CWM welcomes you to our Web Site

Emails between BC & PLP

Christian Witness Ministries
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources

Series of emails between Barney Coombes and Philip Powell
A PERSONAL LETTER TO: PHILIP POWELL, FRANK HOUSTON AND BRIAN HOUSTON Dear Brothers in Christ, The purpose of my letter is to present my account of two conversations held between Philip Powell and myself. The first was concerning a large group of Sikhs of whom it was said had made a public confession of receiving Christ at Glad Tidings Pentecostal Assembly in Vancouver. The second relates to a phone conversation which has been referred to in the December 20011 issue of CWM's magazine which goes as follows: "Shortly after that time when Andrew Evans and his group managed to oust Ralph Read then General Superintendent of AOG in Australia and his group, Frank Houston moved across to Sydney ostensibly on the basis of some vision or dream, though strong rumour has it in New Zealand that there were other rather ominous reasons for his move across the Tasman. In fact Reverend Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me, while I was in New Zealand, with the information that during one of his ministry visits to that country the rumour was so strong that he traveled from Palmerston North to Lower Hutt to put it personally to Frank Houston, who denied all wrong doing." This quote is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. First off all, the reason for my phoning Philip was to return his call. I did not initiate the conversation. Philip told me that he had heard that I had personally disciplined Frank for immoral behaviour. He asked, was this true? Philip also mentioned that other people had made complaints against Frank regarding certain behaviour whilst they were attending Bible College. I responded to Philip that it was true that I had visited Frank in Lower Hutt. The reason being, that after a meeting at which I was preaching, I had been approached by a person who stated that Frank had behaved improperly towards them. During this time it came to my knowledge that Frank was visiting a relative in Lower Hutt. I was able to discover the telephone number and asked Frank whether he would be kind enough to meet me. I told Philip that the night before I visited Frank, I was unable to sleep. I did not find it an easy thing to confront a fellow brother engaged in the ministry of our Lord Jesus with such a serious matter. The fact of the matter is, "the Fear of the Lord" lay heavily upon me. On the day of my visit, I was driven to within three blocks of the address, by Fraser Hardy, who was totally unaware of the purpose of my mission, and only found out a year later by some other means. I told Philip that Frank had denied any misconduct and that after praying together, I left. There was nothing further I could do except report back to the person who had first made the complaint to me, saying that Frank had denied that he had done anything wrong. I also said to Philip that in the absence of another witness there was nothing further for me to do. Bearing in mind the Scripture that said "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses."* I am disappointed that I was not consulted before my name was referred to in the above, mentioned article. The fact is, if I had been contacted, I would not have given my permission. This is simply because, whether the allegations are true or not, I do not believe that a public media presentation is the loving way to treat others who belong to the Bride of Christ. Furthermore, I wish to state emphatically that I never said: "the rumour was so strong that he (I) travelled from Palmerston North…." My visit was based exclusively on a one to one conversation. In the meantime, Frank has been disciplined by the AOG. Like all of us, Frank is included in the covenant of grace. As far as I am concerned, this matter is now closed. I pray that our Heavenly Father's blessing may rest upon each one of you and that each of us will live to the praise of His glory. [ 1 http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2002/acchd02.html - Ed ] A PERSONAL RESPONSE BY PHILIP POWELL TO BARNEY COOMBES - see below. Copied to Brian Houston, Keith Ainge, John Lewis and Danny Guglielmucci* THURSDAY March 21, 2002. Dear Barney: Thanks for your response. My recollection is that what you have now stated in print is substantially accurate, though I dispute that you have been misrepresented and my recollection is that you and I had only one telephone conversation not two, the other communications being written. Also I recall that you said far more in our telephone conversation than you have actually acknowledged. You told me that you always suspected that Frank was guilty and that when you saw or heard him preach you felt that he was a hypocrite. I acknowledge that I did not quote all that passed between you and me in that telephone conversation. I dispute that you were in any way misrepresented for the following reasons: 1) I did not say that you had initiated the telephone conversation and I do not think that such is implied in the publication to which you refer. The fact is that you did telephone me from Canada. You were not returning my call. You were responding to an email or fax. 2) I did not say that you said that the rumour was strong. Those were my words. The fact is that you treated the incident as "rumour" seeing you did not take it further. It was sufficiently strong for you to take initial action in respect of it. I stand by my words I note your misquote of the actual text of Scripture - "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." This is an interpretation not a true and accurate quotation of what Paul wrote or taught. Maybe it is your preferred version, BUT it is inaccurate for logical as well as biblical reasons. In what circumstances, for example, could there ever be a third party witness to an allegation of adultery or for that matter of most sexual offences? It is perfectly clear that Paul was instructing young pastor Timothy to take precaution in having witnesses to any allegation made against an "elder". In other words in the case in point you failed to act biblically when you decided to assume a lone responsibility in the matter. You should have ensured that there were witnesses present when the accusation was presented to you and when you put the matter to the accused. If the person who made the initial complaint was an adult he should have accompanied you and your witnesses when you presented the matter to the accused. There would then have been a basis for you to have referred the accusation to the proper authority viz to the National NZ AoG Executive in the first instance. If there were criminal connotations then the police should also have been contacted by you or by the responsible AoG authority to which you had referred the matter. Much could have been avoided. Mine is the only sensible and rational conclusion that can be made respecting Paul's instruction - "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses" - 1 Timothy 5:19. I am sorry to have to say this Barney, but you my dear brother must be held accountable. OK hindsight is a great thing and we all make mistakes. You should acknowledge your mistake and not try to rationalize your way out of it on the pretext of Scripture, falsely interpreted and/or applied. You refer to the Bride of Christ and I guess we all have ideas who comprise it - usually ourselves and some others - RIGHT? All I ask is that you take into account the following Scriptures: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath MADE HERSELF READY" - Revelation 19:7. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" - 1 Corinthians 6:9. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold {suppress} the truth in unrighteousness; .... 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" - Romans 1:18 - 27 etc. "But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out" - Numbers 32:23. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" - Matthew 7:21-23. You speak of media involvement. CWM has long since canvassed the idea that the Lord in His gracious mercy allows the Church time to properly judge her own affairs. If she fails then the world will judge and that in all probability will be followed by God's judgement. History proves this and there will be no exception in respect of our time. We know that Frank Houston was subjected to some form of discipline in 1999 and again in 2000. We do not know if he was rebuked before his congregation which Scripture requires. I know that in the case of another former General Superintendent of AoG-NZ this requirement of scripture was NOT carried out in Australia where he now ministers and where he was disciplined. He acknowledged this to me, and added that he wanted it to happen but "the powers that be wouldn't allow it." He now pastors a fairly large AoG church in Brisbane. If the scriptural mandate is not carried out then all sorts of innuendos and rumours persist as in both of these cases ultimately leading to christian and/or secular media involvement. The course is inevitable. Barney our Lord promised that everything hidden would be revealed. He also told us that we would be condemned or justified by our words. That is how things presently stand. In view of the fact that you wrote the following email to Brian and Frank Houston I am copying this to the email addresses of Brian that are known to me. I do not have Frank's email address so am copying this to Keith Ainge who is the General Secretary and to John Lewis who is the Assistant President of AoG in Australia. I am also copying it to Danny Guglielmucci who promised to represent my concerns to the National Executive Presbytery of AoG at their next meeting. I believe that my meeting with them would help, but for some reason they are doing everything possible to avoid me. God bless you Barney. "The mills of God grind slow but exceeding small." Sincerely in the Love of THE Truth, Philip L. POWELL. RESPONSE FROM BARNEY COOMBES – April 2, 2002. Dear Philip Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to make a few observations in response. I think you are right in saying I was returning your fax/e-mail. You are also right in saying that I did not believe Frank was telling me the truth. But I never said that I thought he was a hypocrite when I heard him preaching. I have never heard him preach and I had only met him on one previous occasion, when we sat together at a banquet. You may be right in saying that there was a better way of handling this. And you may be right in your interpretation of the 1Timothy 5:19 passage. In the light of the general nature of the magazine I could see why you would have a special interest in this verse. I had no trouble with you forwarding my response to Brian and Frank Houston. My problem is, that you thought you had the right without asking my permission to report a personal and therefore private conversation in your magazine. That is discourteous by any standard. I notice that you failed to address this in your reply. I was also quite shocked with the way you have made a big issue out of your communication to me being via fax/email and not telephone, but fail to address what you actually printed. The problem is, you did not say I was replying to an initiative taken by you. The way in which you have written, "Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me" can only leave the reader with the clear impression that it was I who instigated this communication. Likewise, your statement "the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North" Again the reader can only be left with the impression that a story was circulating around New Zealand that so impacted me that I found it necessary to visit Frank. If you had to publish this story, why couldn't you simply have said that a man had made a complaint to me against Frank. And let me hasten to add, I didn't just treat it as rumour by not taking it further. I did the very best thing I could have done; I took it to the Father's throne and left it there. If the complaint had been by a juvenile, I would have reported it to the police, as I have done on previous occasions. The brother who made the complaint was part of a local church and I directed him to share the matter with his pastor. Philip, I speak as a brother and friend. I have received your magazine for several years now. So I am not speaking from a limited perspective. I probably agree with 75% of what is published. However, I have difficulty with so much of the spirit in which you and your fellow contributors write. I find it unbecoming for men of God who know the Scriptures well and yet seemingly disregard the biblical injunction that says "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one" Col 4:6. " One thing I do know is that you cannot find any justification for writing accusations against other brothers and sisters with what comes over as obvious pleasure and without regard to their loved ones. Philip, your magazine style when it is addressing misconduct or a different doctrinal stance to your own position, comes over more like the tabloids. Attention grabbing pointers such as "STOP PRESS" and "watch this space" belong to advertising magazines and the like, not a Christian publication. I doubt whether the Holy Spirit's anointing would rest upon a publication style that seems to be so similar to the world's standards. With a few welcome exceptions, it may inform but it seems to me, that there is very little that edifies, or uplifts Christ. It reminds me of the proverb that says: "The poor man uses entreaties, but the rich answers roughly" Prov 18:23. I wish I could hear some tears, gentleness and tenderness as well as entreaties for prodigals to return home. I have also noticed that in recent publications the articles are becoming increasingly sarcastic. Dr Siam Bhayro, offering porcelain pigs to Ray McCauley, cheapens what happens to be a very sad and Christ dishonouring situation. Using names like Pooh and Piglet is not as you claim "satire" but "dishonour" Even Michael the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against Satan, but said "the Lord rebuke you." I think this is all I want to say. I leave the matter with you and the Lord, whatever I have said that does not own His approval I pray that He will graciously show me and give grace to repent. Also, whatever He does approve of, I pray that He will give you grace to own it and respond to Christ's bride accordingly. I pray our Heavenly Father's blessing on you and your loved ones. In His great love. Barney P.S. Philip, I have received your latest e-mail and find it incredulous that you would again quote me in your magazine. I suppose it makes no difference for me to say that this does not have my blessing. I do not wish to continue in further correspondence between us; neither do I wish to receive any further copies of your magazine. I trust you will find it in your heart to comply with my wishes. May the Lord watch between us. Barney. FROM PHILIP L. POWELL to BARNEY COOMBES Dear Barney: - {Email – April 2, 2002). Thanks for your further response. I did not wish to offend you, but I do think your approach is flawed. Also, Barney, while I recognise your every right to respond to me as you have done I do not recognise any right implied or explicitly requested that I do not respond to your arguments or your assertions. That is arrogance. May be you didn't intend to convey that impression. My recollection is that you certainly said that you had the impression that FH was a hypocrite when you met with and heard of him. You said it. I did not imagine it. However the fact of the matter is that he was a hypocrite if he denied what was fact back in the 70s and if he denied what I told him was being alleged about him in the 90s. The discipline of '99 and '00 to say the least strongly implies his hypocrisy, deception and dishonesty. So what's the point in you and me falling out over that? Another point Barney is that while you feel affronted that I mentioned your name without your express permission, in the same breath (pardon the euphemism) "same paragraph" you said you wouldn't have given me permission if I had asked. That would have resulted in my offending you further because I honestly think I had a responsibility to quote you. Why are you like so many others who somehow think they have a reputation to defend and who thus become so sensitive about being quoted? Can't you stand by your word? Even Pilate said, "What I have written I have written." Personally I have no problem with being quoted by anyone anywhere. Why should I and why should you? If anyone misrepresents me I will tell them as much, as you tried to tell me, but ended up shooting yourself in the foot for your words actually confirmed that I had not misrepresented you in any way, not even in respect of impressions that some may or may not have drawn from what I reported. What I wrote was accurate - totally. PLEASE READ ON - I'll respond to your points in RED PRINT under your comments. Hope it comes out that way. ----- Original Message ----- From: Barney Coombs To: Philip L Powell Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:46 AM Subject: Re Magazine article [ PLP answer in italics -Ed ] Dear Philip Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to make a few observations in response. I think you are right in saying I was returning your fax/e-mail. You are also right in saying that I did not believe Frank was telling me the truth. But I never said that I thought he was a hypocrite when I heard him preaching. I have never heard him preach and I had only met him on one previous occasion, when we sat together at a banquet. You may be right in saying that there was a better way of handling this. And you may be right in your interpretation of the 1Timothy 5:19 passage. Barney - this is crucial to the whole thing and something that I propose to argue in the follow up article which is now under review by our editorial "set-up". I have again quoted you and argued that what you did back in the 70s was based on your misinterpretation of this bible verse. Had you acted according to scripture this whole scenario could have been avoided. I will happily let you have sight of what we propose to publish before we go to print. If you raise reasonable objection we will consider changes or omissions. Please let me know if you want to see the article before we go to print. If I don't hear from you I'll send it to you at this email address. In the light of the general nature of the magazine I could see why you would have a special interest in this verse. I have no idea what you mean by this sentence. Please explain what you have in mind. I had no trouble with you forwarding my response to Brian and Frank Houston. I thought you had sent it to all three of us i.e. Frank, Brian and me, seeing it was so addressed. Brian has blocked me at his email addresses and I don't have Frank Houston's contact details so I sent the email to the General secretary and to the Assistant president and to another National Executive member. My problem is, that you thought you had the right without asking my permission to report a personal and therefore private conversation in your magazine. That is discourteous by any standard. I notice that you failed to address this in your reply. I consider that I have answered this - see above. We are accountable for what we say whether in private or in public. You did not tell me that your comments were "off record". I took you to be a man of your word. I do not consider that I have acted discourteously and you have given no valid reason why you consider that I have. I was also quite shocked with the way you have made a big issue out of your communication to me being via fax/email and not telephone, but fail to address what you actually printed. It was no big issue and I did NOT make it into a big issue. That perception exists in your own mind. I simply pointed out my recollection and now you have confirmed that I was right and you were wrong. I do not apologise for what we published. It was factual and you have confirmed that was the case. The problem is, you did not say I was replying to an initiative taken by you. The way in which you have written, "Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me" can only leave the reader with the clear impression that it was I who instigated this communication. Readers will always jump to conclusions. What is the problem? I did not say that you initiated the conversation. The fact of the matter is that you did telephone me. I did not say that you instigated the communication. Why are you making this into such a big issue? Likewise, your statement "the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North" Again the reader can only be left with the impression that a story was circulating around New Zealand that so impacted me that I found it necessary to visit Frank. If you had to publish this story, why couldn't you simply have said that a man had made a complaint to me against Frank. So now you confirm that it was a man - RIGHT? In your previous email you said a person and then used the general "them" instead of him. Why Barney? I published what I felt was safe at the time. Since then things have developed to a point where they are quite ominous. I am absolutely convinced that it's clean up time in the Church. Men who purport to be Christian leaders and who are no more than plants of Satan (tares) will be made to face their past. CWM is not going to act foolishly, but we will act courageously as the Lord helps us. And let me hasten to add, I didn't just treat it as rumour by not taking it further. I did the very best thing I could have done; I took it to the Father's throne and left it there. If the complaint had been by a juvenile, I would have reported it to the police, as I have done on previous occasions. The brother who made the complaint was part of a local church and I directed him to share the matter with his pastor. You should have asked the "man" to make his accusation in front of witnesses and then if you decided to take the matter to the accused you should have presented it with witnesses present. You did not do the BEST THING possible. Why do you think the man approached you in the first instance and not his pastor? That should have said volumes. You can try to get all spiritual about telling the Father, Barney, but you keep shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you have told the police in the case of a juvenile but not do the right thing with an accusation of homosexuality? My recollection is that back then homosexuality even with consenting adults was a crime - RIGHT? Any way your rationale can be shot through on any basis you may choose. You did the wrong thing Barney and now we have this dreadful scenario which could have and should have been pre-empted. Philip, I speak as a brother and friend. I have received your magazine for several years now. So I am not speaking from a limited perspective. I accepted that, but I also know that there are hundreds - may be thousands - who have the same and may be an even better perspective who would disagree with you - So what? I probably agree with 75% of what is published. Thanks for that but we're not into the popularity charts business. Truth and correct action are our concerns. If you show where we are wrong - even if you are alone - we will take what you say on board. However, I have difficulty with so much of the spirit in which you and your fellow contributors write. Oh yes here we go. It's the spirit not the letter. What do you mean by "so much of the spirit". It's meaningless jargon. By our words we will be condemned and by our words we will be justified. Go to a court of law Barney and talk about the spirit of what you say or write. You will be laughed out of court. Yes we can make mistakes in what we say. But words are words - whether said strongly or smoothed over until they are innocuous. I prefer that people know what I mean. I find it unbecoming for men of God who know the Scriptures well and yet seemingly disregard the biblical injunction that says "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one" (Col 4:6). OK - so now it's our "speech" i.e. words not our spirit. We accept that and always try to follow the injunction. When Jesus used harsh words were they not seasoned with salt? What about Paul and what about the OT prophets? No Barney we are not saying that we are at their level we are simply using it as an argument against what you are saying and implying. Please my brother do start to think and don't just follow the status quo which has created the huge problem which is now within Christendom that some think is the Bride of Christ when it is no such thing. " One thing I do know is that you cannot find any justification for writing accusations against other brothers and sisters with what comes over as obvious pleasure and without regard to their loved ones. There you go again - judging us. We don't take pleasure in these things which are long overdue for exposure within the so called Church. Do you not think that we also search our hearts? We are absolutely convinced that we are basically on course as the Lord keeps confirming this even in the small timing of events. Philip, your magazine style when it is addressing misconduct or a different doctrinal stance to your own position, comes over more like the tabloids. Attention grabbing pointers such as "STOP PRESS" and "watch this space" belong to advertising magazines and the like, not a Christian publication. We acknowledge that we use recognised literary devices and methods. So what's wrong with that? Surely we want to get the attention of our readers. What's wrong with that? If we don't get their attention in all probability they won't read our stuff. I doubt whether the Holy Spirit's anointing would rest upon a publication style that seems to be so similar to the world's standards. With a few welcome exceptions, it may inform but it seems to me, that there is very little that edifies, or uplifts Christ. Well that's your opinion. In any case I think you abuse the word "anointing" in the clear NT meaning of that action. We stand back in amazement at how the work of CWM including our publications work has been used since we launched it in 1994. It really is amazing in our eyes, but then I don't expect you to understand seeing you have not been part of what has happened. It reminds me of the proverb that says: "The poor man uses entreaties, but the rich answers roughly" (Prov 18:23). Barney - do you realise what you have implied? I assure you that we are not rich in the meaning of the word in that verse. I am quite sure that you could buy me over and over again in monetary terms. I really don't know what you are talking about. I wish I could hear some tears, gentleness and tenderness as well as entreaties for prodigals to return home. You can't hear tears in print. You may be surprised what happens behind the scenes, especially in the light of what some of us have gone through as we have taken the stand that we have. BUT please Barney - why are you judging us so harshly? It seems that you are even judging our motives - RIGHT? I have also noticed that in recent publications the articles are becoming increasingly sarcastic. Dr Siam Bhayro, offering porcelain pigs to Ray McCauley, How any spiritual leader can read the facts about Ray McCauley and then jump to his defence amazes and troubles me a great deal. If he reads what Siam Bhayro wrote - and I sincerely hope he does - then I trust he will, as a result set his heart on his ways and repent before he meets his maker. Porcelain pigs will fade into insignificance before God's judgement. Please feel free to tell Mr McCauley I said so if you are in touch with him. May be Ray Bevan will tell him as we know that RB has read what we wrote. I met McCauley once and was not impressed with his obvious smugness and arrogance. cheapens what happens to be a very sad and Christ dishonouring situation. Well at least you acknowledge the fact that Ray McCauley has dishonoured the Lord Jesus Christ. Using names like Pooh and Piglet is not as you claim "satire" but "dishonour" Even Michael the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against Satan, but said "the Lord rebuke you." We weren't writing or talking about that "mighty prince" (Satan). Barney you amaze me. I would have thought that your grasp of the significance of texts of scripture would have been much better than that. Like Michael I would never speak disparagingly of Satan, but surely you are not equating McCauley and Bevan et al with Satan, are you? I also suggest that you consult a dictionary as to the definition of "satire" before you try educating us on what we have asserted. I think this is all I want to say. I leave the matter with you and the Lord, whatever I have said that does not own His approval I pray that He will graciously show me and give grace to repent. Barney - God usually shows us things through other people. He may show you something through me. He may show me something through you. Let us be open one to another and let us not cut off the person or ministry through which we may be helped. Also, whatever He does approve of, I pray that He will give you grace to own it and respond to Christ's bride accordingly. If you can show where I am (we are) wrong biblically I will gladly amend my (our) ways. Otherwise we will press on unless the Lord checks us by some other means. We believe we are on course. I pray our Heavenly Father's blessing on you and your loved ones. In His great love. Barney Thank you Barney. P.S. Philip, I have received your latest e-mail and find it incredulous that you would again quote me in your magazine. I suppose it makes no difference for me to say that this does not have my blessing. Not really. Bring forth a reasonable argument against our quoting you and we will consider it or maybe the entreaty of a "poor man" will achieve the desired result. Come on Barney take another look at Proverbs 18:23. I do not wish to continue in further correspondence between us; Well all you have to do is STOP replying. I don't mind. I'm open to being corrected. Are you? neither do I wish to receive any further copies of your magazine. That's up to you. All you have to do is write to our NZ office and get your name off the list or just do it through our Web Site. I won't do anything about it as I don't handle those things. I just can't keep up with it all. I trust you will find it in your heart to comply with my wishes. May the Lord watch between us. Barney. Amen to that. God bless you Barney. In Christ, Philip. April 9, 2002. ATTENTION: Barney Coombes Dear Barney: {name withheld}, who contacted you regarding the Frank Houston scenario, telephoned me when he returned to Australia. He told me he appreciated your openness and your counsel. However there was one point which surfaced during our conversation which caused me concern. {name withheld} reported you as saying that the person who made the accusation to you against Frank Houston was 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. You told me in an email that if the alleged offence had related to a juvenile you would have reported the matter to the police. I told {name withheld} of this contradiction and said I would contact you about it. I think Barney you should explain this disparity to me and to {name withheld} whom I have copied in on this email. I presume you received my email to you dated April 2, 2002. Seeing you have not replied I am sending it again just in case it went astray. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely in Christ, Philip L. POWELL. THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM BARNEY COOMBES. [ to this date -May 2002 -Ed ] [ TOP ]

Series of emails between Barney Coombes and Philip Powell

A PERSONAL LETTER TO:

PHILIP POWELL, FRANK HOUSTON AND BRIAN HOUSTON

Dear Brothers in Christ,
The purpose of my letter is to present my account of two conversations held between Philip Powell and myself.

The first was concerning a large group of Sikhs of whom it was said had made a public confession of receiving Christ at Glad Tidings Pentecostal Assembly in Vancouver.

The second relates to a phone conversation which has been referred to in the December 2001*1 issue of CWM's magazine which goes as follows: "Shortly after that time when Andrew Evans and his group managed to oust Ralph Read then General Superintendent of AOG in Australia and his group, Frank Houston moved across to Sydney ostensibly on the basis of some vision or dream, though strong rumour has it in New Zealand that there were other rather ominous reasons for his move across the Tasman. In fact Reverend Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me, while I was in New Zealand, with the information that during one of his ministry visits to that country the rumour was so strong that he traveled from Palmerston North to Lower Hutt to put it personally to Frank Houston, who denied all wrong doing."

This quote is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

First off all, the reason for my phoning Philip was to return his call. I did not initiate the conversation. Philip told me that he had heard that I had personally disciplined Frank for immoral behaviour. He asked, was this true? Philip also mentioned that other people had made complaints against Frank regarding certain behaviour whilst they were attending Bible College.

I responded to Philip that it was true that I had visited Frank in Lower Hutt. The reason being, that after a meeting at which I was preaching, I had been approached by a person who stated that Frank had behaved improperly towards them. During this time it came to my knowledge that Frank was visiting a relative in Lower Hutt. I was able to discover the telephone number and asked Frank whether he would be kind enough to meet me. I told Philip that the night before I visited Frank, I was unable to sleep. I did not find it an easy thing to confront a fellow brother engaged in the ministry of our Lord Jesus with such a serious matter. The fact of the matter is, "the Fear of the Lord" lay heavily upon me. On the day of my visit, I was driven to within three blocks of the address, by Fraser Hardy, who was totally unaware of the purpose of my mission, and only found out a year later by some other means. I told Philip that Frank had denied any misconduct and that after praying together, I left. There was nothing further I could do except report back to the person who had first made the complaint to me, saying that Frank had denied that he had done anything wrong. I also said to Philip that in the absence of another witness there was nothing further for me to do. Bearing in mind the Scripture that said "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses."

I am disappointed that I was not consulted before my name was referred to in the above, mentioned article. The fact is, if I had been contacted, I would not have given my permission. This is simply because, whether the allegations are true or not, I do not believe that a public media presentation is the loving way to treat others who belong to the Bride of Christ. Furthermore, I wish to state emphatically that I never said: "the rumour was so strong that he (I) travelled from Palmerston North…." My visit was based exclusively on a one to one conversation. In the meantime, Frank has been disciplined by the AOG. Like all of us, Frank is included in the covenant of grace. As far as I am concerned, this matter is now closed.

I pray that our Heavenly Father's blessing may rest upon each one of you and that each of us will live to the praise of His glory.

[ *1 http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2002/acchd02.html - Ed ]

A PERSONAL RESPONSE BY PHILIP POWELL TO BARNEY COOMBES

- see below.

Copied to Brian Houston, Keith Ainge, John Lewis and Danny Guglielmucci

THURSDAY March 21, 2002.

Dear Barney:

Thanks for your response. My recollection is that what you have now stated in print is substantially accurate, though I dispute that you have been misrepresented and my recollection is that you and I had only one telephone conversation not two, the other communications being written. Also I recall that you said far more in our telephone conversation than you have actually acknowledged. You told me that you always suspected that Frank was guilty and that when you saw or heard him preach you felt that he was a hypocrite. I acknowledge that I did not quote all that passed between you and me in that telephone conversation. I dispute that you were in any way misrepresented for the following reasons:

1) I did not say that you had initiated the telephone conversation and I do not think that such is implied in the publication to which you refer. The fact is that you did telephone me from Canada. You were not returning my call. You were responding to an email or fax.
2) I did not say that you said that the rumour was strong. Those were my words. The fact is that you treated the incident as "rumour" seeing you did not take it further. It was sufficiently strong for you to take initial action in respect of it. I stand by my words

I note your misquote of the actual text of Scripture - "Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses." This is an interpretation not a true and accurate quotation of what Paul wrote or taught. Maybe it is your preferred version, BUT it is inaccurate for logical as well as biblical reasons. In what circumstances, for example, could there ever be a third party witness to an allegation of adultery or for that matter of most sexual offences? It is perfectly clear that Paul was instructing young pastor Timothy to take precaution in having witnesses to any allegation made against an "elder". In other words in the case in point you failed to act biblically when you decided to assume a lone responsibility in the matter. You should have ensured that there were witnesses present when the accusation was presented to you and when you put the matter to the accused. If the person who made the initial complaint was an adult he should have accompanied you and your witnesses when you presented the matter to the accused. There would then have been a basis for you to have referred the accusation to the proper authority viz to the National NZ AoG Executive in the first instance. If there were criminal connotations then the police should also have been contacted by you or by the responsible AoG authority to which you had referred the matter. Much could have been avoided.

Mine is the only sensible and rational conclusion that can be made respecting Paul's instruction - "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses" - 1 Timothy 5:19. I am sorry to have to say this Barney, but you my dear brother must be held accountable. OK hindsight is a great thing and we all make mistakes. You should acknowledge your mistake and not try to rationalize your way out of it on the pretext of Scripture, falsely interpreted and/or applied.

You refer to the Bride of Christ and I guess we all have ideas who comprise it - usually ourselves and some others - RIGHT? All I ask is that you take into account the following Scriptures:

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath MADE HERSELF READY" - Revelation 19:7. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" - 1 Corinthians 6:9. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold {suppress} the truth in unrighteousness; .... 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" - Romans 1:18 - 27 etc. "But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out" - Numbers 32:23. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" - Matthew 7:21-23.

You speak of media involvement. CWM has long since canvassed the idea that the Lord in His gracious mercy allows the Church time to properly judge her own affairs. If she fails then the world will judge and that in all probability will be followed by God's judgement. History proves this and there will be no exception in respect of our time. We know that Frank Houston was subjected to some form of discipline in 1999 and again in 2000. We do not know if he was rebuked before his congregation which Scripture requires. I know that in the case of another former General Superintendent of AoG-NZ this requirement of scripture was NOT carried out in Australia where he now ministers and where he was disciplined. He acknowledged this to me, and added that he wanted it to happen but "the powers that be wouldn't allow it." He now pastors a fairly large AoG church in Brisbane. If the scriptural mandate is not carried out then all sorts of innuendos and rumours persist as in both of these cases ultimately leading to christian and/or secular media involvement. The course is inevitable.

Barney our Lord promised that everything hidden would be revealed. He also told us that we would be condemned or justified by our words. That is how things presently stand.

In view of the fact that you wrote the following email to Brian and Frank Houston I am copying this to the email addresses of Brian that are known to me. I do not have Frank's email address so am copying this to Keith Ainge who is the General Secretary and to John Lewis who is the Assistant President of AoG in Australia. I am also copying it to Danny Guglielmucci who promised to represent my concerns to the National Executive Presbytery of AoG at their next meeting. I believe that my meeting with them would help, but for some reason they are doing everything possible to avoid me.

God bless you Barney. "The mills of God grind slow but exceeding small."

Sincerely in the Love of THE Truth,

Philip L. POWELL.

RESPONSE FROM BARNEY COOMBES

– April 2, 2002.

Dear Philip

Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to make a few observations in response.

I think you are right in saying I was returning your fax/e-mail. You are also right in saying that I did not believe Frank was telling me the truth. But I never said that I thought he was a hypocrite when I heard him preaching. I have never heard him preach and I had only met him on one previous occasion, when we sat together at a banquet. You may be right in saying that there was a better way of handling this. And you may be right in your interpretation of the 1Timothy 5:19 passage. In the light of the general nature of the magazine I could see why you would have a special interest in this verse.

I had no trouble with you forwarding my response to Brian and Frank Houston.

My problem is, that you thought you had the right without asking my permission to report a personal and therefore private conversation in your magazine. That is discourteous by any standard. I notice that you failed to address this in your reply. I was also quite shocked with the way you have made a big issue out of your communication to me being via fax/email and not telephone, but fail to address what you actually printed. The problem is, you did not say I was replying to an initiative taken by you. The way in which you have written, "Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me" can only leave the reader with the clear impression that it was I who instigated this communication. Likewise, your statement "the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North" Again the reader can only be left with the impression that a story was circulating around New Zealand that so impacted me that I found it necessary to visit Frank. If you had to publish this story, why couldn't you simply have said that a man had made a complaint to me against Frank.

And let me hasten to add, I didn't just treat it as rumour by not taking it further. I did the very best thing I could have done; I took it to the Father's throne and left it there. If the complaint had been by a juvenile, I would have reported it to the police, as I have done on previous occasions. The brother who made the complaint was part of a local church and I directed him to share the matter with his pastor.

Philip, I speak as a brother and friend. I have received your magazine for several years now. So I am not speaking from a limited perspective. I probably agree with 75% of what is published. However, I have difficulty with so much of the spirit in which you and your fellow contributors write. I find it unbecoming for men of God who know the Scriptures well and yet seemingly disregard the biblical injunction that says "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one" Col 4:6.

" One thing I do know is that you cannot find any justification for writing accusations against other brothers and sisters with what comes over as obvious pleasure and without regard to their loved ones.

Philip, your magazine style when it is addressing misconduct or a different doctrinal stance to your own position, comes over more like the tabloids. Attention grabbing pointers such as "STOP PRESS" and "watch this space" belong to advertising magazines and the like, not a Christian publication. I doubt whether the Holy Spirit's anointing would rest upon a publication style that seems to be so similar to the world's standards. With a few welcome exceptions, it may inform but it seems to me, that there is very little that edifies, or uplifts Christ. It reminds me of the proverb that says: "The poor man uses entreaties, but the rich answers roughly" Prov 18:23. I wish I could hear some tears, gentleness and tenderness as well as entreaties for prodigals to return home.

I have also noticed that in recent publications the articles are becoming increasingly sarcastic. Dr Siam Bhayro, offering porcelain pigs to Ray McCauley, cheapens what happens to be a very sad and Christ dishonouring situation. Using names like Pooh and Piglet is not as you claim "satire" but "dishonour" Even Michael the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against Satan, but said "the Lord rebuke you."

I think this is all I want to say. I leave the matter with you and the Lord, whatever I have said that does not own His approval I pray that He will graciously show me and give grace to repent. Also, whatever He does approve of, I pray that He will give you grace to own it and respond to Christ's bride accordingly.

I pray our Heavenly Father's blessing on you and your loved ones.

In His great love. Barney

P.S. Philip, I have received your latest e-mail and find it incredulous that you would again quote me in your magazine. I suppose it makes no difference for me to say that this does not have my blessing.

I do not wish to continue in further correspondence between us; neither do I wish to receive any further copies of your magazine. I trust you will find it in your heart to comply with my wishes. May the Lord watch between us. Barney.

FROM PHILIP L. POWELL to BARNEY COOMBES

Dear Barney: - {Email – April 2, 2002).

Thanks for your further response. I did not wish to offend you, but I do think your approach is flawed. Also, Barney, while I recognise your every right to respond to me as you have done I do not recognise any right implied or explicitly requested that I do not respond to your arguments or your assertions. That is arrogance. May be you didn't intend to convey that impression.

My recollection is that you certainly said that you had the impression that FH was a hypocrite when you met with and heard of him. You said it. I did not imagine it. However the fact of the matter is that he was a hypocrite if he denied what was fact back in the 70s and if he denied what I told him was being alleged about him in the 90s. The discipline of '99 and '00 to say the least strongly implies his hypocrisy, deception and dishonesty. So what's the point in you and me falling out over that?

Another point Barney is that while you feel affronted that I mentioned your name without your express permission, in the same breath (pardon the euphemism) "same paragraph" you said you wouldn't have given me permission if I had asked. That would have resulted in my offending you further because I honestly think I had a responsibility to quote you. Why are you like so many others who somehow think they have a reputation to defend and who thus become so sensitive about being quoted? Can't you stand by your word? Even Pilate said, "What I have written I have written." Personally I have no problem with being quoted by anyone anywhere. Why should I and why should you? If anyone misrepresents me I will tell them as much, as you tried to tell me, but ended up shooting yourself in the foot for your words actually confirmed that I had not misrepresented you in any way, not even in respect of impressions that some may or may not have drawn from what I reported. What I wrote was accurate - totally.

PLEASE READ ON - I'll respond to your points in RED PRINT under your comments. Hope it comes out that way.

----- Original Message -----

From: Barney Coombs
To: Philip L Powell
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:46 AM
Subject: Re Magazine article

[ PLP answer in italics -Ed ]

Dear Philip

Thank you for your swift reply. I would like to make a few observations in response. I think you are right in saying I was returning your fax/e-mail. You are also right in saying that I did not believe Frank was telling me the truth. But I never said that I thought he was a hypocrite when I heard him preaching. I have never heard him preach and I had only met him on one previous occasion, when we sat together at a banquet. You may be right in saying that there was a better way of handling this. And you may be right in your interpretation of the 1Timothy 5:19 passage.

Barney - this is crucial to the whole thing and something that I propose to argue in the follow up article which is now under review by our editorial "set-up". I have again quoted you and argued that what you did back in the 70s was based on your misinterpretation of this bible verse. Had you acted according to scripture this whole scenario could have been avoided. I will happily let you have sight of what we propose to publish before we go to print. If you raise reasonable objection we will consider changes or omissions. Please let me know if you want to see the article before we go to print. If I don't hear from you I'll send it to you at this email address.

In the light of the general nature of the magazine I could see why you would have a special interest in this verse.

I have no idea what you mean by this sentence. Please explain what you have in mind.

I had no trouble with you forwarding my response to Brian and Frank Houston.

I thought you had sent it to all three of us i.e. Frank, Brian and me, seeing it was so addressed. Brian has blocked me at his email addresses and I don't have Frank Houston's contact details so I sent the email to the General secretary and to the Assistant president and to another National Executive member.

My problem is, that you thought you had the right without asking my permission to report a personal and therefore private conversation in your magazine. That is discourteous by any standard. I notice that you failed to address this in your reply.

I consider that I have answered this - see above. We are accountable for what we say whether in private or in public. You did not tell me that your comments were "off record". I took you to be a man of your word. I do not consider that I have acted discourteously and you have given no valid reason why you consider that I have.

I was also quite shocked with the way you have made a big issue out of your communication to me being via fax/email and not telephone, but fail to address what you actually printed.

It was no big issue and I did NOT make it into a big issue. That perception exists in your own mind. I simply pointed out my recollection and now you have confirmed that I was right and you were wrong. I do not apologise for what we published. It was factual and you have confirmed that was the case.

The problem is, you did not say I was replying to an initiative taken by you. The way in which you have written, "Barney Coombs, a minister in Canada telephoned me" can only leave the reader with the clear impression that it was I who instigated this communication.

Readers will always jump to conclusions. What is the problem? I did not say that you initiated the conversation. The fact of the matter is that you did telephone me. I did not say that you instigated the communication. Why are you making this into such a big issue?

Likewise, your statement "the rumour was so strong that he travelled from Palmerston North" Again the reader can only be left with the impression that a story was circulating around New Zealand that so impacted me that I found it necessary to visit Frank. If you had to publish this story, why couldn't you simply have said that a man had made a complaint to me against Frank.

So now you confirm that it was a man - RIGHT? In your previous email you said a person and then used the general "them" instead of him. Why Barney? I published what I felt was safe at the time. Since then things have developed to a point where they are quite ominous. I am absolutely convinced that it's clean up time in the Church. Men who purport to be Christian leaders and who are no more than plants of Satan (tares) will be made to face their past. CWM is not going to act foolishly, but we will act courageously as the Lord helps us.

And let me hasten to add, I didn't just treat it as rumour by not taking it further. I did the very best thing I could have done; I took it to the Father's throne and left it there. If the complaint had been by a juvenile, I would have reported it to the police, as I have done on previous occasions. The brother who made the complaint was part of a local church and I directed him to share the matter with his pastor.

You should have asked the "man" to make his accusation in front of witnesses and then if you decided to take the matter to the accused you should have presented it with witnesses present. You did not do the BEST THING possible. Why do you think the man approached you in the first instance and not his pastor? That should have said volumes. You can try to get all spiritual about telling the Father, Barney, but you keep shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you have told the police in the case of a juvenile but not do the right thing with an accusation of homosexuality? My recollection is that back then homosexuality even with consenting adults was a crime - RIGHT? Any way your rationale can be shot through on any basis you may choose. You did the wrong thing Barney and now we have this dreadful scenario which could have and should have been pre-empted.

Philip, I speak as a brother and friend. I have received your magazine for several years now. So I am not speaking from a limited perspective.

I accepted that, but I also know that there are hundreds - may be thousands - who have the same and may be an even better perspective who would disagree with you - So what?

I probably agree with 75% of what is published.

Thanks for that but we're not into the popularity charts business. Truth and correct action are our concerns. If you show where we are wrong - even if you are alone - we will take what you say on board.

However, I have difficulty with so much of the spirit in which you and your fellow contributors write.

Oh yes here we go. It's the spirit not the letter. What do you mean by "so much of the spirit". It's meaningless jargon. By our words we will be condemned and by our words we will be justified. Go to a court of law Barney and talk about the spirit of what you say or write. You will be laughed out of court. Yes we can make mistakes in what we say. But words are words - whether said strongly or smoothed over until they are innocuous. I prefer that people know what I mean.

I find it unbecoming for men of God who know the Scriptures well and yet seemingly disregard the biblical injunction that says "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one" (Col 4:6).

OK - so now it's our "speech" i.e. words not our spirit. We accept that and always try to follow the injunction. When Jesus used harsh words were they not seasoned with salt? What about Paul and what about the OT prophets? No Barney we are not saying that we are at their level we are simply using it as an argument against what you are saying and implying. Please my brother do start to think and don't just follow the status quo which has created the huge problem which is now within Christendom that some think is the Bride of Christ when it is no such thing.

" One thing I do know is that you cannot find any justification for writing accusations against other brothers and sisters with what comes over as obvious pleasure and without regard to their loved ones.

There you go again - judging us. We don't take pleasure in these things which are long overdue for exposure within the so called Church. Do you not think that we also search our hearts? We are absolutely convinced that we are basically on course as the Lord keeps confirming this even in the small timing of events.

Philip, your magazine style when it is addressing misconduct or a different doctrinal stance to your own position, comes over more like the tabloids. Attention grabbing pointers such as "STOP PRESS" and "watch this space" belong to advertising magazines and the like, not a Christian publication.

We acknowledge that we use recognised literary devices and methods. So what's wrong with that? Surely we want to get the attention of our readers. What's wrong with that? If we don't get their attention in all probability they won't read our stuff.

I doubt whether the Holy Spirit's anointing would rest upon a publication style that seems to be so similar to the world's standards. With a few welcome exceptions, it may inform but it seems to me, that there is very little that edifies, or uplifts Christ.

Well that's your opinion. In any case I think you abuse the word "anointing" in the clear NT meaning of that action. We stand back in amazement at how the work of CWM including our publications work has been used since we launched it in 1994. It really is amazing in our eyes, but then I don't expect you to understand seeing you have not been part of what has happened.

It reminds me of the proverb that says: "The poor man uses entreaties, but the rich answers roughly" (Prov 18:23).

Barney - do you realise what you have implied? I assure you that we are not rich in the meaning of the word in that verse. I am quite sure that you could buy me over and over again in monetary terms. I really don't know what you are talking about.

I wish I could hear some tears, gentleness and tenderness as well as entreaties for prodigals to return home.

You can't hear tears in print. You may be surprised what happens behind the scenes, especially in the light of what some of us have gone through as we have taken the stand that we have. BUT please Barney - why are you judging us so harshly? It seems that you are even judging our motives - RIGHT?

I have also noticed that in recent publications the articles are becoming increasingly sarcastic. Dr Siam Bhayro, offering porcelain pigs to Ray McCauley,

How any spiritual leader can read the facts about Ray McCauley and then jump to his defence amazes and troubles me a great deal. If he reads what Siam Bhayro wrote - and I sincerely hope he does - then I trust he will, as a result set his heart on his ways and repent before he meets his maker. Porcelain pigs will fade into insignificance before God's judgement. Please feel free to tell Mr McCauley I said so if you are in touch with him. May be Ray Bevan will tell him as we know that RB has read what we wrote. I met McCauley once and was not impressed with his obvious smugness and arrogance.

cheapens what happens to be a very sad and Christ dishonouring situation.

Well at least you acknowledge the fact that Ray McCauley has dishonoured the Lord Jesus Christ.

Using names like Pooh and Piglet is not as you claim "satire" but "dishonour" Even Michael the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against Satan, but said "the Lord rebuke you."

We weren't writing or talking about that "mighty prince" (Satan). Barney you amaze me. I would have thought that your grasp of the significance of texts of scripture would have been much better than that. Like Michael I would never speak disparagingly of Satan, but surely you are not equating McCauley and Bevan et al with Satan, are you? I also suggest that you consult a dictionary as to the definition of "satire" before you try educating us on what we have asserted.

I think this is all I want to say. I leave the matter with you and the Lord, whatever I have said that does not own His approval I pray that He will graciously show me and give grace to repent.

Barney - God usually shows us things through other people. He may show you something through me. He may show me something through you. Let us be open one to another and let us not cut off the person or ministry through which we may be helped.

Also, whatever He does approve of, I pray that He will give you grace to own it and respond to Christ's bride accordingly.

If you can show where I am (we are) wrong biblically I will gladly amend my (our) ways. Otherwise we will press on unless the Lord checks us by some other means. We believe we are on course.

I pray our Heavenly Father's blessing on you and your loved ones.
In His great love. Barney

Thank you Barney.

P.S. Philip, I have received your latest e-mail and find it incredulous that you would again quote me in your magazine. I suppose it makes no difference for me to say that this does not have my blessing.

Not really. Bring forth a reasonable argument against our quoting you and we will consider it or maybe the entreaty of a "poor man" will achieve the desired result. Come on Barney take another look at Proverbs 18:23.

I do not wish to continue in further correspondence between us;

Well all you have to do is STOP replying. I don't mind. I'm open to being corrected. Are you?

neither do I wish to receive any further copies of your magazine.

That's up to you. All you have to do is write to our NZ office and get your name off the list or just do it through our Web Site. I won't do anything about it as I don't handle those things. I just can't keep up with it all.

I trust you will find it in your heart to comply with my wishes. May the Lord watch between us. Barney.

Amen to that.
God bless you Barney.
In Christ,
Philip.

April 9, 2002.
ATTENTION: Barney Coombes

Dear Barney:

{name withheld}, who contacted you regarding the Frank Houston scenario, telephoned me when he returned to Australia. He told me he appreciated your openness and your counsel. However there was one point which surfaced during our conversation which caused me concern. {name withheld} reported you as saying that the person who made the accusation to you against Frank Houston was 15 years of age at the time of the alleged offence. You told me in an email that if the alleged offence had related to a juvenile you would have reported the matter to the police. I told {name withheld} of this contradiction and said I would contact you about it.

I think Barney you should explain this disparity to me and to {name withheld} whom I have copied in on this email.

I presume you received my email to you dated April 2, 2002. Seeing you have not replied I am sending it again just in case it went astray.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

Philip L. POWELL.

THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM BARNEY COOMBES.

[ to this date -May 2002 -Ed ]

[ TOP ]

© Copyright 2005 Christian-Witness Ministries, except where noted. All rights reserved
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources

-Last revised-Friday, May 31, 2002