, 1 Cor. 6 deals with Christians who are in the same fellowship who go to the civil courts against one another when they have obvious recourse in the Body of believers to which they both adhere. 1 Cor. 6 does not mean that any Tom, Kris, or Joseph can do whatever they want to do (lie, cheat, slander) so long as they call themselves "christians". You see, Michael Bunker is submitted to eldership and to authority. There are people you can go to if I have done evil to you, and you can seek redress of grievances. These five submit to no authority whatsoever. They have no local fellowship and we know from experience that they would not submit even if they could. Nor do they submit to the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is obvious to any fair observer. There is no one you can go to to make them do the right thing. The Jews had the synagogue, and the Gentiles had the ecclesiastical authority (elders and deacons). But when individuals have taken themselves away from any oversight or authority, and have rejected the authority of the Church - is it right that they also are not subject to the civil authority? I don't think that it was the purpose of the Apostle to say "Hey folks, the more lawless and ruthless you are, the more protection you have from punishment". I think he was plainly telling brothers in the same fellowship that it is stupid and wrong to go to the courts for redress - it would be much better to allow yourself to be defrauded than to see Christ's name sullied by such nonsense. The issue at hand isn't covered under 1 Cor. 6. I am authorized to seek redress if I wished, and if I did, they would lose everything they have. Still, I give them further room for repentance. The statute of limitations doesn't expire for two years from this last February. I'm not sure how long the statute of limitations are on the criminal offenses.

So, here is what I am going to do. According to what I see in the Word, I am calling on these five people to repent and publicly apologize for both their libelous book, and their libelous internet posts. I expect their apology to be complete and public. I expect them to have the offending posts removed from the internet. If they do not take advantage of this grace, and if they choose to let their libels remain public, I will have to reconsider my peaceful proposition towards them. Yet, I remain hopeful.

Well folks, it remains an interesting ride. I'm glad you could go back through memory lane with me. I hope maybe you have learned something, and I hope it gives you more insight into what the Bible says about persecution.

I am your servant in Christ Jesus,

Michael Bunker