To Those Who Left CFCMI--Religious Affiliation Today

[bramble]

I was wondering what sort of religious affiliation those who have left CFCMI have years after the fact. I imagine there could be a great deal of variation. It all depends on the number of posters and voters. I thank you for your help.

I am just trying to track what people do once they leave a cult.

[John Cady]

I embraced Oneness Pentecostal/Apostolic teachings while in CFCMI, and re-affirmed my beliefs in such based on individual study over the years. I presently worship at an Apostolic Oneness church in Baltimore.

[bramble]

I embraced Oneness Pentecostal/Apostolic teachings while in CFCMI, and re-affirmed my beliefs in such based on individual study over the years. I presently worship at an Apostolic Oneness church in Baltimore.

Thanks for responding. The thing I am trying to understand is how you decided stay in an Apostolic Oneness Church. Can you elaborate?

How were you able discern what things CFC taught you were to be embraced and which were to be discarded?

Had you ever considered other kinds of Churches?

I'm just trying set up a sounding board; it may help other walkouts. I think this needs to be discussed. I know walkouts go in many different directions in terms of where and how they worship. I trust God will lead them to the right place.

[John Cady]

Thanks for responding. The thing I am trying to understand is how you decided stay in an Apostolic Oneness Church. Can you elaborate?

How were you able discern what things CFC taught you were to be embraced and which were to be discarded?

Had you ever considered other kinds of Churches?

I'm just trying set up a sounding board; it may help other walkouts. I think this needs to be discussed. I know walkouts go in many different directions in terms of where and how they worship. I trust God will lead them to the right place.
My answers:

1. I understood and studied on my own the teachings of Oneness vs. trinity. I came to the conclusion on my own that Oneness was the original teaching of the New Testament Church, and that the trinity doctrine would come along later. The whole Old Testament makes references to God appearing in flesh (the Son), and dwelling in us (the Holy Ghost). These are only three of many maifestations of the Almighty throughout the Bible. I do not believe there are three separate entities in heaven; John the Revelator saw only ONE on the throne when he was in the Spirit. I could continue on and on, but time and page length will not permit me here.

2. My discernment process actually began in 2001, when I went on deployment after 9/11. I began to see serious aberrations in the CFCMI doctrine, especially in the areas of accountability and the eunuchship doctrine. After I left, I sifted through pages of notes from other Oneness churches, comparing them to my old CFCMI notes, and made prayerful decisions as to which doctrine to keep and which to discard. I realized the CFCMI teaching on the Holy Ghost was an erroneous teaching which was made in 1979, five years after the church was founded. Before this, they were an independent Apostolic church. The eunuchship doctrine was created solely by Davis to fulfill his perversion; Paine and Thomas try to use the doctrine to maintain their money supply. Their teaching on holiness was more focused on outward appearance than on the inward man. Finally, they were very weak in their understanding of the end times, when the rapture is going to take place, and the mark of the beast.

3. I have visited other churches whose beliefs and doctrines differ from my own; some were nice, and some were pretty "out there". However, while I may visit from time to time, I am quite solid in my foundation, and am not going to change my stand on the core values of my faith as a Christian.

Hope this helps answer some questions.

[bramble]

My answers:

1. I understood and studied on my own the teachings of Oneness vs. trinity. I came to the conclusion on my own that Oneness was the original teaching of the New Testament Church, and that the trinity doctrine would come along later. The whole Old Testament makes references to God appearing in flesh (the Son), and dwelling in us (the Holy Ghost). These are only three of many maifestations of the Almighty throughout the Bible. I do not believe there are three separate entities in heaven; John the Revelator saw only ONE on the throne when he was in the Spirit. I could continue on and on, but time and page length will not permit me here.

A. How can we know Oneness is the original teaching?

B. I also believe God manifests himself in different ways...

C. In Revelation John saw Jesus, wouldn't you agree?

D. How can Jesus pray to his Father in the Garden or from The Cross?

E. How do you explain Jesus' Baptism as presented in the Gospels?

2. My discernment process actually began in 2001, when I went on deployment after 9/11. I began to see serious aberrations in the CFCMI doctrine, especially in the areas of accountability and the eunuchship doctrine. After I left, I sifted through pages of notes from other Oneness churches, comparing them to my old CFCMI notes, and made prayerful decisions as to which doctrine to keep and which to discard. I realized the CFCMI teaching on the Holy Ghost was an erroneous teaching which was made in 1979, five years after the church was founded. Before this, they were an independent Apostolic church. The eunuchship doctrine was created solely by Davis to fulfill his perversion; Paine and Thomas try to use the doctrine to maintain their money supply. Their teaching on holiness was more focused on outward appearance than on the inward man. Finally, they were very weak in their understanding of the end times, when the rapture is going to take place, and the mark of the beast.

F. How do you mean 'holiness'?

G. Weak in terms of end times, rapture? It seems to me to be a focal point of some in CFC--maybe not Pastors. How are they weak?

3. I have visited other churches whose beliefs and doctrines differ from my own; some were nice, and some were pretty "out there". However, while I may visit from time to time, I am quite solid in my foundation, and am not going to change my stand on the core values of my faith as a Christian.

Hope this helps answer some questions.

H. Please tell me what you think about Evangelical Churches. Did you ever join any?

I. What do you think 'Trinitarians' believe about Godhead?

You know where I stand. I'm just trying to figure where you are coming from. Thanks again!

(BTW: I don't believe in Three Gods either! I believe in One God in Three Persons--Confused? Me too!)

[John Cady]

A. How can we know Oneness is the original teaching?

B. I also believe God manifests himself in different ways...

C. In Revelation John saw Jesus, wouldn't you agree?

D. How can Jesus pray to his Father in the Garden or from The Cross?

E. How do you explain Jesus' Baptism as presented in the Gospels?

F. How do you mean 'holiness'?

G. Weak in terms of end times, rapture? It seems to me to be a focal point of some in CFC--maybe not Pastors. How are they weak?

H. Please tell me what you think about Evangelical Churches. Did you ever join any?

I. What do you think 'Trinitarians' believe about Godhead?

You know where I stand. I'm just trying to figure where you are coming from. Thanks again! (BTW: I don't believe in Three Gods either! I believe in One God in Three Persons--Confused? Me too!)
A. Throughout the Old Testament, in particular the book of Isaiah, there is only ONE God mentioned. Moses was told in Deuteronomy the the Lord is one God. In the gospel of Matthew it says Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost; if He is the Son of God, then the Holy Ghost must be the Spirit of the Living God. It cannot be a separate entity, or the blessed book we read would be a lie. Again, this question alone goes into far greater depth than I have room to discuss here and get to the other questions.

B. I agree too.

C. Yes, I believe John the Revelator saw Jesus on the throne.

D. Jesus, the man, was flesh; what was in Him was the fullness of the Spirit of God in a human form. Psalm 65:2 tells us all flesh must pray. That earthen vessel was praying to the Spirit which was in it. Those who teach three separate beings have it almost right, but do not grasp the full relationship between Jesus and the Father.

E. Jesus was without sin. However, His baptism symbolized the washing of the priest and the sacrifice. Christ was the high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and He was the Lamb of God sacrificed for our sins. When Christ was baptized, God manifested Himself to John both through the dove and the voice from heaven; this was not the Trinity as the three being theology teaches, but the revelation of Christ's identity to John the Baptist.

F. Holiness is a lifestyle of separation unto God. It means we do not run with the wickedness of this world; it starts from the inside and makes itself known on the outside. Unfortunately, too many churches focus more on the outside than the inside. There must be a balance.

G. The CFCMI leadership never taught anything in depth about the end times, world events in relation to Bible prophecy, nor where the rapture fits in the divine timeline. The two most common theologies on the rapture are pre-tribulation and post-tribulation. Whenever the subject of the one world government and the mark of the beast was brought up, Ed and Pete would never discuss this openly. I was full-bore pre-trib, but lately have been more open to post-trib teachings as the final events unfold. Regardless, we must be ready at all times for Jesus' return.

H. I think there is a lot I have in common with most Evangelical churches, and especially with Fundamentalist churches. I have visited a few, and if invited would visit if my schedule permits. However, I am stedfast in my beliefs and will continue to follow the Oneness message. Many evangelicals do not teach baptism as part of salvation, much less in Jesus' name. I am not slamming anyone, but merely pointing out where we disagree.

I. Most Christians who claim to subscribe to trinitarian teachings do so out of lack of understanding. My dad, who was raised Methodist (and does not attend church anywhere), believes in only one God but like so many others, does not understand the origins of the doctrine. The Catholic Church is very open about its teachings on the subject: three separate, coexistent, coeternal beings in heaven. From what I have read and studied, this teaching is a contradiction of Scripture. I believe if most evangelical and mainline church members and ministers studied the origins of the trinity doctrine for themselves, and not blindly follow tradition, they would see the error. Martin Luther in his Protestant Reformation denounced most Catholic teachings except the trinity, for example.

Again, time and page space do not permit me to go into a full discourse on this subject, but I hope this answers some of the questions.

[bramble]

A. Throughout the Old Testament, in particular the book of Isaiah, there is only ONE God mentioned. Moses was told in Deuteronomy the the Lord is one God. In the gospel of Matthew it says Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost; if He is the Son of God, then the Holy Ghost must be the Spirit of the Living God. It cannot be a separate entity, or the blessed book we read would be a lie. Again, this question alone goes into far greater depth than I have room to discuss here and get to the other questions.

Let's try to take this one thing at a time. I think I asked too many questions in my last post.

We both agree that there is only One God. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Living God--I agree. The Holy Ghost, I was taught, proceeds from Father and Son. God is love and His love grows. Jn. 16:7 and following explains their relationship.

The question that arises is this: Is God Father, Son, and Holy Ghost but still only One God?

How do these Persons (not to be confused as separate gods) interact?

Does God alternate between being Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Can he appear in different forms but be in one place all at the same time?

How do you interpret Mark 28:19-20? How does this passage define Godhead?

Take Care!

[bramble]

I would like to talk more on some of the things here. I'm not sure if we're getting too off topic. This is in reply to post on Godhead.

One thing I would like to point out regarding Catholics and Lutherans in particular is that they are sooo much alike that if I see a Lutheran service on TV, I have to watch for a long time to figure out if it Lutheran or Catholic.

When Martin Luther started the Lutheran Church he brought most Catholic beliefs and devotions with him. He believed that the Eucharist was Truly Jesus (God) on the altar. He had a great devotion to Mary. He prayed the rosary.

Bach even wrote an Oratorio about Mary called "Magnificat"

The Lutheran Church changed over time and seems to have splintered into 'Synods'. Doctrine changed regarding Eucharist and other things.

ELCA--very liberal largest Lutheran Church

WELS--extremely conservative and small

Misouri Synod--similar to WELS

[turningjapanese]

In my experience, Lutherans do not focus so much on Mary, the rosary, the "Saints," the male-dominated hierarchy that the Catholics do. Lutherans do not have mandatory "confessions" for forgiveness, no "last rites" required for "entry" into Heaven, no man-made restrictions on family planning, no "hoop-jumping" required for baptism, confirmation, marriage, divorce, or other such events. All those things are extraneous; the focus is on God's grace, building an appropriate personal relationship with your creator, and following Christ's examples of love and compassion. There is no strict adherence to dogma, intense Bible studies, or expected "church duties" to fulfill.

It is often called "Catholic Lite."

And in my years of worshipping, visiting different churches of various faiths:

Not once have I ever heard a sermon focused on tithing, stewardship, "Sacrificial Living" or whatever you can call begging for money. I have never seen, in ANY service I have EVER attended, a parishioner being "singled out and scolded" like a child. I have never heard ANY "leader" proclaim hellfire, crashes, deaths, amputations or other catastrophies on those that express a question or voice a disagreement. Nor have I heard derogatory comments made to married couples or children---for being married, or for acting like kids do. "Proving" your spirituality by raking a "pastor's" yard or washing his car--especially if he himself is physically able to do it, is a foreign concept to me. It's exploitave. I thought the only people that practice "shunning" were the Amish.

I laugh when I hear these utterly ridiculous rantings about "demonic revolts" and "satanic distractions." Sounds like Ed just stepped out of the 1600s, when they were burning "witches" at the stake. Just reveals how "primitive" his thinking is.


In my opinion, the world would be a better place if we just live the message of Christ.

[bramble]

In my experience, Lutherans do not focus so much on Mary, the rosary, the "Saints," the male-dominated hierarchy that the Catholics do. Lutherans do not have mandatory "confessions" for forgiveness, no "last rites" required for "entry" into Heaven, no man-made restrictions on family planning, no "hoop-jumping" required for baptism, confirmation, marriage, divorce, or other such events. All those things are extraneous; the focus is on God's grace, building an appropriate personal relationship with your creator, and following Christ's examples of love and compassion. There is no strict adherence to dogma, intense Bible studies, or expected "church duties" to fulfill.

It is often called "Catholic Lite." I see sacraments as something that God gave us to help us along--a way to get more grace. I don't believe we can work our way to heaven, either. I am a firm beliver in grace.

I was saying that Lutherans have changed a little over the centuries. They used to honor Mary. I was reading a wikipedia article on Martin Luther--very interesting!

As far as family planning goes that should between God and the couple. Catholics have a lot more freedom than CFC in this and in all areas--this I know.Notice how CFC restricts marriage--that is sort of a coerced family planning by default. Catholics and Lutherans embrace marriage and children.

'Catholic Lite' are those who are sometimes called Cafeteria Catholics--' more ice cream, hold the salad' They ignore Church teaching if they disagree with it. They are also Cultural Catholics. They are far from rigid and like to do their own thing. Cathoic Lite is also watered down liturgy.

And in my years of worshipping, visiting different churches of various faiths:

Not once have I ever heard a sermon focused on tithing, stewardship, "Sacrificial Living" or whatever you can call begging for money. I have never seen, in ANY service I have EVER attended, a parishioner being "singled out and scolded" like a child. I have never heard ANY "leader" proclaim hellfire, crashes, deaths, amputations or other catastrophies on those that express a question or voice a disagreement. Nor have I heard derogatory comments made to married couples or children---for being married, or for acting like kids do. "Proving" your spirituality by raking a "pastor's" yard or washing his car--especially if he himself is physically able to do it, is a foreign concept to me. It's exploitave. I thought the only people that practice "shunning" were the Amish.

Shunning=cult IMO. A lot of these superstitious things that they are told come right out of the UPC playbook. Some ex-UPC members claim that Pentecostals are a mix of Voo Doo and Fundamantalism as one of the founders was African American. The other was white. Pentecostals are sometimes threatened in the same way as CFC members to not leave.

Any Church as obsessed with money as CFC is not Godly. "The love of money is the root of all evil".

Scolding is abusive. Let the pastor wash his own car and pull his own weeds and so forth. It could help HIS spirituality. It is all the menial chores that are the real Demonic Destraction. We need down time to listen to God for real.

I laugh when I hear these utterly ridiculous rantings about "demonic revolts" and "satanic distractions." Sounds like Ed just stepped out of the 1600s, when they were burning "witches" at the stake. Just reveals how "primitive" his thinking is.
Jesus said we must become like little children. Children are not a demonic distraction. They are a blessing from God. No wonder CFCMI is no longer receiving the blessing the once did from God. No wonder people are leaving and things are going haywire. If Satan started a Church it would probably be much like CFC--tedious chores, no real Bible Studies, materialism for some, poverty for most, no free time. Where is their Holy Joy! I don't see many real smiles there.

In my opinion, the world would be a better place if we just live the message of Christ. If only we would live our lives so others would see Christ in us and we would see Christ in others. The world would be a heavenly place.

[bramble]

I see now we have picked up another poster. Our poll now says 66% Apostolic Oneness.

Here is my question for you two. Have you experienced any problems in your current Churches that are in any reminescent of CFCMI:

1) Keeping track of how much you tithe and getting upset if you can't keep up?

2) Mandatory tithing?

3) Mandatory free labor?

4) Mandatory dress code?

5) Not allowing friendships outside of current Church?

6) Controlling what your read or what music you listen to et cetera?

7) Anything else you can think of...

[harrol]

Bramble,

I put down my belief not were I attend. I am having a hard time going back to church regularly.

[bramble]

Bramble,

I put down my belief not were I attend. I am having a hard time going back to church regularly.


I'm sorry to hear that. I understand.

You make a valuable point here. I know from what I have studied that for many that jumping headlong into another religious experince soon after leaving a cult is often unhealthy. Go slow. Are you in any sort of therapy?--if you don't mind me asking--not meaning to pry. How are you getting on?


God Bless!

[harrol]

No I am not in therapy. I have gone to several churches and spoke to a couple of pastors. They assured me that they were nothing like CFC but could not offer a whole lot of guidance.

[bramble]

No I am not in therapy. I have gone to several churches and spoke to a couple of pastors. They assured me that they were nothing like CFC but could not offer a whole lot of guidance.


I'm glad that you found this board, like I said before. Have you ever read www.abusivechurches.com (http://www.abusivechurches.com) (or .org; they own both domains). That is how I learned what I know about CFC.

I knew CFC was there since I was in grade school--bad news even then. I didn't know much about them until recently.

I wonder how one finds an anti-cult type therapist. I found a few on the web. Most ministers don't know much about cults. My pastor does. He's the exception. Most therapists don't know much about cults, either.

Another good link is www.rickross.com (http://www.rickross.com) . He might know someone in your area if you are so inclined. His site is a lot like FACTnet.

The myspace site has all the anti-cfc and cult help sites, IMO. He may have missed a few. www.myspace.com/cfcmi (http://www.myspace.com/cfcmi) --a clearing house to be sure. It is sort of a best of anti-CFCMI sites.

FACTnet has helped me a great deal. This board has grown more active in the past few months.

God Bless!

[bramble]

How did you decide to leave? What helped you to make up your mind?

[harrol]

Bramble,

I will elaborate soon it is a long story.

[John Cady]

Here is my question for you two. Have you experienced any problems in your current Churches that are in any reminescent of CFCMI:

1) Keeping track of how much you tithe and getting upset if you can't keep up?
I have not encountered this to the same extent, but one church did rant a bit on those who did not tithe were out of touch with God. Ironically, the same church admited to not being well-organized in their bookkeeping, and did not release any kind of financial report to the congregation. There is a difference between those who cannot tithe due to circumstances and those who simply chose not to and were able to.

2) Mandatory tithing?
I have not encountered "mandatory" tithing since I left CFCMI.

3) Mandatory free labor?
I have not encountered this either with the exception of selected fund-raisers.

4) Mandatory dress code?
The UPCI has implied and madatory dress codes. I noticed for example, there is not one UPCI preacher who has even a mustache; I have a mustache and a beard, which would prevent me from ever preaching in a UPCI pulpit. UPCI churches vary in their stance on jewelry and makeup. The Apostolic church I attend now is with a different organization, and the dress code is more relaxed. The precher also has a beard, which makes me feel more at home.

5) Not allowing friendships outside of current Church?
I have not encountered this in any of the churches I have attended since leaving CFCMI.

6) Controlling what your read or what music you listen to et cetera?
Aside from obviously ungodly music or literature, I have not heard much preached on this subject. However, even the UPCI preachers shy away from discouraging folks from reading non-UPCI literature or information critical of the organization. Deep down, I know my brethren in the UPCI know there are problems with the current structure and realize people will found out regardless of what the leaders may try to say.

7) Anything else you can think of...
I went through (and am still going through) a family crisis which kept me out of church. It took a while before anyone attempted to contact me and see what was going on; I had written the pastor several times and did not get a response. I think when I approached him on the subject of not genuinely looking after all people in the church, not just those on the pulpit or ministerial staff, he got offended.

[bramble]

Sorry to hear about you ongoing family problems. I'm sorry your pastor wasn't more attentive. Had you attempted to phone your pastor regarding your situation?


Has you pastor been more understanding once he learned of your situation?


How many Churches have you been a member of since leaving CFCMI?



How often have you changed Churches?

[bramble]

To those who have left CFCMI:


1. What was the one event that finally pushed you into leaving CFCMI?






2. Do you think that this "Davis Memorial Field" will have a similar effect? In other words, will it trigger any more walkouts, in your opinion?




3. What about all the constant remodeling and moving in CFCMI?

[John Cady]

1. What was the one event that finally pushed you into leaving CFCMI?

The last straw was when Ed Thomas announced we had no funds in Norfolk to replace an upstairs heater for the Sunday School classrooms, and asked the church to sacrifice while he stood there in his new designer suit and a new Volvo in the parking lot (which I was duped into helping finance as a "church vehicle"). I was already wrestling with when to leave after my reform proposal was rejected; the church cleansing which followed the announcement about the heater just provided the door of exit I needed. What makes the cleansing even more sickening was Ed planned the whole thing the same night the USA went to war with Iraq; at that time in 2003, CFCMI had 40 members stationed or deployed overseas, and they were left stranded without a church to support them.

2. Do you think that this "Davis Memorial Field" will have a similar effect? In other words, will it trigger any more walkouts, in your opinion?

I think there will be more walkouts, especially if word about L.R. Davis (Illinois #B35913) and his conviction of sex crimes reaches the Norfolk media. While naming the field after Davis is not illegal, the fact CFCMI honors a pedophile and rapist reflects extremely poor judgment on the part of the leadership. Unlike 1983, when Davis' behavior made the local press, there is enough concrete evidence to prevent a lawsuit based on libel. Davis' trial and conviction are public record; all Paine and Thomas can do is make claims Davis was innocent. However, once the Norfolk media start questioning their decision, more people who still have any integrity (and have not drunk large amounts of Kool-Aid) will seek to distance themselves as much as possible.

3. What about all the constant remodeling and moving in CFCMI?

Up until 1996, when the Norfolk church moved to Little John Road and San Diego on to Park Avenue, the moving reflected what is usually associated with normal church growth. At one point Norfolk would seat well over 400 in its services before the Mother's Day speech. Waukegan welcomed close to 1000 on Sunday mornings, which was more than many denominational churches in the area.

What we see now, especially with the consolidation, is all about damage control and trying to right a sinking ship. Even oldheads can't escape the reality that CFCMI is broken beyond repair, and are jumping ship. The fact they moved close to several large, healthy churches on the same block is again poor judgment; what makes the brass think the parishioners won't visit those other congregations and wonder why CFCMI couldn't be like them?

CFCMI is slowly withering away...they will probably collapse in the next five years.

[bramble]

1. What was the one event that finally pushed you into leaving CFCMI?

The last straw was when Ed Thomas announced we had no funds in Norfolk to replace an upstairs heater for the Sunday School classrooms, and asked the church to sacrifice while he stood there in his new designer suit and a new Volvo in the parking lot (which I was duped into helping finance as a "church vehicle"). I was already wrestling with when to leave after my reform proposal was rejected; the church cleansing which followed the announcement about the heater just provided the door of exit I needed. What makes the cleansing even more sickening was Ed planned the whole thing the same night the USA went to war with Iraq; at that time in 2003, CFCMI had 40 members stationed or deployed overseas, and they were left stranded without a church to support them.

2. Do you think that this "Davis Memorial Field" will have a similar effect? In other words, will it trigger any more walkouts, in your opinion?

I think there will be more walkouts, especially if word about L.R. Davis (Illinois #B35913) and his conviction of sex crimes reaches the Norfolk media. While naming the field after Davis is not illegal, the fact CFCMI honors a pedophile and rapist reflects extremely poor judgment on the part of the leadership. Unlike 1983, when Davis' behavior made the local press, there is enough concrete evidence to prevent a lawsuit based on libel. Davis' trial and conviction are public record; all Paine and Thomas can do is make claims Davis was innocent. However, once the Norfolk media start questioning their decision, more people who still have any integrity (and have not drunk large amounts of Kool-Aid) will seek to distance themselves as much as possible.

3. What about all the constant remodeling and moving in CFCMI?

Up until 1996, when the Norfolk church moved to Little John Road and San Diego on to Park Avenue, the moving reflected what is usually associated with normal church growth. At one point Norfolk would seat well over 400 in its services before the Mother's Day speech. Waukegan welcomed close to 1000 on Sunday mornings, which was more than many denominational churches in the area.

What we see now, especially with the consolidation, is all about damage control and trying to right a sinking ship. Even oldheads can't escape the reality that CFCMI is broken beyond repair, and are jumping ship. The fact they moved close to several large, healthy churches on the same block is again poor judgment; what makes the brass think the parishioners won't visit those other congregations and wonder why CFCMI couldn't be like them?

CFCMI is slowly withering away...they will probably collapse in the next five years.

We can only hope and pray. Even from peeping at THEIR WEBSITE I already see evidence of decay, erosion. One can only hide so much for so long. Eventually the Truth is revealed.

[turningjapanese]

The previous post by John is an example of how CFC is a "textbook case" of a highly exploitave "religious" organization.

35. "Entitled" to a comfortable life.
In time, as contributions increase, the lording leaders of spiritually abusive groups feel entitled to elevate their salaries to a filthy "lucre-ative" level. While some members are struggling to make ends meet and living in poverty, the blind guides feel entitled to live in comfort, even in self-indulgent luxury, TTS 1:7, 11, unlike the Messiah and His Disciples, MAT. 8:20. Attempting to camouflage their affluence, they may cover up the situation by deliberately give a misleading impression, such as pretending to be poor while claiming that they receive only according to their needs while most of the funds are spent on work of the ministry. Nevertheless, the one who is discerning will be able to see for himself who is lavishly living "high on the HOG" while the needs of those who truly are in need go neglected. See DEU. 15:7-11; MAT. 23:14; 1TI. 3:3, 6:9-10; ROM 12:9-13; 1JN. 3:17.


33. Shady finances.
Abusive leaders feel their word should suffice as to how church revenue is spent. Thus, its written, fully itemized record of finances is kept in the dark, hidden away from the members’ access, away from receiving the light of scrutiny. There are no published financial statements, no auditing of accounting records by a reputable independent auditor. The bookkeeping is likely done by someone closely connected with the leader, such as a family member or a lifelong friend. In so doing, the appearance of evil is given, 1TH. 5:22. Nevertheless, the Scriptures clearly teach stewardship and accountability, but certain church leaders seem to feel that they are exempted. Instead, they believe they have a mandate from their congregations to do as they see best while remaining answerable to nobody. In time, the Master will return and hold them accountable, as in the Parable of the Talents, MAT. 25:14-30; also 1CO. 11:14-15.

32. A profitic rather than prophetic ministry.
Like Balaam, NUM. 22-25, 31: 8, 16, these "prophets" for hire care only for their own comfort and well-being. Over time, they come to look at their congregations as secure sources of income, as flocks to be fleeced and feasted upon, EZK. 34:1-10. Instead of tending to the spiritual needs of the congregation, the main focus becomes maintaining certain financial levels that afford them a high level of comfort and convenience at the expense of the church members. As a result, the preaching is tailored according to the financial needs of the leader, ROM. 16:18; 1PE. 5:2. There likely will be frequent appeals for greater giving. Special projects may be announced to momentarily capture the imagination of the members. Money-loving Pharisaic leaders delight in urging their churches to give generously so that the Great Commission may finally be completed or that the restoration of all things ultimately will be accomplished. Meanwhile, there is almost no accountability, just misguided trust, as to where the money goes.


Source:

http://www.proclaimliberty.info/#A%2...ive%20Churches

For a fun game:
See how many apply to CFCMI....Match and Win!!!



Peace!

[bramble]

To Onetime:

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to. I was wondering what you believe at this time. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Are you more of a 'Oneness Pentecostal' ?
I am truly amazed at the numerous directions that CFC walkouts go once they leave!

My wish is not to debate, but I am just curious. We may very well have vastly different ideals on religion, but that is OK. :)

Bramble

[onetime]

To Onetime:

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to. I was wondering what you believe at this time. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Are you more of a 'Oneness Pentecostal' ?
I am truly amazed at the numerous directions that CFC walkouts go once they leave!

My wish is not to debate, but I am just curious. We may very well have vastly different ideals on religion, but that is OK. :)

Bramble

No debate intended or desired. But since you asked, I believe this:

What anyone believes is their own damn business.

There is a strong herding instinct in humans. No one wants to stray too far from the herd because it makes them feel very insecure. There’s safety in numbers.

Stock Market behavior is a perfect example of this. The markets are the sum of the individual decisions of a very large group of people (the herd). Markets tend to be up one day, down another. While “experts” try to explain why (“a report was released today…”) they are most often clueless themselves as to what is really going on. To me the markets are more a result of social mood (herding instinct), than rational behavior. But I digress….

Based upon a lifetime of direct observation and experience, I don’t trust religious leaders. I don’t trust them because I think they are deluded, insecure people that need the presence of other deluded, insecure people to give them the security they crave. It’s not good enough for them to simply believe in something as a result of faith, they’ve got to get others to come over to their point of view (join their herd). It’s all about getting a following.

Then, once they have their herd, an even stronger motivation kicks in: power.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is an important exchange:
“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?” O’Brien asks.
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?”
This includes mental as well as physical suffering.

CFCMI anyone?

I concede I may be a little too harsh here, but I base this on the crucible of life experience. I am not saying that there are not honest, good, effective religious leaders out there. There very well may be. I just haven’t seen them. I've never seen anything that was sustainable. I've never seen anyone truly Christ-like. I’ve only seen the results of all the good intentions: broken dreams, broken people and broken bank accounts.

Color me a tad bit cynical.

But do I believe in God?

Hell yes.

[bramble]

No debate intended or desired. But since you asked, I believe this:

What anyone believes is their own damn business.

There is a strong herding instinct in humans. No one wants to stray too far from the herd because it makes them feel very insecure. There’s safety in numbers.

Stock Market behavior is a perfect example of this. The markets are the sum of the individual decisions of a very large group of people (the herd). Markets tend to be up one day, down another. While “experts” try to explain why (“a report was released today…”) they are most often clueless themselves as to what is really going on. To me the markets are more a result of social mood (herding instinct), than rational behavior. But I digress….

Based upon a lifetime of direct observation and experience, I don’t trust religious leaders. I don’t trust them because I think they are deluded, insecure people that need the presence of other deluded, insecure people to give them the security they crave. It’s not good enough for them to simply believe in something as a result of faith, they’ve got to get others to come over to their point of view (join their herd). It’s all about getting a following.

Then, once they have their herd, an even stronger motivation kicks in: power.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is an important exchange: “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?” O’Brien asks.
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?”
This includes mental as well as physical suffering.

CFCMI anyone?

I concede I may be a little too harsh here, but I base this on the crucible of life experience. I am not saying that there are not honest, good, effective religious leaders out there. There very well may be. I just haven’t seen them. I've never seen anything that was sustainable. I've never seen anyone truly Christ-like. I’ve only seen the results of all the good intentions: broken dreams, broken people and broken bank accounts.

Color me a tad bit cynical.

But do I believe in God?

Hell yes.

It seem many who have been though what you have, have issues with organized religion. I think it can sometimes be hard to distinguish a healthy Church from a cult. For some people any Church can be stressful.

Yes, I know that tormenting someone can be a bonding and power grabbing tool--in an extremely unhealthy way. Yes, I have been there, too, in slightly different ways. CFC to me is a big, abusive family. The more the Oldheads try to please...the more they are smacked down....the more they want to stay to try to please. They want love and acceptance, but all they get is verbal, even physical abuse every time they try to assert themselves. Am I right? Getting disfellowshipped would be a blessing in disguise.

Thanks for voting and putting in your two cents!

[bramble]

If someone left CFCMI but still followed their faith, are they still in a cult or not?