I have uncovered several rather eye-opening articles about Jacob Prasch from the late 1990s. This is the second in the collection:
In the first release, we saw David Pawson‘s arbitration report between Prasch and the Elim denomination in Australia which was quite an eye-popping exposé on Prasch’s tactics of misinformation, guilt by association, and ad hominem slurs. So here [boxed below] is Prasch’s response to Pawson’s report he posted on his website Moriel.org. And bear in mind as you read it that Pawson had been hand-picked by Prasch to be the arbiter between him and Elim, that was apparently only until Pawson dished out a reality check…
It is followed with a commentary by Prasch’s former Moriel Australia volunteer and book publisher Henry Sheppard who rips Prasch’s attack to shreds.
Attack on David Pawson
The following statement appeared on Jacob’s web site during September 1999.
|DAVID PAWSON ARBITRATION REPORT
INVALIDATED DUE TO DAVID PAWSON’S
ADMITTED PRO-TORONTO EXPERIENCE BIAS
The 1998 arbitration report prepared by Rev. David Pawson in the ongoing dispute between Moriel ministries and The Elim Pentecostal Movement over doctrinal differences related to Elim’s sponsorship of The Laughing Experience and their importation into Britain of various money preachers has been invalidated.In the report David Pawson admits that he is not a neutral arbitrator due to his position on what is commonly called ‘The Toronto Experience’, which Pawson calls a “yellow light”, advising people to proceed into it with caution in his book on the subject “IS THE BLESSING BIBLICAL”? In this light Pawson refused refused to allow video evidence demonstrating , among other things, the excesses of the Toronto Experience and the heretical doctrines of its leaders endorsed and promoted by Elim which would have inherently brought an indictment of Pawson’s own ‘Yellow Light – proceed with caution position’.While Moriel complied with the arbitrators recommendations despite its bias, Elim unilaterally abrogated the findings as its Executive has not rectified the editorial and advertising policies of Elim publications, and Pawson refused as arbitrator to address this failure. Ian Bilby, the leading pastor of Elim’s New Zealand wing, an arch proponent of both Toronto and Benny Hinn meanwhile has left the ministry with his worship director after disclosures of serious sexual immorality.For an arbitration to be valid, its arbitrator must be neutral and unbiased.Moriel is saddened by David Pawson’s position, which we find gravely disappointing and fundamentally inconsistent with the ministry of a brother we always regarded as a man of integrity and a worthwhile bible expositor. David Pawson saw some of the videos of the Laughing Revival and is familiar with at least some of the apostate nature of the doctrines of its leaders, yet calls the light yellow, while Jacob Prasch and Moriel call it unmistakably red. After several years no authentic revival has emerged from this carnality and heretical chaos, and the case of Elim’s Ian Bilby is but one case in point proving it. The epistle of James (James 3:1) warns that teachers will be judged more strictly than others because they can mislead God’s people into error and demonic deception – which Moriel holds that Toronto is.We grieve that a man who people trusted as a respected Bible teacher and looked to for a clear Bible based direction from The Lord instructed them that a red light was yellow and told them to proceed with caution. Proceeding on red causes accidents and even death. Moriel , as an organisation of Pentecostal and Charismatic moderates, stands by its position that ‘The Laughing and Drunkenness Revival’ is a demonic deception that is a prelude to The Great Apostasy of 2 Thessalonians and we are appalled at David Pawson’s published position to the contrary. While we do not wish to attack Rev. Pawson personally or dismiss the credibility of the other fine things he has produced in the past, the Toronto deception has been a watershed for many ministries. It is therefore with profound regret we announce that we can no longer sanction his ministry, nor the ministry of any other who is used by the wicked one to mislead God’s people into something plainly satanic.
Former Moriel Australia volunteer Henry Sheppard’s response:
Here we go again! More of Jacob’s sleight-of-hand. The arbitration report did NOT arise from “doctrinal differences related to Elim’s sponsorship of The Laughing Experience…” as Jacob claims. The reason for David Pawson being invited to arbitrate between Jacob and Elim was that Elim had been forced to go to court to protect their workers in Northern Ireland from sudden violent death resulting from Jacob’s extraordinary claims about them (his most memorable claim being: “JOIN ELIM AND KILL FOR CHRIST!”)
The rest of Jacob’s attack on David Pawson displays many of the flaws that were so well described in the arbitration report:
“Guilt by association is a prominent feature of his invective, however tenuous the connection may have been.”
In this case, Jacob calls on a Bilby in New Zealand to condemn Pawson. The argument here appears to be:
1. Pawson failed to condemn Elim.
2. A person associated with Elim [10,000 miles away in New Zealand]
is guilty of sexual immorality.
3. Jacob has yet to be publicly found guilty of sexual immorality.
4. Therefore Pawson’s arbitration report should be ignored.
This is not an example of logical reasoning we would normally expect from someone with Jacob’s level of education.
“On his own admission, emotion takes over, especially if the initial criticism is rejected or just ignored. A combination of frustration and indignation lead to intemperate language, unchecked accusations and insulting innuendo. The result is a barrage of abuse which not only antagonises his opponents even further but also embarrasses his allies. ”
1. “David Pawson admits that he is not a neutral arbitrator…”
Jacob insinuates that this is something he has just discovered. In fact the book that Jacob attacks was published well before Jacob chose David Pawson as arbitrator. His position was well known, a fact that is fairly obvious from Pawson’s own report. It is dishonest to pretend that Pawson’s findings can be dismissed after the event on the basis of a fact that was well known before the event.
2. “Proceeding on red causes accidents and even death.”
Another logical sleight-of-hand! No one has suggested that we proceed on a red light. David Pawson counselled caution. Jacob has twisted that warning into an imaginary approval of every evil thing!
3. “We do not wish to attack Rev. Pawson personally…”
Really? Then why describe him as being “used by the wicked one to mislead God’s people into something plainly satanic”? This is exactly the kind of “abuse which not only antagonises his opponents even further but also embarrasses his allies” that David Pawson has previously observed.
While we have taken a harder stand on the question of Toronto than has David Pawson, we respect his attempt at balance and objectivity. He has displayed a pastor’s concern for the flock in counselling against any precipitate rejection of those individuals who have embraced something they may later recognise as false. Jacob demands the immediate and total rejection (condemnation even) of those who fail to instantly accept his point of view.
The Body of Christ needs a dividing of the ways with people who promote false doctrine, not the unbridled condemnation of those who are merely ignorant or confused; it certainly does not need ever more violent attacks on innocent Christians whose only mistake has been to attempt to assist Jacob Prasch.