Joint Statement of Concern Over the Ministry of Beresford Job

The five of us co-signing this letter formerly co-ministered with Beresford Job, but not any longer. When Mary was found to be with child, Joseph purposed to quietly end their engagement. For years we took a similar approach in this situation and tried to separate from him quietly. However, he would have none of it. Says Mr. Job, “I simply have too much respect for the wider body than to try and just palm the Lord’s people off with some ‘public relations’-oriented dishonesty designed to cover-up and side-step the issue by painting a completely false picture that all is well. I am an Ephesians 4 itinerant ministry, not a politician. Having things like this out in the light for all to see is the biblical and good thing to do because it engenders public accountability.”

Three of the five of us signing this letter (Steve Atkerson, Les Buford and Dan Trotter) were the ones who first introduced Mr. Job to the American church scene (via a Southern church conference we hosted). Another signer (Ed Caouette) is founder of a New England church conference and introduced him to the New England church world. The fifth signer (Matt Durning) took over the New England church conference after Ed moved away. Sadly, we have now all come to the point that we feel it is our melancholy duty to advise you that we have grown to have serious reservations about his itinerant ministry. In short, we can no longer commend him.

Yes, Mr. Job is an interesting speaker. No, he is not a heretic doctrinally. We believe him to be sincere and well-meaning, which makes him all the more dangerous. The problem is that we do think him not well suited to an Ephesians 4 itinerant ministry. An itinerant Ephesians 4 minister should bring unity to a local church, not division and turmoil. Our primary concern lies in what we perceive to be a lack of judgment in dealing with people in local church situations. In our cases it has caused harm. We are also concerned about his deficient views on both Christian education and the proper role of elders, his criticism of systematic theology and his seeming disdain for the church of history.

Over the years that we have known Mr. Job, we were repeatedly struck by the horror stories he would relay about how certain pastors had unjustly treated him. We have come to suspect that the common denominator in these diverse situations is Mr. Job himself. If he dealt with those other leaders in any way similarly to the way he did with each of us, it is no wonder that they would be less than enthusiastic about having him around.

Who are we to criticize? Collectively, we have served as leaders in both traditional and house churches for decades. Over a ten-year period, Mr. Job spoke at many of our conferences and also came on a regular basis to our churches. He has stayed in our homes. Several of us have visited his church in England. We fully realize that it is possible that we are the ones who are the problem, that we are unreasonable, that we are hopelessly biased by unbiblical attitudes and expectations, that we have unrealistic expectations and that we are immature. If only one of us had these problems with Mr. Job, it would be very likely that problem was not with him at all. However, for five leaders in four churches across three states and associated with two conferences to have these same concerns and experiences with him should give you pause. Sadly, each of us, in turn, has come to the point that we can no longer recommend his ministry.

He quite rightly teaches on the need for graciousness, love and community. Those who have never experienced it personally simply cannot believe that Mr. Job could be as difficult and troublesome as we have described him. Their doubt is understandable, as we ourselves enjoyed his company for a long time before the problems began to appear. His recent extremist teachings were unknown to us. However, we have learned about Mr. Job, and we have suffered a great deal in our education. We caution you not to be awed by his personal demeanor and the seeming gentility of his British accent. He presents himself as a cuddly and naive Winnie-The-Pooh figure, but the reality is far different. We are trying to save you a great deal of pain. If you choose to disbelieve the evidence concerning Mr. Job contained in this letter, please understand that you do so at your great peril. You have been warned.

Perhaps part of the larger problem is that Mr. Job has essentially never worked under anyone else’s authority, has never experienced the 8 to 5 work-a-day secular grind (he has been exclusively in full-time ministry since he was a teenager) and for decades was fairly isolated in a tiny house church in England. During the three months of the year when he is in the States, he is not on a ministry team and is seemingly accountable to no one. We suspect that, due to this lack of experience, he does not have a healthy perspective on how to deal with and interact with others. He seems to be a man who is used to getting his own way. One leader described him as a bully. We have found him to be uncooperative, not a team player and somewhat of a prima dona. It seems to us that Mr. Job is a man who always has to be right. Perhaps something tragic in his past causes him to now vindicate himself at all costs. As it is, he seems to have somewhat of a martyr’s complex, claiming in his video recordings to be persecuted for the truth, to have suffered a murdered reputation, to have been discredited, and to have had his character assassinated. This is the perfect defense mechanism for someone who has caused so much dissension and distrust. Perhaps the reason he is being “persecuted” is not because he is teaching the truth, but because people are defending themselves against his personal and theological attacks.

We are also concerned with his overly harsh criticism of the historical church. He calls Augustine a “great influence for evil” and a “heretic” whose theology was “twisted” and a “perversion.” The Reformation, he claims, represents truth adrift from grace. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are denounced as “doctrinal mafia” who are really “no different than Idi Amin”(!). They should, he pronounces, be condemned. Mr. Job further declares, “I’m not bowing down to the consensus of church history. Of course, I’m not.” To do such a thing, he says, would be “ridiculous.” Buying into Mr. Job’s isolationist approach to Biblical interpretation leaves one wide open to all manner of aberrant teachings, removing the protection of the regula fide and the consensus of God’s people down through the ages. Historical humility seemingly plays no role in Mr. Job’s interpretive approach. The result is that he effectively insulates himself from the corrective counsel of two millennia of lessons learned through those who have gone before us in the Faith.

He rails against systematic theology as opposed to what he calls his own “biblical” theology. The problem is that a false dichotomy is created. He subtly presents his own personal interpretation as the correct biblical position on various topics. Those who disagree with him are sometimes portrayed as being prejudiced by man-made systematic theologies. He says that “isms” (such as Calvinism or Arminianism) should be “was-ims.” To this we ask, is not his self-professed Biblicism an “ism”? Too often, his “biblical” theology is really just Job-ism in disguise. When Paul criticized those who said, “I follow Apollo” or “I follow Cephas,” he went on to also criticize those who claimed, “I follow Christ.” Similarly, boasting that one holds only to “biblical” theology (as opposed to “isms”) is really just as sectarian as claiming to follow Christ.

Although Mr. Job has not separated himself from the Faith, he is operating as a functional Gnostic. The original Gnostics took their stand on visions they had seen, and were correctable by no one. Mr. Job, by contrast, takes his stand on his purported “biblicism.” Too often, it seems to us that it is as if his interpretation is correct, and uncorrectable by any of his comrades in the Faith. The original Gnostics were Gnostics of the “spirit,” whereas Mr. Job is a Gnostic of the “letter.” His life points to a pattern of isolation from correction by others, both in things doctrinal and personal. We have already pointed out that he has for all practical purposes never been corrected by a manager in a secular work situation, does not minister on a team when traveling and insulates himself from the corrective counsel of two millennia of lessons learned by the church. Such narcissism would merely be tragic, if it weren’t dressed up in Mr. Job’s eloquence and persuasiveness. But unfortunately, his narcissism has a grave potential of seducing others, and thus the warnings contained in this letter.

His disdain for formal training (such as offered via Bible colleges and seminaries) is troubling. He calls them elitist institutions of indoctrination that create future “generals” schooled in how to take charge of churches. Seminary graduates are slandered as “theological thugs” and “arrogant.” After boasting that he has no university degrees, he then declared, “I have been very blessed to have never been to seminary.” Had he attended a seminary, he says he would consider such an education to be “irrelevant” and “trash.” He holds himself up as an example of someone who is “doing pretty well” without having ever received formal training. We are not so sure of that. Perhaps Mr. Job’s slander of seminary graduates says more about him than it does them. He seems to have a sort of academic Napoleonic complex, seeking to justify his own lack of training by denigrating others.

A final concern lies in his view of local church leadership. The final import of his teaching is to remove all authority from elders. He concurs with us that an elder’s job is to build consensus and to lead the church in making decisions corporately; elders are not to make decisions in isolation and behind closed doors. Yet the fact remains that in the final analysis, Scripture calls upon the church to yield to its leaders (Heb 13:17). Mr. Job seems not to allow for this. In any event, we have seen him too often disregard the sentiments of local elders. Worst yet, too often he has sided with the discontent in opposition to the elders. In more than one of our situations, we have seen him earn the close trust of people in the church who were disaffected with the leadership.

If you have been cooperating smoothly with Mr. Job, perhaps you should ask yourself some questions. Have you ever even mildly challenged Mr. Job on a point, and had a reasonable give-and-take? Or have you rather been lectured to? Have you ever challenged him on his right as a visitor and guest concerning his authority to direct things in your local assembly, as opposed to merely giving advice? If your answer is no, then we would suggest you pray that you never need to confront Mr. Job over anything, because if you do, all sweet reasonableness will disappear. You will be face to face with a man evidently driven by some inner, psychological process whose prime directive is self-vindication and the destruction of any and all opposition, even at the cost of friendship and brotherly love.

In this letter we have dealt with two major problems which we have encountered with Mr. Job. One problem might be labeled theological; the other might perhaps be called practical and personal. The latter is, in our view, the more serious. One can disagree with someone theologically without experiencing personal pain. But when a ministry has reproduced such deleterious results, leaving in its wake pain and broken relationships, one must not merely disagree, he must rather flee. However, even though the personal difficulties we see in Mr. Job’s work are more troublesome to us, we should make it clear that even if there were no personal problems at all, we believe his doctrinal beliefs to be so aberrant that they are dangerous. And even if his doctrinal beliefs were standard and non-controversial, his personal practices, standing alone, are enough to bring danger to those who deal with Mr. Job.

Should you find yourselves in disagreement with this letter, and should you wish to maintain a ministerial relationship with Mr. Job, we wish you well. We do not criticize you for being able to work with him in a constructive fashion. However, we believe that we have offered enough evidence in this letter (without going into a lot of personal detail) to illustrate to you the grief and aversion we feel. Perhaps you cannot feel the pain by reading the type, but it is there, and it is real. Three of us launched him into ministry in the United States, and for these three (Steve, Les, and Dan) to have reaped such bitter fruit, is truly sad. We are not masochists; we have decided to avoid any more pain, and to avoid any more sadness. If that causes you trouble, we ask that you put yourselves in our shoes, and ask: “How would I feel?” Just as we don’t criticize your continued association with Mr. Job, we think it is reasonable for you not to criticize our decision to end our association with him. Paul came to the point that he preferred not to co-minister with John Mark. For reasons you now understand, we have come to a similar position regarding Mr. Job.

Steve Atkerson, Les Buford, Ed Caouette, Matt Durning, Dan Trotter

Note: Quotations of Mr. Job are mostly taken from lectures 4 & 5 of his series, “Embracing Biblical Truth Biblically: A Challenge to the Error of Mere Doctrinalism!”

11/24/13