HOW TO RECOGNIZE IF YOUR CHURCH IS A CULT

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Hi All,

The speaker at our church this past Sunday was a man named Bob Anderson from Watchman Fellowship. He gave us a very simple outline to help us identify cults. I thought I'd share them with you.These are the eight fundamental truths that a church (Christain) should line up under.

(1) The Bible is the ONLY authority and rule for faith and practice; Jude 3, Gal 1:6-9 Rev 22:18-19.
(2) Unique Diety of Christ and Virgin birth.
Jn 1:1-14; 8:24, 20:28/ Acts 4:12, Phil 2:5-11, Mt 1:21-23, Lk 5:17.
(3) The trinity (tri-unity) of God.
Dt 6:4, Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7/ Isa 6:8, Mt 3:16-17, 28:19, Jn 2:19, Act 3:15, Gal 1:1 with Rom 8:11, 1Pet 3:18.
(4) Bodily Ressurection:
1 Cor 15:4, 12-17, Lk 24:37-39, Jn 2:19-21
(5) Universatality of sin: Rom 3:10-13,23; Isa 53:6, Gal 3:22.
(6) Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ. Eph 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; 2Tim 1:9.
(7) Bodily return of Christ
Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7; Dan 7:13,14;
(8) Eternal punishment for unredeemed:
Mt 25:41,45; Dan 12:2; Jn 5:29; Rev 19:10,
Rev 20:2,3,7,8,10,15.

This is what Mr Anderson said that I thought was very interesting. People don't go into cults for lack of intelligence, but lack of knowledge of the real thing,[the Word of God.]Deception has absolutley nothing to do with intelligence. He said that when they teach tellers how to recognize a counterfeit, they don't hand them some counterfeit bills and say these are the counterfeits; but instead let them count real currency over and over and over until they become so familiar with the "real thing" they can easily spot a counterfeit. They count so much real money that they can tell a counterfeit by the way it feels. Later talking to the Pastor of our church, he ask what charecteristics did the church I had left years ago violate the 8 fundamental truths we had been taught that day. I said it was #1. The Bible as the only authority and rule for faith and practice. How did GG violate this principle? By adding to.
Rev 22:18,19 AMP: I [personally, solemnly] warn everyone who listens to the statements of the prophecy [ the predictions and the consolations and admonitions pertaining to them] in this book; if anyone shall add anything to them, God will add and lay upon him the plagues [ the afflictions and the calamities] that are recorded and described in this book.19 And if anyone cancels or takes away from the statements of the book of this prophecy [ these predictions relating to Christ Kingdom and it's speedy triumph, together with the consolations and admonitions or warnings pertaining to them], God will cancel and take away from him his share in the Tree of Life and in the city of holiness[purity and hallowedness], which are described and promised in this book." These are some of the ways we can recognize a cult. What was your experience? What made you to believe TBS/GGWO was or is a cult? Do you still believe it is?
thank you for your feedback. GTP Shalom

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Amen, Tom.

Phil Calvert

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Even when (not if) truth offends because of it's revealing nature,submission to it brings freedom with accountability.
Freedom reigns in the leadership of GGWO but it lacks the accountability that true freedom carries with it.

Dave
</font>}

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

Some warning signs of your church being a cult:

Denial of the Diety of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Birth, the literal physical Resurrection of Christ, the saving work on the cross being sufficient for salvation as well as the only thing that can provide it.

Emphasis on works to obtain salvation or to maintain salvation. Teachings of grace plus some other works is also a warning sign.

Adds extra commands for people to live by that are not supported by Scripture.

The church or group has their own teaching and works program that is preached as the only way or truth or pathway to salvation and heaven.

The group refuses to accept any dissenting points of view, condemns those that disagree as being evil, off, unsaved, heading to Hell etc.

The group views its leader or leaders as perfect, incapable of error and never to be questioned. The leader's words are regarded as God's own words all the time.

The leaders are actively worshiped by the followers by the people and are regarded as superior, or specially anointed.

The leaders claim those that voice disagreements with them risk divine retribution against themselves or they could get cancer, get in accidents etc.

The group discharges and condemns and even slanders those who don't completely agree with its leadership or follow it blindly.

Expects its followers to blindly trust, follow and obey its leaders.

Demands the followers never think for themselves and surrender all thinking to the leadership.

Condemns those who think for themselves in any way of having a rebellious or evil spirit about them.

Alienates and turns others against those with dissenting viewpoints toward the leadership through lies, threats, gossip, and slander.

Tells those that want to leave the group that they would lose their salvation, go to Hell, get out of God's will or favor, have other bad things happen to them.

Uses force, coersion or physical restraining methods to prevent those who want to leave from leaving or remaining outside the group. This can include "love-bombing" high pressure persuasive tactics to try to manipulate a person who already left the group to rejoin it.

Isolate those in the group from the outside world physically or by what they read or hear or who they can assosiate with.

Refuse to fellowship with other churches or ministries or view them as evil or off.

Condemn all those outside the group as being evil, off, or lesser beings.

Control people's personal lives inapropriately. This could include violating people's privacy. Looking over their checking and savings accounts to see if their meeting their giving quotas to the group.

Turning friends and loved ones against each other as snitches to keep control over all the people.

Just a few signs.

SIDETHORN

(Message edited by sidethorn on November 01, 2005)

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Thank you so much ST for posting this...there are many posts that talk of this but they all seem buried in all the other posts...thanks so much for bringing it forth again. It is so important!

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

You're welcome! God bless!

SIDETHORN

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

Sidethorn,

I just want to make a comment on the one you posted about emphasis on works for salvation or at least maintaining salvation. I would have to say that many churches who do not belive in eternal security by grace alone doesn't make them a cult. There are many legalistic churches out there that are Christian especially in the arena of being a Holiness or Penticostal. Many, not all, believe in a works orientated program to maintain your salvation. They believe in you living by certain rules and standards and if these are not being lived out by you, then you are on your way to a vacation at the Lake of Fire. These same churches still believe you can lose your salvation. I will not name names, but this doesn't mean they are a cult. Catholics also believe in certain rules and regulations to live a pure and holy life before your God. Still there are many born-again Catholics.

[jayso (jayso)]

"One Man's Religion is Another Man's Cult"... thus saith Jayso! I'm certain that Jehovah's Witnesses would consider the "Watchman Fellowship" a CULT, yet consider their Watchtower Society a valid religion and the "true church". Dogma a cult doesn't make. Religions all over the world have dogma, yet they are not called cults.

In our open American society there are many varieties of religious expression. What Mr. Anderson taught at Tom's church would absolutely be considered cultic to most Roman Catholics, ALL Jews and ALL Moslems. Yet, in the USA none of the above are considered "cults". Our country was founded on religious tolerance. Our Lord Jesus loved the Samaritan woman who was probably considered a cult member by most Jews of His day. He (Jesus) didn't tell her to leave a cult, but he went straight to her personal issues and loved her; explaining that this mountain or that is not important, but God seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth!

Where do we draw the line? My opinion is that realistically, any group, who follows ONE LEADER without question and believes everything HE (or she)says are "THRONE WORDS" and that their leader is the perfect divine oracle is a CULT! These groups usually exist in communes and have little to do socially with anyone outside of their groups.

There are so many of them. Just look at the Factnet boards to see how many there are just on Factnet. Imagine how many don't make it to Factnet!

Doctrine is not always a good determination of what makes a group a cult. Just look at the GGWO doctrinal statement. It reads like most REAL Christian Church doctrinal statements. So, by their doctrine, I don't see how they are a cult.

The answer lies in their behaviour. How they relate to their leader (and under leaders), how they relate to the Christian Church worldwide and how they relate to those who question them or leave because of a disagreement in methodology or simply because they believe GOD is calling them elsewhere.

I have NEVER been to a church (and I have been to a lot due to ministry work) besides TBS which castigated ALL!!!!! who may follow the "beat of a different drummer" and believe God called them to serve in ministry OUTSIDE of TBS.

If the marking and shunning of those who disagree and / or leave GGWO still takes place, I don't know how anyone can believe this is a "healthy" place to be. Don't judge, just LEAVE!

[no_touch_love (no_touch_love)]

The GGWO and their new Affiliates!

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/2005/11/creating-new-affiliation.html#comments

[plaid (plaid)]

I'm with Jayso on this one. I have of course been "corrupted" by all this religous diversity and have had the opportunity to work with people of varying faiths through my church. Military churces have no choice but to be tolerant and IMO that is a great thing.
There are Muslims who are not in a cult, and there are those who follow the words of their Imam so closely they mutilate thier own daughters.
Don't even get me started on this very odd "Titus 2" group I found on the internet....those are some scarily cult like people by thier actions but thier belief statments read like a Southern Baptist church.
It's definately about more than doctrine statements.

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

gtp

I also have seen a lot of this works to maintain salvation stuff before I ever came to GGWO. There sure is a lot of it out there. It's legalism and a doctrine of the devil. Nowhere in the Bible is a Christian commanded to maintain a certain level of good works or risk losing their salvation and going to Hell. Churches that teach this stuff may or may not be cultic. I've seen some non-cultic ones myself. But the potential is always there for such a church to become cultic. Abberant Christian groups usually do change and usually get worse over time. Unfortunately non-cultic groups can become cultic later on. Its a risk factor I'm no longer willing to tolerate when attending a church. If they don't preach that salvation is eternally secured by the power of Almighty God, I'm out the door for good and will search elsewhere.

SIDETHORN

[veritas (veritas)]

I posted this in January and thought it an appropriate post for today and always, although I observe that the words "Church" and "cult" in the thread title are mutually exclusive. The mantle apparently passed to Shaller, Scibelli and Love is not purple and is not from Christ.

"[Heretic] means not an external enemy, but a Judas among the Apostles, a secret foe in the house of God, a wolf among the sheep and flock of Christ, who wishes to be called brother, and yet tears asunder the spiritual unity of the church, and establishes his own direction. In summary, under the name and title of Christ and the Gospel he believes and teaches against Christ and the Gospel, and develops his own following which then becomes a special church, a sect, an alternate way, a separate teaching. And these are especially those who, with their own ceremonies, bind the invisible, spiritual gifts of God to external elemental things of this world, whether of time, person, ceremonies, orders, and do not allow the spiritual assembly to remain free in the spirit, and bound alone to God's invisible Word."

Thought the fit with the following quote was eerie but fascinating. They were written almost 500 years apart:

"Further examples of how his followers view him can be seen in the Bible Speaks Book of Miracles. In the dedication to that book, Stevens is referred to as the Good Shepherd, capital G, capital S. On the next page, in the section 'ABOUT THE PASTOR' one reads: 'What was it like to walk with Jesus, to see His smile, to be looked upon with that piercing glance, and to hear His precious voice speak those sanctified words? What was it like to laugh with Him, to cry with Him, to eat with Him and to be His friend? Most Christians have wondered this at one time or another. Those in the Bible Speaks stopped wondering years ago. To be a sheep under the shepherdship of Carl Stevens is to know intimately the person of the Lord...To know Pastor Stevens is to know Christ. To love the Pastor is to love the one who gave him to us. As one sheep I speak for thousands who have been led by our beloved shepherd out of Egypt and out of the wilderness into the Promised Land."

veritas

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

It's easy! Check out the best way to tell right here:

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-to-recognize-if-your-church-is.html

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

THIS ARTICLE CAN REVOLUTIONIZE YOUR THINKING, BUT IT'S SAD BECAUSE IT'S THE STATE OF THE CHURCH AND IT'S THE TRUTH. "REALLY" PRAY BEFORE YOU READ THIS, IT'S THAT KIND OF ARTICLE!! SHALOM
SORRY FOR THE LENGTH, BUT I COULDN'T SEND A PARTIAL. HOLD ONTO YOUR BOOTS AND STRAP YOURSELVES IN.

The article below is a difficult one and will cause many to want to scream Hallelujah or Heresy. I feel led to share it as there are many painful truths throughout Chip's message. For those of you that know me, you know I am a mercy guy and work with many church leaders from many diverse church systems, denominations and cultures. I believe there is enough truth to shake our religious foundations and I am in full agreement that our religious foundations are being shaken and need to be shaken and removed.



The article is written with many generalities so this is not talking about every church but in general expounds on some of the realities of man made systems in organized religion. Chip does a good job of ending with the fact that in Christ, we can have fellowship and unity with others in Christ, regardless of what system they may be presently involved with. We do not need to try and direct anyone anywhere but to Christ Himself.



Please pray before you read this, while you read this and certainly after you read this and ask the Holy Spirit to present to you the truths you need to hear and/or respond to. This message for many will be either hard or easy to digest depending on where the Lord may have you in life. I pray that all grace will abound as we seek His way in all things. Feel free to share your thoughts. I love all of you…. Robert Ricciardelli





Churchianity Today
by Chip Brogden
http://www.watchman.net/

We must always be sure to distinguish between the Lord's invisible, universal, spiritual Church (the Ecclesia) and the non-profit religious organization that meets in a building with a steeple on top. The difference is incalculable, and we dare not make the mistake of confusing the two. Please understand that we do not question the right of any religious group to peaceably assemble together, elect their leaders, receive monies, have membership requirements, and govern themselves in the manner they see fit - as long as we realize that such a right is a civil right and is neither inalienable, Scriptural, or mandated by God Himself. That doesn't make it wrong, but neither does it make it spiritual. The Ecclesia is not an organization or invention of man, but an organism filled with the Life, and whether we worship "in Jerusalem or in this mountain" is not as important to God as whether or not we worship Him "in Spirit and in Truth."

So where is the distinction? What makes it an issue? It becomes an issue when spiritual or Scriptural significance is erroneously attached to a mere social contrivance, cultural norm, religious tradition, organizational structure, or place of meeting. When the waters are muddied and the lines are blurred between the social expectation, tradition, or custom of the religious organization and the true spiritual life and essence of the Ecclesia or the individual believer then such a system has the potential to evolve into a dangerous form of spiritual abuse or religious elitism.

What is Babylon? It is the marriage of church and state, religion and government; or to be more direct, it is allowing the leaven of the world to spread via Organized Religion and Institutional Christianity. As an example, consider how pastoring a church has become more of a profession than a calling, and how church government has digressed from a theocratic, Spirit-led consensus to a "Spirit-led" democracy, or worse, a "Spirit-led" benevolent dictatorship of a single pastor or a church board. This is the result of the spirit of Babylon. Whereas the True Church is to be "in the world, but not of the world", Babylon is that which is both in the world and of the world - it is by, for, and of the worldly system, yet it retains the outward appearances of godliness and spirituality. It is a synthesis of God and man, taking the best that each has to offer and fashioning a golden calf with it.

Babylon is always antithetical to Christ. It is anti-Christ. Babylon is represented as a religious whore riding on top of a beast which kills the prophets and saints of God. Perhaps we have missed the point by personifying the Antichrist as a Hitler-type world leader bent on global domination. Antichrist is the religious antithesis of Jesus Christ which flows from Babylon AS Jesus Christ. It is not coming, it is already here, and has been here from the beginning. Perhaps denominationalism is the real mark of the beast. If so, it is no wonder that so many are willing to accept it.


THE TRUE COST OF CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Usually when you join an organization it's because the price you pay for membership is justified by the benefits of belonging. For example, it costs a great deal of money to join a country club. The benefits are prestige, use of the facilities, social interaction, and networking with successful people. Or, in the case of a professional association, your membership gives you name recognition, credibility, current information affecting your field of expertise, social interaction, and networking with your peers.

How does the organization benefit? They get to charge and collect dues from their membership in order to pay for staff, executive officers, facilities, marketing, expanding their membership base, and other projects. So their motivation is primarily financial.

Now let's look at Organized Religion. How does the church gain from your membership? They stand to benefit in at lease five major ways. What are they after? Mostly financial support, followed by leadership support, doctrinal support, attendance support, and volunteer support. Let's look at these individually:

- Financial support means they have the right to expect their members to make donations in the form of tithes, offerings, love gifts, fundraisers, pledges, building funds, and the like.

- Leadership support means they have the right to expect their members to agree with the stated mission of the church and the pastor.

- Doctrinal support means they have the right to expect their members to adhere to the stated spiritual philosophy and teachings of the church and/or denomination.

- Attendance support means they have a right to expect their members to be present at a majority of services and functions (perhaps you've heard the expression, "Visitors welcome, members expected").

- Volunteer support means they have a right to expect their members to donate their time and volunteer as nursery workers, Sunday school teachers, bus drivers, or whatever is needed.

In addition, the church enjoys a greater control over its membership by meting out discipline when someone goes astray in one or more of the above areas. This typically plays out in sanctions against the offending member resulting in the loss of a leadership position or voting rights.

Whether or not these expectations are realistic, fair, or Scripturally justified is beside the point. The point is, THIS is what you are buying into when you decide to join a church. These are the standard expectations and conditions of membership in a typical church. They are not necessarily unreasonable when considered from a business perspective - if you don't pay your dues to the country club you don't get to use the golf course.

But to determine if church membership is for you, you have to do the other side of the cost-to-benefit analysis. The benefits to the church are many, but what's in it for the member? Basically, the church member gets a vote in major decisions like picking a pastor, a say-so in some financial matters, and the privilege of being in leadership (Sunday school teacher, worship leader, etc.) if you have a penchant for such a thing.

Remember at the beginning of this article I wrote that you join an organization because the price you pay for membership is justified by the benefits of belonging. Take into account the amount of time, money, and cooperation expected from church members, and the tremendous amount of individual control that is relinquished to church leadership. Then consider what you get in exchange - a small part in the political process of church government. Is it really worth the investment?


THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ORGANIZED RELIGION

Those who ballyhoo the spiritual benefits of joining a church should be reminded that we are already joined to the Body of Christ, the Ecclesia, and are already realizing every spiritual benefit of membership in HIS Church. The only qualification for such membership is a New Birth. There is no responsibility but to abide in Him, and every action springs forth from that abiding. Joining a church may be good, proper, beneficial, and moral - but it is not a condition of salvation, thus it is not a condition for being a Christian.

Many Christians believe that we are saved by grace because we are unable to achieve salvation through good works (unfortunately there remain many more who believe they can work their way to heaven apart from Christ). But what happens once they acknowledge this truth and trust in the Lord to save them by grace? Immediately, Organized Religion comes along and convinces them that they now have to work to keep that which is freely theirs in Christ. What do we mean? They are instructed to pray, read the Bible, join a church, give to the work of the Lord, witness to everyone they meet, stop doing so and so, start doing this and that.

We are not arguing that these things are wrong. We are pointing out an inconsistency in the Gospel according to Organized Religion. What is the message here? That good Christians do "X", and don't do "Y". What is the end result? We are trying to please God. We could not please God as sinners, but now that we are Christians it is our duty to please Him. So we set out to do so, and unwittingly fall into a works-oriented faith.

What Organized Religion fails to convey is that you can no more please God as a Christian than you can as a sinner. Any attempt to please God with your charitable deeds, church service, or spiritual activity will be met with frustration and failure. We are not interested in how good, holy, just, proper, or moral your deeds are; we are only interested in your motivation for doing them. Many are laboring and sweating at trying to live Organized Religion's idea of a good Christian life. They have fallen from grace, and are consumed with works.

The most righteous man or woman on earth cannot please God by their righteousness. Take all the righteous men and women on earth and put them together and they still will not measure up. But go further than that, and store up all the righteous deeds of every righteous man and woman who has ever lived on the earth and pile them up together and the wide gulf between God and us will still be as large as it was before. Our very best effort amounts to nothing. Nothing! We cannot please God in and of ourselves.

What then? There is One Man who is pleasing God, and that is His Son, Jesus Christ. "This is my Beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." Ah, the crux of the matter is Jesus Christ, not me. We live the Christian life the same way we enter the Christian life, that is, by trusting Jesus Christ to do something in and through me that I know I cannot do myself. It is not as I am, but as He is, that makes the difference.

"Come unto Me, all that are burdened and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Rest from what? The excruciating burden of work, toil, and labor under the cruel hand of Organized Religion.


FELLOWSHIP APART FROM ORGANIZED RELIGION

If we are one with the Head, we are one with the Body, even if we are not gathered together. But, if we are not one with the Head, we are not one with the Body, even if we are gathered together.

If we are walking in the Light as He is in the Light then WE HAVE fellowship with one another whether we are attending a church building or not. Joining a church is not a condition of fellowship. Some join a church for the social benefits - meeting other believers, making friends, etc. Perhaps they don't realize that they can still fellowship, meet other believers, and even make friends without actually joining a church. In fact, you'll attract far more attention as a mere attendee (if attention is what you seek, and that's another cause for concern). As a potential but as-of-yet-not-signed-up visitor, there are virtually no expectations placed upon you. When you give money it is appreciated all the more because they know you aren't obligated to do so. When you donate your time and talent as a non-member it is all the more impressive because no one is expecting anything from you. And when you show up for a service or function it isn't taken for granted.

The faithful members and their leaders often label those who regularly attend different churches but do not join any of them as "Churchhoppers". These creatures flit about from group to group, "Churchsurfing", hoping to find the perfect pastor, music program, youth group, etc. Churchhoppers are criticized for their unrealistic expectations and lack of commitment. To be sure many of those participating in the "Church Shopping Network" are so infatuated with their needs and wants that they will never be satisfied and will forever remain uncommitted. But before we write off this group of people we would do well to enquire into their personal history with churches, what they are seeking, and why they are unwilling or unable to commit to church membership. We may discover a history of hurt or a pattern of spiritual and emotional abuse that has left them wary of churches in general. We may find the churches they visit to be cold, aloof, or cliquish. That they even make an attempt to attend somewhere is a positive sign, but the phenomenon only underscores one of the troubles with Churchianity today. Many more have left, never to return again, and we can only speculate as to their real spiritual condition before the Lord.

Among aggressive, growth-oriented churches the goal is to persuade you to join the church (actually discussed among pastors privately as "getting you plugged in" or "getting fresh blood"). This is presented as the next logical step of your attendance. Once you do decide to join, however, the tide changes, the wind shifts, and the honeymoon is over. The list of expectations, rules, regulations, and by-laws make their appearance. You are educated in what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Suddenly your performance is being measured in terms of dollars contributed, services attended, and hours donated. All too often, consciously or unconsciously, your worth as a member is determined by your overall "support" factor.

Of course we do not mean to suggest that every single church is engaged in a conspiracy to use their members as unwitting pawns to achieve some wicked end, or that the pastor and deacons conduct covert meetings in cigar smoke-filled underground cellars thinking up strategies to trap unassuming visitors into a black-hole of church membership. We're only pointing out how easy it is for the generally accepted attitudes, traditions, rituals and practices of Organized Religion to quickly deteriorate into something wholly other than what the Lord has in mind for a community of Believers. Our contention is that the way we go about "doing" church is far removed from what "being" the Church is all about. Church as most know it has become a business, social, or legal arrangement, not a community or family. As such, our assertion is that Organized Religion seeks, retains, and manages its members in much the same way as a country club - but without the golf course. It provides a mostly intangible, invisible (and therefore highly subjective and difficult-to-quantify) service while expecting tangible, material things in return: your cash, your time, and your allegiance.

We are not necessarily advocating a boycott of church services, but we do wish to demonstrate the difference between joining a church and attending a church. In the case of membership, support is expected and enforced. Non-conformers are removed from membership, and although the instances of actually refusing to allow someone to attend services are rare, the amount of psychological pressure brought to bear upon the offending member is usually enough for them to leave on their on accord.


THE ISSUE OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT

The motivation for all financial support should be "as the Spirit leads", not as the rules of membership dictate. For example, a Christian should give not under compulsion, but liberally, from the heart, as led by the Spirit. That sort of giving cannot be legislated, no matter how hard you try, through spurious teachings on the ten percent tithe, "sowing and reaping", "love" offerings, "faith promises", etc. - yet that is precisely what Organized Religion attempts to do.

Notwithstanding, anyone deriving a benefit from an organization should support it. If you attend a church at all, member or not, you should modestly compensate them for the trouble of providing you with climate-controlled facilities, nursery care for your kids, and refreshments during Sunday school. That's just good manners. If you eat the food you should offer to wash the dishes. Beyond that, you should wholeheartedly and unreservedly give as the Lord directs you to give. That could mean an offering in the collection plate, the donation of clothes or food, anonymous gifts to individuals in need, and the like. Ours should not be an "I don't owe you anything" attitude. We should always give more than we take. But once our freewill support is legislated and expected as a condition of membership in a religious institution, it ceases to be spiritual and philanthropic. We are no longer giving with no expectation of receiving. Instead, we are giving in order to receive or maintain the privilege of membership. Therefore, we have our reward here on earth, and not in heaven.

Christians should be encouraged to give anonymously in order to ensure no reciprocal benefit. Jesus says when you give a gift don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Yet Organized Religion has to have some means of enforcing the Financial Support clause of the membership contract. How? With those little offering envelopes and a place to write your name. Remember that for every benefit there is a loss of freedom. It's certainly your right to claim the tax deduction if you wish, but in exchange for that benefit you lose anonymity. Now the church has a way to track your giving (or lack thereof), and if you don't think they will use that to their advantage if necessary, you better read your membership contract again. Even so, a few pastors have resolved to take no knowledge of the personal giving records of their members. Though an admirable first step, you can still rest assured that someone in authority at the church has access to the information and it can and will be used against you if necessary. For instance, when you're being considered for a leadership position, or when the church board wants to determine the active voting membership. Of course, if you aren't a member, none of that will matter to you anyway. But it again demonstrates that your value as a church member is being measured in dollars and cents.

Jesus did not advocate anonymous charity in order to make us paranoid or fearful of being caught doing a good deed. He did it to liberate us, to enlarge us, to help us experience the pure joy of a no-strings-attached gift, to ensure we would not become proud, and very importantly, to prevent others from rewarding, manipulating, regulating, or expecting us to give to them on a continual basis apart from His direction. He understood how easily people, even with the best of intentions, make value judgments of others based on material possessions (see James). He obviously didn't want that to be the case among His people. Unfortunately, acquiring, building, and catering to people of affluence has been the modus operandi of Organized Religion since its inception, and continues to run rampant in Churchianity today. Yet for all its money and temporal possessions, Organized Religion has always been in a state of spiritual impoverishment.


THE ISSUE OF LEADERSHIP SUPPORT

Support of the pastor and his vision cannot be mandated; either the Spirit bears witness with what is happening or He doesn't. Titular authority is based on perceived rank, status, charisma, spiritual gift or popular appeal: it's a fantasy, a piece of dirt painted gold.

The philosophy of Organized Religion is to maintain the distinction between clergy and laity. To reinforce this philosophy most churches consider the pastor (or priest) to be the spiritual head of the church. Most pastors see the local church as an extension of their own personal ministry and calling, thus the congregation is made in the image of the pastor. It is important that we note this carefully, for we maintain that God's people do not belong to anyone but Christ, and the Church is His Church, and not ours. All authority is given to Him, and whatever weight or influence we as individuals have over one another is ours by reason of our depth of knowing Christ and our willingness to love and serve one another. The "elders" are just that - those who are older and more experienced in the things of the Lord, the implication being that they are more conformed to His image and are thus gentle, loving, kind, and able to instruct and encourage the younger.

But who are the leaders of Organized Religion? Those who have been elected to fill leadership positions. Democracy is a fine system of government, but we note that the Kingdom of God is not and never will be a democracy. The political process of church government is as corrupt as the political process of secular government. What makes it worse is most people know how corrupt secular government is, yet they seem either unable or unwilling to believe the same corruption exists in their own church. If you've ever been involved in a church split you'll understand when I say the political intrigue and behind-the-scenes treachery rival a Tom Clancy spy novel.

Again, we are speaking in generalities. But a thinking person must admit that something is wrong with a process in which a pastor can be voted into and out of the position of spiritual leader by a certain majority of the congregation. If this were God's way then Moses would have been voted out, Israel would have returned to Egypt, and they would probably still be there making bricks today. Spiritual processes and God's holy call and selection cannot be reduced to search committees and paper ballots. Once the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, they stopped drawing straws and started praying towards a consensus. The Spirit made it evident who He wanted. A distinction needs to be made between what the majority wants and what the Lord wants, as typically there is a difference between the two.

The process and method of selecting deacons and board members is even further removed from the Biblical idea of the diaconate. Invariably we find those who rise to some level of church leadership are big financial supporters or have some family connection to the establishment of the church.

In most cases, there is no mutual submission, as the Bible commands. Instead, submission is a one-way street from bottom to top. Those who know God understand that calling attention to one's supposed "authority" is a sure sign that there is no authority to be found there. Real authority doesn't have to vaunt itself and demand others be subject to it. I received a letter once from a human religious authority I was involved with that took me to task for "attitudes and opinions which imply a compromised loyalty to the church and the pastoral leadership." Human authority is threatened at the mere suspicion of independent thought, whereas God's authority never defends its rights or demands capitulation. Since it sees God as the only Head of the Church it is not possessive over God's people and is neither compelled to defend itself nor insistent that everyone do things its own way. It sees itself as a steward, not and owner, of what God has given.


THE ISSUE OF DOCTRINAL SUPPORT

At first glance doctrinal support of the church you aspire to join seems self-evident. Yet denominations have an incredible knack for making doctrinal mountains out of molehills. We agree everyone who names the Name of the Lord should be in one accord on major tenets of faith, such as the fall of man, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity of the Lord Jesus, His resurrection from the dead, etc. Yet if we trace the histories of the thousands of denominations which have sprung up in the last few centuries we will find most began by laying particular emphasis on one doctrine or method or means of grace to the exclusion of all others.

For example, nearly every charismatic denomination stress the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as their doctrinal distinctives. We certainly find no fault with being filled with the Spirit or exercising spiritual gifts as the Spirit leads. But again, the way in which we live out our beliefs in these areas cannot be legislated by some governing body. It is a spiritual thing bound up within the faith of the individual who endeavors to follow the Spirit. It is most improper to make one particular expression of faith as the sine qua non of Christianity and make it a condition for salvation or a prerequisite for fellowship with a particular religious group. To do so is to promote sectarianism, a thing which God has expressed not just a relative dislike for, but a passionate hatred of.

A good example is the belief among certain religious groups that anyone not joined to their particular fellowship or adopting their particular nuance of Biblical interpretation is on the way to hell. A far more common and just as damaging belief among more mainstream churchgoers is that anyone claiming to be a Christian who does not attend church services regularly is either not truly saved, or is backslidden. Thus, a socially accepted practice of going to church has become the de facto standard by which the spiritual lives of millions are judged. Or the reverse, deeming someone as a good Christian based solely upon their faithfulness in some institutional church capacity. This is nothing more than salvation by works, a concept most Christians say they don't adhere to yet frequently practice and impose on others.

Another example is esteeming views independently of what the pastor says to be the result of a rebellious spirit that should be bound or cast out. Or, assuming that a failure to conform to the particular style of congregational worship is indicative of some hidden, unconfessed sin holding the individual back. Or, that a failure to respond to the altar call is a sure sign that you "don't mean business with God." We might add, the expectation that everyone who is on the cutting edge of what God is doing is going to come on board with the latest revival, movement, or spiritual teaching. All the instances cited above are attempts to add spiritual weight or credibility to the decision of a group or individual leader when there is no Scriptural mandate or justification for doing so.

This is the sort of peer pressure and "Groupthink" presented under a veneer of spirituality that is devastating to all who fail to measure up in the eyes of their fellow parishioners, in spite of the fact that God neither desires nor commands that we all worship, pray, sing, or serve in the same capacity. Threatening some spiritual result or consequence for failing to live up to the expectations of the group or the leadership, when in fact no such spiritual consequence exists, is a blatant abuse of religious authority. Examples are numerous, but they commonly involve money. "If you don't pay your tithes (e.g., go on the record with a systematic and verifiable contribution to this particular church) then God will not bless your finances." There is no Scriptural support for such a caveat. A more legitimate warning would be, "If you don't pay your tithes, you'll lose your active member status at First Church and your voting privileges will be suspended." That is a natural consequence of a natural action. It is a statement of fact, no matter how much you disagree with the politics of it; if you bought into church membership you accepted that as part of the deal. The line is crossed by the leadership when spiritual punishments are meted out in addition to the natural consequences of one's actions.


THE RENUNCIATION OF DENOMINATIONALISM

It is our position, then, that a believer who is standing on the ground of Christ and has seen the Body cannot but renounce once and for all the scourge of denominationalism. The reason is simple. We must receive all whom God receives. If the Life of God is found in them, we will receive them as brothers and sisters and not make peripheral issues the basis of our joining or not joining with them.

Let us be clear: while we cannot render support to a church or group which meets on sectarian ground, we can and will receive the individual members who desire our fellowship on the basis of Christ.

We should also investigate thoroughly any group or church that claims to be "independent". We often find these independent or non-denominational groups to have an even more narrow and sometimes bigoted focus on issues of secondary importance to the basic elements of faith. All too often the group is built upon the charisma and influence of one man, and since he doesn't answer to a denominational board, there is a greater than normal risk of spiritual abuse or excess.

Jesus is building His Church upon the foundation of Himself. This is the only safe ground to build or stand upon.


INSTITUTIONAL HOUSE CHURCHES

The clarion call of recent years has been the Scriptural injunction to "come out of Babylon", and when applied to the Institutional Church, it is interpreted to mean have nothing at all to do with the present religious system as represented by the clergy / laity distinction, the hierarchy of leadership with the pastor at the head, and the platform-based, event-oriented programs and church building projects. Invariably the trend has been towards informal small groups and home churches. We believe this to be a partial but incomplete solution. We see Babylon not as a political or institutional state, but a spiritual state. To truly come out of Babylon requires something more than deciding to meet in homes or resolving to do away with the external trappings of Churchianity. Many claim to have come out of Babylon because they no longer attend church services, but Babylon has not come out of them. They have only exchanged one sophisticated form of religious bondage for a less sophisticated one, perhaps creating an Institutional House Church in the process.

More than changing a few external rituals and adopting a so-called New Testament pattern to the exclusion of all others, coming out of Babylon requires an attitudinal adjustment on the part of the believer, a genuine paradigm shift and seeing the Lord and the Lord's Church; it cannot merely be a reacting to the obvious wrongs perpetuated in the name of God by Organized Religion. It is quite possible to be out of the system but still be bound to Babylon, still chained by bitterness and fixated with all that is wrong with the Body.

It is just as possible to be somewhat within the trappings of Organized Religion outwardly speaking, but have an ascendant spirit that overcomes within the midst of Babylon. Our whole goal should be to look beyond the external characteristics of how and where people worship. The only way to do this is to have an all-consuming revelation of Christ and the Ecclesia, the Body, His Church. Once we see that, we will understand that the external accessories of Organized Religion can neither help nor truly hurt the True Church, since Christ is bringing all things into subjection to Himself through the Church. This includes Organized Religion, Babylon, systems of false worship, denominationalism, wheat and tares, sheep and goats. The one that abides in Christ is joined to the Ecclesia and thus transcends all that is contrary. This contagious, unbridled liberty in Him cannot be bound or brought again under subjection to, or dependence upon, earthly religious institutions. Its identity is found in Christ, therefore it requires no external support systems or crutches. It accepts no substitutes, and immediately and effortlessly resists all attempts to rein it in.


"BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON WE WEEP

Perhaps the fear is that once we are escaped from Churchianity that we may be deceived again, but not so with the one who has finally seen the Body. It is not that we find it necessary to wax bold or stand guard continually and purposely resist all attempts to institutionalize us in the name of God. When we have seen Christ and His Church, anyone attempting to lord over, corral, enclose, intimidate, manipulate, unlawfully influence or exert his or her spiritual whims upon us is rebuffed with a calm, quiet spirit. It is like striking the air, or stopping the ocean. The spirit of Jezebel simply cannot stand before the Spirit of Christ. It's so simple. We do not need to understand the spirit of Jezebel, we only need experiential knowledge of Christ within.

Again, we reiterate that it is not a question of learning or knowing, but of seeing. If we see Christ we will immediately react to all that is anti-Christ. Those who belong to Him will never accept the mark of the beast. All who know Truth can easily see through the false.

It is not uncommon for someone to sit within Babylon for years, know something is wrong, but be unable to express what it is. It is only after much soul-searching, prayer, counsel, sleepless nights and painful experiences that we are able to understand why the Spirit of Jesus is troubling us with regard to what is done in the name of Organized Religion. But we need not understand what troubles us in order to be troubled. To all who listen, to all who have ears to hear, He will voice His disapproval of all that is not sanctioned or condoned by Him. God is not so silent as many imagine, it is just our ears are dull. But when our hearing is sensitive, we will hear His protest when something is said or done in His Name that He does not endorse. If we are listening, we cannot but hear Him disavow the televangelist, who begs for more money, or the pastor who treats the sheep with contempt, or the prophet who speaks out of his own imagination.

If we can sit within Organized Religion, day in and day out, and drink it all in without the slightest provocation, without even a hint of being troubled in our inner man, with no twinge in our gut or pain in our heart whatsoever, then we are far gone; our hearts are hardened and our ears are dull. We are blind Pharisees.

You who call yourselves Christians: are you troubled by all that is proclaimed, confessed, bought and sold, taught, prophesied, promoted, and prayed about these days in Jesus' Name? Then rejoice, because you are still able to discern the Spirit of Jesus above the cacophony of religious voices spewing forth from Babylon. But if you are able to shrug it off or lightly dismiss it, blithely going your merry way, I would consider your Christianity to be nominal at best.

The Lord does not take it all in stride, or shrug it off. The responses of Jesus to the organized religionists of His day were many and varied. We find Him driving the merchants out of the Temple with a scourge of cords. We find Him engaging in public denunciations of the Pharisees, holding them up as shining examples of what NOT to do. At other times, He was silent, or simply hid Himself and departed. Which response strikes you as the most profound? In my opinion, it is a weighty matter to observe the Son of God simply walk away and ignore the religious leaders of His day. There is a time and season to speak, and a time to refrain, and we find the Lord knows how to do both. But I must confess that His silent rebuke, Him hiding His Face and turning away, strikes as much fear in my heart as His spoken Word and piercing gaze. What unbearable, deafening silence! What contempt He had for their hypocrisy! How His holy nature must have been repulsed! How can we not also be moved to indignation?


THE WAY OUT OF BABYLON

There is only one right way to leave Babylon, and that is by way of Christ. To leave because of hurt, bitterness, dissatisfaction with the status quo, rebellion, or anything short of seeing Christ is to be in a precarious situation. Certainly hurt, bitterness, and the like are compelling reasons to leave, but only when they drive us to Christ do they help and not hinder. If our experiences drive us into a quagmire of depression and unforgiveness then all meaning and purpose for the experience is lost. On the other hand, if our disenchantment, disillusionment, and despair drive us deeper into Christ, we will find healing through Him and we will be enabled to extend grace to those who persecuted us. Then the experience is meaningful, the pain had purpose, and the lesson is learned.

This is why we do not command all Christians everywhere to stop attending church services. To leave, or to stay, apart from revelation, apart from seeing Christ and His Body, and based only upon the word of some man or group, no matter how true, is not sufficient to escape from Babylon. Others may bring us out of Babylon, but they cannot bring Babylon out of us. This is the Lord's work. And this explains why we find some who have left Organized Religion but are not better off spiritually than they were before leaving. In fact, after several years they have become cold, aloof, distant, critical, and suspicious of others. Their world has become smaller, whereas the one who leaves Organized Religion because of revelation lives in a much larger world as entire new vistas of opportunity appear. With an awareness of the Body, fellowship is no longer restricted to time, place, church, or denomination, thus opportunities for fellowship abound. But with no consciousness of the Body, only an awareness of our personal pain and harsh treatment at the hands of a few, our defense mechanisms will prevent us from seeking out fellowship or risking further hurt by engaging other believers.

When we enter this Body consciousness we will not find it necessary to wax bold or stand guard continually and purposely resist all attempts to institutionalize us in the name of God. We do not have to fear what man may do to us. When we have seen Christ and His Church, anyone attempting to lord over, corral, enclose, intimidate, manipulate, unlawfully influence or exert his or her spiritual whims on us is rebuffed with a calm, quiet spirit. It is like striking the air, or stopping the ocean. The spirit of Jezebel simply cannot stand before the Spirit of Christ. It is so simple. It is only difficult because we make it difficult. We do not need to understand the spirit of Jezebel, we only need experiential knowledge of Christ within.

This experiential knowledge of Christ will also enable us to recognize Him in others, and call upon us to enter into fellowship with brothers and sisters of all backgrounds. We will not be overly critical or unnecessarily suspicious. The Anointing will teach us and lead us into proper relationships with others in the Body. No more will we judge others or restrict ourselves to our little home group, church, or denomination. Our basis for fellowship is Christ, and with Him as our common ground we will not be uncomfortable or threatened by people of different philosophical or doctrinal nuances. Either the Life is present, or it is not. If it is, we must not call Unclean whom God has called Clean.

We may be able to passionately and persuasively expound upon the evils of the religious institutionalism, be correct with our arguments, confirm the experience of others and sway the opinions of many; but perhaps the most compassionate thing we can do for those still bound by Organized Religion is to become secure enough in our walk with God and clear enough in our vision of Christ and His Body that we can worship together with them in spite of our ideological differences, modeling the freedom which belongs to all who are in Christ Jesus, in hope that they, too, can escape from Churchianity and experience the same liberty from the deadness of the Letter towards the freshness of the Spirit, far beyond the influence of Babylon.

, Love Tom

[sam_i_am (sam_i_am)]

Exsec,
I thought I replied to the core of your question and am not sure what is left to reply to. The other groups you mention? I am not sure of who they are and what they do. My bet is that they have not invested the time that CRI did in investigating and interviewing a broad range of church people for a year and a half, and are relying soly upon people who leave the organization wounded and with only one very jaded perspective. Again, this issue, just like the way I find life itself, is often not so simplistically determined and evaluated on such a purely back and white basis. It is complicated, often coming out not grey, rather with black and white sprinkled throughout.

For example, where do you draw the line between the enthusiastic appreciatian and love for a spiritual leader and undue adulation? How do you separate biblical preaching against sin, say on the issue of evil-speaking, and not enter into mind-control? How do you encourage people to stay faithful to their local church with the Biblical injunctions to unity and submission to leadership, knowing the ficklness of the flesh and the culture of independence, yet not manipulate or seek to violate their freewill? At Sandy Cove we talked about how wrong our previous practice was of marking, yet without clarifying when it would be Biblically correct, as it obviously is in some cases. Here is a good one for the run-of-the-mill F-netter to consider thoughtfully: How do you differentiate between discerning wrong in your fellow believer/church and seeking ways to lovingly correct and exhort them (diakrino –Gr.), and utterly condemning them (krino -Gr.)?

The central problem as i see it, along with many other problems with the GGWO-as-a-cult motif, and apart from the abject obtuseness of it, is that it seems to seek to exonerate the guilty as “victims� –whoever willingly surrendered their devotion to Christ for a man (the Bible calls it idolatry with no psychobabble escape clauses for peer pressure) while condemning the innocent –those inside GGWO who were submitted to authority, yet whose sole devotion and ultimate obedience was always to Christ alone. Worse, the cult label, same as the practice of marking, seems to give Christians the license to wantonly insult, denigrate, accuse, judge, malign, inveigh wrath upon their former church, pastors, brothers in Christ under the guise of “righteous indignation� or “justifiablle anger.� Did not Romans 2:1-3 warn us about something like this?

Another hidden impliication for those wishing to claim victimhood, apart from the surrendering of pèrsonal responsability, is the surrender of personal dignity. For me, to claim that I can be lead about against my convictions and discernment, means to say I am a sheep. It implies that my need to be accepted is greater than my need to know the truth or to follow God. As the analogies often used indicate, you have to accept beforehand that you were a helpless child –somebody without a thinking capacity to discern (called the pre-logic state in child development), or a maturity level to know what you were doing, or an emotional level where you would have had the capacity to maintain autonomy. Personally, i would find that kind of analysis utterly degrading and i do not see how anybody could recover human worth and dignity after having accepted those premises.

The final argument Bonniescott mentions –“What about the actual children?� As in any large organization, individual cases of abuse exist. The evidence that is is particularly widespread or epidemic in TBS/GGWO is not there. Most people in GGWO, children included are well-balanced, normal evangelical Christans and individuals. Have we been unbalancd perhaps in some teaching that has adversely affected families or marriages, and hence children? I believe we have. I believe perhaps a large cross-section of the church has been too.

My final objection to the GGWO-as-cult thesis is that it is is based, not on Scripture, rather on modern psychological trends, which are definitely humanistic and decidedly anti-Christian. I am currently taking college courses in psychology and the current trend is to label virtually any Christian group that does not accept the post-modern worldview of equality amongst truths as “manipulative� “dangerous� and “sectarian.� Preaching is manipulation, rules are control, dogma is brainwashing, Remeber that line from the last “Star Wars� where they described the dark side as anyone who claimed to have the truth?

Again, these are my perspectives and I admit I could be off-base, but I have not heard any cogent arguments to the contrary.

P.S. Tom, I liked the article and agree with most of it.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

WHY GGWO DOESN'T WANT TO BE CALLED A CULT

Okay...so if it walks like a ducjk, smells like a duck...it's a duck.

GGWO fits every criteria used to identify a cult.

There are 3 factors to defining a cult.

1. The origin of the group and role of the leader.

This person is typically the founder. He is at the top of the structure. The core of the decision making is his alone. These leaders typically have the following characteristics:
A. Cult leaders are self-appointed, persuasive persons who claim to have a special mission in life or to have special knowledge.
B. Cult leaders tend to be determined and domineering and are often described as charismatic.
C. Cult leaders center veneration (pastor worship) on themselves.

2. The power structure, or relationship between the leader (or leaders) and the followers.

Cults are authoritarian in structure. The leader may delegate some power to a few subordinates to aid in seeing that members adhere to his wishes and rules.
Cults appear to be innovative and exclusive. Cult leaders claim to be offering something new and something that will change all the problems of ones life and the world. Almost all cults make the claim that their members are “chosen�, “select�, or “special�, those who are not members are considered lesser beings.
Cults tend to have a double set of ethics. Members are encouraged to be open and honest confess all to the leaders. At the same time, members are taught that it is all right to deceive and manipulate nonmembers. (Lie to the devil). The overriding philosophy in cults, however is that the ends justify the means.

3. The use of a coordinated program of persuasion (which is called thought reform, or brain washing as it is commonly known.)
Cults tend to be totalistic, or all encompassing, in controlling their members’ behavior and ideologically totalistic, exhibiting zealotry and extremism in their worldview.
Cults expect members to devote increasing time, energy, and money or other resources to the professed goals of the group, stating or implying that a total commitment is required to reach some state of enlightenment.
Cults tend to require members to undergo a major disruption or change in life-style.
Cults promote black -and -white thinking, an all- or- nothing point of view.

Not all cults are alike. There are cults that are live in and live out. They vary in levels of membership and degrees of involvement. For example members on the edges of a group are not privy to the costs, contents, and obligations of the inner group members and have little knowledge of the real purpose of the group and the amount of power wielded by the leader. Even within the same cult, rules, restrictions and requirements may change. This may happen year to year and from location to location depending upon outside pressures, local leadership, and whatever the leader desires.

In a live in cult every detail of ones life is scrutinized. There is a dress code, food restrictions, and relationships are governed. Members live together at the headquarters or at a specified location around the country or overseas. They often work for cult owned companies.

In a live out cult the devotees appear to remain active in quite a few aspects of the outside world. They earn a living, own homes, have families, etc. But for all practical purposes these individuals also live under the rules governing their personal life as the people with whom they associate with, how they spend their money, the way they raise their children, where they live, etc.

(The information given above is summation of information I have. Most of it was taken from Margaret Singers Book Cults in our Midst the hidden menace in our everyday lives Copy write 1995, Jossey-Bass publications.)

So, whY are the friends of GGWO and the cult itself fighting so hard to spin the truth that they areN'T a cult, and are trying so hard to get you to think it is just an "abusive church"?

Manipulators are famous for "the spin". This spin is being employed to get you to stay in the cult. If it is an abusive "church" it carries the connotation that it is less than dangerous, less of a problem and totally "fixable". They will tell you it is based on the bible and they will quote it over and over to you. My friends, you are being conditioned to believe more lies. The people are themselves being manipulated by the cult leaders who befriend them and use them for their own ends. Sick, hh? I mean, they are actually doing this IN THE NAME OF GOD.

But who are they really trying to save? You? Me? No way. They are trying to keep their illigitimate power base, my friends. To do this they MUST convince themselves and us that this dangerous cult is merely a problem church. And it doesn't matter how hard one tries to point out the difference, because you have been trained, through thought control to believe a pastor over anyone when it comes to things biblical. So....if THEY, pastor so and so says it is a problem church, I mean they MUST be right. And all those ex members who are trying to cxause trouble because they are "bitter"...well, better not believe them, cuz they're not "biblical" Sound familiar?

If you are reading this and are confused, let me tell you something. I am an ex-member with nothing to lose or gain by telling the turth. I have no power base to protect, no hidden agenda to crush the GGWO because of the pain they caused me, no monetary gain to look forward to, and no cult leader to impress. So...what's my motivation, you ask? To help others out of this quagmire of filth, corruption, lies and abuse before it is too late that's the motivation. Those of us willing to step up to the plate and say the truth about this phony den of iniquity have nothing to gain ...but you do. You have need to care for your own spirit...if you continue to swallow the lies, your spirit and the Holy Spirit in you will be grieved to the point where it can no longer witness the Christ in others or to others effectively. I know...I was there...oh you'll go soul winning, you'll take classes...but something becomes sour inside. You become more like the snobbish Christians who believe they alone are the elite of the Kingdom, and you be the sarcastic SOB that you see posting on line. If that's what you think God approves of then stay at GGWO, because you'll be just like them. And in so doing you will missoout of the many belssings of becoming a Christian that isn't a puppet.

True Christianity does not NEED to resort to undue influence and mind control tactics to covert sinners and make disciples. Cults, such as GGWO, because they teach false doctrines such as "pastoral authority" etc, must employ tactics to keep people isolated, indoctrinated and in fear of the world at large and anyone who duissents to maintain controll over the congregation.

GGWO is a cult, of this there is no doubt. No amount of pretending it isn't a dangerous destructive bible based cult will make it so. My suggestion to those who are still there?

RUN
SPEND A LITTLE TIME WITH GOD
FIND A REAL CHURCH TO ATTEND
DON'T LOOK BACK, NEVER GO BACK

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

YOU GO GIRLFRIEND!!

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Don't forget to bring a friend.

</font>}

[jayso (jayso)]

RJ, For those who believe GGWO is an abusive church, they should get out too! Why would anyone choose to stay in a church which abuses them?

Cult, shmult! Spiritual abuse happens in a lot of churches and synagogues too! Tom's article on Organized Religion gives great insight. For the bold, truly free Christian a church is never a building, cult, organization or a corporation. Please allow me to paste the part of Tom's article which spoke more to me than anything else on this thread:

<font color="aa00aa">"The Anointing will teach us and lead us into proper relationships with others in the Body. No more will we judge others or restrict ourselves to our little home group, church, or denomination. Our basis for fellowship is Christ, and with Him as our common ground we will not be uncomfortable or threatened by people of different philosophical or doctrinal nuances. Either the Life is present, or it is not. If it is, we must not call Unclean whom God has called Clean.

We may be able to passionately and persuasively expound upon the evils of the religious institutionalism, be correct with our arguments, confirm the experience of others and sway the opinions of many; but perhaps the most compassionate thing we can do for those still bound by Organized Religion is to become secure enough in our walk with God and clear enough in our vision of Christ and His Body that we can worship together with them in spite of our ideological differences, modeling the freedom which belongs to all who are in Christ Jesus"</font>

[lmao (lmao)]

Sam I Am,

I completely agree with two of your points. Using the cult label to deChristianize a group and therefore make it OK to say anything you want about it is wrong. It is no different than the marking practiced by the past and current leadership of GG. Next, abuse happens in all groups and should not necessarily be blamed on the organization where it happens. It should never be tolerated or covered up and if it is it should be prosecuted.

GG's problems are doctrinal. The doctrinal problems discussed at SC were the same problems discussed in the CRI report. The bankruptcy case, the pay off in the Lang case and the coup placing Pastor Schaller in his position are all results of GG's doctrinal problems and "ends justify the means" ethic. Things seem quiet now, but because there was no repentance and reform, GG will eventually screw up again. More will leave. More will be marked. Some will react at GG in an orderly biblical manner like CRI and Sandy Cove and others will over react with slander because of legitimate hurt and grief and they will be the ones GG uses for their excuse to mark everyone who leaves.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Religious cults - how to understand them

"People who end up in cults are normal people. They are usually intelligent, open-minded and honest. They're willing to make sacrifices for the greater good of the group. They're interested in self-improvement and in the improvement of the world. The best kinds of people, in a way, are targeted by cults. Their very decency makes them desirable as cult members."

Dr J W West, University of California

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

DEFINITION OF A RELIGIOUS CULT
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a cult as "a system of religious worship; devotion, homage to person or thing". Nowadays, in the public mind, the word "cult" is more likely to be associated with brain-washing, manipulation of followers, public scandals over cult leaders' sex lives, murder and mass suicide, rather than religious worship.

One of the difficulties of defining a religious cult is that it is an organization in a condition of gradual change. A religious cult may be encountered in its early, middle or late stages of evolution. At its beginning the cult consists of a small group of people focused around a benign leader to whom individuals are attracted. At its end, it can become a manipulative, exploitative, multi-national organization. What most people mean when they speak of a cult, is a New Religious Group (NRG) which has acquired the characteristics of mid-late stage evolution.

It is possible, by using an evolutionary line, to identify at which point the group you are in or are considering joining, has evolved to, and how it might be expected to develop.

There are approximately 40 characteristics of cult life. However, in identifying a NRG which has evolved into a dangerous cult, it is really only necessary to observe the lifestyle of the leader and the attitude of members to the leader, to make a diagnosis. By the time a NRG has evolved to its mid-late stage, the leader is authoritarian, declaring herself or himself to be divine and is considered to be so by many of the members. Following the leader is believed to be the only route to enlightenment or salvation - as defined by the cult. The leader lives in luxurious circumstances at the members' expense, removed from the main body of the group. The leader is largely inaccessible except to a privileged few. The leader makes prophecies of future events which the group prepares to encounter. The members manifest almost unquestioning submission to the leader treating him or her like a celebrity or saint.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS CULTS

Listed below are the 16 stages of cult evolution. Not all religious cults will pass through each stage and stages will overlap:


People encounter an attractive, small group within which a leader has emerged or is self-appointed

The leader is charismatic and people focus around him or her

The followers gradually isolate the leader by elevating him or her

The group enlarges and members form emotional bonds, united by common aims and activities

The leader begins to change, flattered by the attention of the followers. Drained by the constant demands of the followers, she or he develops a distorted view of her or himself. The leader lacks peers with which to measure herself or himself against. The leader considers there is no earthly authority to which she or he is answerable

The group continues to grow to the point where formal organization becomes necessary

The group applies for charitable status. It runs businesses. By now, the annual financial turnover of the group is substantial

The group is highly structured with several people in positions of power over others

The leader begins to live away from the main body of the group

People desiring power and control gravitate to the leader and form a clique around him or her

The clique protects the leader in order to protect its own interests. The leader is now out of control - testing her/his autocratic powers to their limits. The power clique attempts to prevent followers from recognizing the deterioration in the leader. People on the fringes of the organization are mostly unaware of what is happening at the centre.

News begins to leak out to the membership. The leadership comes under attack both from outside and within the group

Law suits are served by the organization against those publicly expressing criticism of the group. Former members challenge the group with counter suits.

The leader and power clique resort to increasingly extreme and desperate measures in order to maintain their position and silence opposition.

The catastrophic denouément - public scandal, imprisonment, attempted murder, murder, suicide.

The emergence of the re-formed group in a more repressive form than the original.
All along this evolutionary line people are joining and leaving the organization.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT IN CULTS
Aside from fulfilling needs, a group comes to have a strong hold on followers through the religious element in the leader's teachings. Most people learn religious ideas from a young age when, because of their openness and vulnerability, the ideas penetrate deeply. Thus, the use of old religious ideas in NRGs touches an irresistible chord in many and renders members more impressionable.

The following are examples of attitudes which are enhanced by scriptural ideas from within the Judeo-Christian tradition:


A feeling of being chosen and therefore special
Matthew 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 13.10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matthew 13.16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.
Matthew 22.14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Being ready to give up everything for spiritual development
Matthew 4.18-20 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
Matthew 6.31-33 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek;) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Ignoring warnings that you may be making a mistake
Matthew 5.11-12 Blessed are ye, when men revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so men persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Embracing the need to endure suffering and humiliation
Matthew 7.14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 10. And he that taketh not this cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Being prepared to make sacrifices
Matthew 16.24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Relinquishing attachments to family and friends
Matthew 4.18-20 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him.
Matthew 8.21-22 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
Matthew 10.34-37 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. for I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in low against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Becoming a more powerful person
Matthew 17.20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, if ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Accepting fear as a method of reinforcing teaching
Matthew 22.12-14 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.
Matthew 18.34-35 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Giving to the group and accepting a life with few possessions
Matthew 20.21-24 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Being drawn to the inner circle of a group by the possibility of miracles
Mark 16.15-18 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Matthew 13.10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Not requiring proof of the leader's validity
Matthew 16.1-4 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, it will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, it will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Adopting a childlike dependency on the leader
Matthew 18.2-4 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them. And said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

(Quotations are taken from the authorized King James version of the New Testament published by Collins Clear-Type Press)

[hodeuon (hodeuon)]

*Are* GG's problems fundamentally doctrinal? (Forgive the pun.) Or are they fundamentally behavioral? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

For example, did the "doctrine" of one pastor-teacher even exist before Carl Stevens' statement in 1972 that he would never be under the authority of men again? Or did he construct an ecclesiology that would leave him unaccountable to anyone? Did the "doctrine" of rebound exist before any scandals broke, or was it an early means of damage control when people knew full well that Carl had been out of line? And what about coverings? Did that "doctrine" exist before Carl's leadership was questioned?

Hodeuon

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Religious Cults
General Information
There is no definition of cult that is universally accepted by sociologists and psychologists of religion. The term cult is popularly applied to groups characterized by some kind of faddish devotion to a person or practice that is significantly apart from the cultural mainstream. For example, certain kinds of activities may take on cultlike ritualistic characteristics (recent widespread interest in intense physical exercise has been termed the physical fitness cult).

Movie stars, entertainers, and other public figures sometimes generate passionate bands of followers that are called cults (the Elvis Presley cult, to cite one). Groups that form around a set of esoteric beliefs - not necessarily religious - may also be termed cults (for example, flying saucer cults). When applied to religious groups, cult retains much of this popular usage but takes on more specific meaning, especially when contrasted with other kinds of religious organizations.


Cults and Other Forms of Religious Organization
The most commonly used classification of religious organizations is as churches or sects. Although there have been numerous modifications of the original distinction, the following points are generally retained.
BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site
Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects
E-mail
Church refers to a religious organization claiming a monopoly on knowledge of the sacred, having a highly structured or formalized dogma and hierarchy, but also being flexible about membership requirements as the organization attempts to minister to the secular society of which it is a part.

Sects, on the other hand, are protests against church attempts to accommodate to secular society. A sect views itself as a defender of doctrinal purity, protesting what it interprets as ecclesiastical laxity and excesses. As protectors of the true faith, sects tend to withdraw from the mainstream of worldly activities, to stress strict behavior codes, and to demand proof of commitment.

Cults have some of the same characteristics as sects. In fact, some scholars prefer not to make a distinction. There are, however, some noteworthy differences. Cults do not, at least initially, view themselves as rebelling against established churches. Actually, the practices of cults are often considered to enrich the life of the parent church of which they may be a part. Cults do not ordinarily stress doctrinal issues or theological argument and refinement as much as they emphasize the individual's experience of a more personal and intense relationship with the divine. Most of these groups are ephemeral, seldom lasting beyond a single generation; transient; and with fluctuating membership.

Mysticism is frequently a strong element in cult groups. Religious orders such as the Franciscans began as cults built around the presence of a charismatic leader who emphasized a life style dedicated to attaining high levels of spirituality. Mormonism began as a cult, became a sect, and eventually evolved into a church. All the great world religions followed this same pattern of development as they accumulated members and formalized hierarchy and dogma.


Contemporary Cults
Cults are as old as recorded history, but contemporary interest in cults became amplified during the late 1960s and early 1970s as numbers of educated middle class youths abandoned traditional religions and embraced beliefs and practices that were either culturally unprecedented (Eastern religions) or seemed to be throwbacks to an earlier era (Fundamentalist Christianity). During this period, young people were increasingly found living in various types of religious communes and engaging in unconventional behavior, such as speaking in tongues (glossolalia), faith healing, meditating (often under the tutelage of a spiritual leader or guru), and following leaders that conventional society tended to look upon with suspicion and distaste. Interest in cults turned to a combination of fascination and revulsion upon the mass suicide of the Jones cult in November 1978.
Modern cults come in a bewildering variety of ideologies, practices, and forms of leadership. They range from those adhering to a sort of biblical Christianity to those seeking satori (sudden enlightenment) via the pursuits of Zen Buddhism. Some cults have a flexible, functional leadership, such as many groups in the Charismatic Movement emanating from the mainline Christian religions, and others have mentors who control and orchestrate cult events, such as the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification church. Some Hindu gurus, such as Bhagwan Shree Rajineesh of the Rajineeshee sect have been believed by their followers to be living embodiments of God.

The common denominator of all the modern cults is an emphasis on community and on direct experience of the divine. In a cult, participants often find a level of social support and acceptance that rivals what may be found in a nuclear family. Cult activity, which is often esoteric and defined as direct contact with the divine, generates a sense of belonging to something profound and of being a somebody. The modern cult may be viewed as a cultural island that gives adherents an identity and a sense of meaning in a world that has somehow failed to provide them these things.

Several factors have been suggested as contributing to the quests of modern youths for meaning and identity via cults. Each of these factors relates to a disenchantment with, or loss of meaning of, traditional ways of viewing reality. A list of these contributing elements would include the following: the turmoil of the 1960s, including the unpopular Vietnam War, the assassinations of several popular national leaders, and growing evidence of top level political incompetence and corruption; continued widespread drug use among youths, which tends to disrupt family relations and fosters the formation of drug subcultures stressing esoteric experience; the rapid expansion of technological innovations such as computers, and social organizations, such as bureaucracies, that tend to erode the individual's sense of being in control of his or her own destiny; the apparent failure of traditional religions to solve problems of war, hunger, and alienation; the growth of humanistic education that tends to discredit traditional ways of believing and behaving; the threat of ecological and nuclear disaster; and finally, affluence, which provides the means to pursue alternative life styles.

Cults are challenges to conventional society. As such, they engender intense questions concerning their possible impact. The modern cults have clearly raised anew the legal issue of how far a society is willing to go to guarantee religious freedom. Some of the cults have been accused of brainwashing members and thereby violating the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Court cases involving young people who were forcefully removed from cults by parents are still being decided. Future court decisions could significantly modify traditional protection of religious diversity in the United States. Some cults, Hare Krishna being one, have established a legal defense and public education organization to fight for their rights to exist and practice what they believe.

Other impacts are less clear. This wave of cults could crumble into the dust of history as so many others have. Conversely, this age could also be one of those historical junctures that produces an enduring change in theories of human nature and in the structure of social organizations. If so, the new cults provide some idea of the nature of that change. Almost all of them represent an emotional and personal approach to religious experience; they emphasize continued adaptation in a changing world; they stress the attainment of individual power and excellence via the pursuit of cult practices; and they often stress the necessity of harmony between humankind and other aspects of nature. As such, contemporary cults reinforce many traditional American values, such as independence, achievement, self mastery, and conservation or ecology, that have lost ground in the face of affluence and self seeking. Just as the Protestant Ethic supported early capitalism, the general ethic of the cults may be the stabilizing element in future society. If so, cult members may well be the leaders of that new age. Clearly, however, an historical verdict must be awaited.

Richard J Bord

Bibliography
W Appel, Cults in America (1983); J A Beckford, Cult Controversies (1985); J E Biersdorf, Hunger for Experience (1975); H Bridges, American Mysticism (1970); C Edwards, Crazy for God: The Nightmare of Cult Life (1979); J Ellul, The New Demons (1975); R S Ellwood and H Partin, Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America (1988); F Fitzgerald, Cities on a Hill (1986); H Gardner, The Children of Prosperity (1978); C Y Glock and R N Bellah, eds., The New Religious Consciousness (1976); I Hexham and K Poewe, Understanding Cults and New Religions (1986); J G Melton, The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1986); J Needleman, The New Religions (1970); R Quebedeaux, The New Charismatics (1976); T Robbins, ed., Cults, Culture and the Law (1985).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cults
Advanced Information
Defining a cult is far more difficult than is often appreciated. Many evangelical Christians support the activities of Jews for Jesus and see them as a legitimate missionary group. But members of the Jewish community regard them as an evil and deceptive cult, a fact that well illustrates the problems surrounding the word. In its modern form the word "cult" was originally used by Ernst Troeltsch in his classic work, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (1912), where he classifies religious groups in terms of church, sect, and cult.

For Troeltsch the cult represents a mystical or spiritual form of religion that appeals to intellectuals and the educated classes. At the heart of the cult is a spirituality which seeks to enliven a dead orthodoxy. Thus for Troeltsch the early Luther, many Puritans, and pietism can be seen as examples of cultic religion. Although Troeltsch's ideas about the distinction between church and sect generated a vigorous debate, little attention has been paid to his views on the cult. However, several liberal writers influenced by Troeltsch have seen evangelical Christianity in terms of a cult.

More important for the modern usage of the word "cult" has been the development of evangelical polemics against groups which they have seen as heretical. The classic work on this subject, which probably gave the word its modern usage, is Jan van Baalen's The Chaos of Cults (1938). In this work van Baalen expounds the beliefs of various religious groups such as theosophy, Christian Science, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses and subjects them to a rigorous theological critique from an evangelical perspective. In the last twenty years a large number of evangelical books dealing with cults have appeared. Over the course of time these have increasingly concentrated on the allegedly fraudulent claims of the cults, the immoralities of their leaders, and the ways in which their followers are deceived. As a result, in many cases a transition has occurred from a theological argument refuting the claims of various religious groups to a reliance upon psychological arguments which suggest that members of these groups are in some way brainwashed.

This development poses a great danger for evangelical Christianity as can be seen from William Sargent's The Battle for the Mind (1957). In this book Sargent takes evangelical conversion as a classic example of brainwashing. More recently this argument has been developed by Jim Siegelman and Flo Conway in their popular book Snapping (1979), where the experience of born again Christians is compared to the process by which people join groups like the Moonies. Such books as these and stories in the media about brainwashing have led to considerable pressure on governments in various American states, Canada, Britain, and Germany for anticonversion laws. These laws are supposedly aimed at groups like the Moonies. But because of their lack of definition (cf. the Lasher Amendment, State of New York in Assembly, March 25, 1980) they are in practice aimed at any form of change of life style brought about by a religious conversion.

Today the real problem of cults is the propaganda value of the word "cult" in a secular society. Although there are reliable statistics to show that the total membership of groups like the Children of God, the Unification Church (Moonies), and Hare Krishna is less than 35,000 in the United States and even fewer in other Western countries, these groups are presented as a major threat to society. As a result secularists are able to urge the acceptance of laws which replace religious freedom by a grudgingly granted religious toleration. Rather than persisting with the use of a word which has now become a propaganda weapon, the academic practice of calling such groups "new religious movements" should be followed. An alternative to this neutral terminology available for Christians who oppose such groups on theological grounds would be to revive the usage of "heretic" or simply call such groups "spiritual counterfeits." Such a procedure would move the debate away from psychological theories that can be used by secularists against Christianity to the arena of theological discussion and religious argument.

I Hexham
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
M Hill, Sociology of Religion; W R Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults; H W Richardson, ed., New Religions and Mental Health; C Y Glock and R N Bellah, eds., The New Religious Consciousness; I I Zaretzky and M P Leone, eds., Religious Movements in Contemporary America; T Robbins and D Anthony, eds., In Gods We Trust; R S Ellwood, Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America; J Needleman and G Baker, eds., Understanding the New Religions.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Mind Control - The BITE Model
From chapter two of Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves*

*© 2000 by Steven Hassan; published by Freedom of Mind Press, Somerville MA

Destructive mind control can be understood in terms of four basic components, which form the acronym BITE:

I.
Behavior Control

II.
Information Control

III.
Thought Control

IV.
Emotional Control


It is important to understand that destructive mind control can be determined when the overall effect of these four components promotes dependency and obedience to some leader or cause. It is not necessary for every single item on the list to be present. Mind controlled cult members can live in their own apartments, have nine-to-five jobs, be married with children, and still be unable to think for themselves and act independently.



I. Behavior Control
1. Regulation of individual's physical reality

a. Where, how and with whom the member lives and associates with
b. What clothes, colors, hairstyles the person wears
c. What food the person eats, drinks, adopts, and rejects
d. How much sleep the person is able to have
e. Financial dependence
f. Little or no time spent on leisure, entertainment, vacations

2. Major time commitment required for indoctrination sessions and group rituals

3. Need to ask permission for major decisions

4. Need to report thoughts, feelings and activities to superiors

5. Rewards and punishments (behavior modification techniques- positive and negative).

6. Individualism discouraged; group think prevails

7. Rigid rules and regulations

8. Need for obedience and dependency

II. Information Control
1. Use of deception

a. Deliberately holding back information
b. Distorting information to make it acceptable
c. Outright lying

2. Access to non-cult sources of information minimized or discouraged

a. Books, articles, newspapers, magazines, TV, radio
b. Critical information
c. Former members
d. Keep members so busy they don't have time to think

3. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

a. Information is not freely accessible
b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid
c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what

4. Spying on other members is encouraged

a. Pairing up with "buddy" system to monitor and control
b. Reporting deviant thoughts, feelings, and actions to leadership

5. Extensive use of cult generated information and propaganda

a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audio tapes, videotapes, etc.
b. Misquotations, statements taken out of context from non-cult sources

6. Unethical use of confession

a. Information about "sins" used to abolish identity boundaries
b. Past "sins" used to manipulate and control; no forgiveness or absolution

III. Thought Control
1. Need to internalize the group's doctrine as "Truth"

a. Map = Reality
b. Black and White thinking
c. Good vs. evil
d. Us vs. them (inside vs. outside)

2. Adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".

3. Only "good" and "proper" thoughts are encouraged.

4. Thought-stopping techniques (to shut down "reality testing" by stopping "negative" thoughts and allowing only "good" thoughts); rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism.

a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
b. Chanting
c. Meditating
d. Praying
e. Speaking in "tongues"
f. Singing or humming

5. No critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy seen as legitimate

6. No alternative belief systems viewed as legitimate, good, or useful

IV. Emotional Control
1. Manipulate and narrow the range of a person's feelings.

2. Make the person feel like if there are ever any problems it is always their fault, never the leader's or the group's.

3. Excessive use of guilt

a. Identity guilt

1. Who you are (not living up to your potential)
2. Your family
3. Your past
4. Your affiliations
5. Your thoughts, feelings, actions

b. Social guilt
c. Historical guilt

4. Excessive use of fear

a. Fear of thinking independently
b. Fear of the "outside" world
c. Fear of enemies
d. Fear of losing one's "salvation"
e. Fear of leaving the group or being shunned by group
f. Fear of disapproval

5. Extremes of emotional highs and lows.

6. Ritual and often public confession of "sins".

7. Phobia indoctrination : programming of irrational fears of ever leaving the group or even questioning the leader's authority. The person under mind control cannot visualize a positive, fulfilled future without being in the group.

a. No happiness or fulfillment "outside"of the group
b. Terrible consequences will take place if you leave: "hell"; "demon possession"; "incurable diseases"; "accidents"; "suicide"; "insanity"; "10,000 reincarnations"; etc.
c. Shunning of leave takers. Fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family.
d. Never a legitimate reason to leave. From the group's perspective, people who leave are: "weak;" "undisciplined;" "unspiritual;" "worldly;" "brainwashed by family, counselors;" seduced by money, sex, rock and roll.

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

Thanks Roberta for putting up this post to help people discern cultic groups. This one should really help out a lot. Scary how many of these warning signs are present in GGWO. GGWO is a CULT!! PERIOD.

SIDETHORN

[plaid (plaid)]

Sure, the doctrinal stuff has lots of issues. But I am no bible scholar and never will be - lots of people really get into that but honestly, after all those years spent in Lenox listening to mind numbing orations and bible doctrine, it's not for me. BUT there is so much more to the whole thing than doctrinal differences - RJ posted a ton of things that were typical of GGWO. The post right above Sidethorn's on mind control was very applicable. I think it was worse for those living on Campus. Those living off campus probably were able to see the outside world a bit more realistically, but still, there was so much ranting about persecution and evil, it seemed that upon leaving a person was going to get accosted by murderers, drug dealers, cancer, earthquakes and some sort of anti-Christian police force all at once http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

Oh, and I've gotten lots of help from mainstream psychologists - some were christans and some not, so I find it hard to beleive that psychology is anti-christianity. That's just another way of getting people to fear. "Don't listen to that dr, he's evil." It's interesting how that argument is often used against a dr who treats illness of the mind, but rarely on a dr who treats illness of the body. Could it be that a dr who treats the mind may make the cult's job harder by helping people with issues that may make them vulnerable to a cult?

[sojourner (sojourner)]

This is a very subjective approach but looking back at my experience in ggwo, I see that there was no room to affirm my own sense of not belonging there. In other words you never heard words like, "Maybe God desires you to go elsewhere" or "There are many other ways to serve God" or "You may be called to be a doctor and devote yourself totally to that calling."
Or, "God is the God of the whole earth, not just the Plaza!"

No, if you had doubts about fitting in the burden was always upon you to fit, to change, to accomodate the group think..which was not thinking at all but conformity.

No one ever really got intimate with each other on any levels...even in marriages there was a mediator between the couples in the pulpit, one who dictated how they should behave.

I think this subjective understanding is important...Why is it among many Christian groups that there is this idea that if something is what you want to do it has to be "off" somehow...

Did God create us to second guess our own emotional responses all of the time...
Did He make us to be divided against ourselves.
To be fearful of our doubts and misgivings about the tenets of the faith we are expected to just give ourselves over too?

Or are we His children whom he adores.
Which gives Him more pleasure, our walking around like zombies, disconnected from our own inner realm of reality, never considering that He is speaking from within us as well as through others or our delight with life and living in the assumption that He only desires to love us?

How would you feel as a parent if your children were afraid to express their doubts and longings to you because they feared your rejection?

These are not well honed arguments, just some ideas and questions in my head and heart.

I will never live divided from my inner world again in the name of blanket acceptance of teachings, even Biblical teachings. I want to be a true, genuine human being and let God be God...
When people encounter me, I hope they will encounter someone who has encountered the author of life that day...someone unique and someone whose soul is worth more than all the world...
If I do not believe that about myself, how can I impart that to another. If they are just a statistic, another notch on my "people I helped get saved" belt...they will not feel valued apart from works.
There is no "God loves you because"...no clauses...do we really get it? I think we would be crying for joy if we even started to understand the infinite reality of Love beyond our understanding.

I think the one's to whom Jesus will say "depart from me, I never knew you" will be those who went to theology school, who had their creeds nailed down...all of that...
And yet, I wonder if they ever let themselves face the terrifying aloneness that every human being has to face...after all, no one can experience death with us can they..,
Some of these Christians who bang people over the head day in and day out with doctrine and ultimatums are the most unpleasant sort I have ever seen.
To live like that, for me anyway, is a plight worse than death.
It is lopsided.
You cannot reveal the love of God unless it has truely swept you off of your feet and you have been lost in it completely.
To try and enforce truth or creeds apart from this reality of being loved, is a crime against the spirit for it misrepresents the reality at the heart of the universe and that is "God is Love".
Are those just words in the Bible?
Do we just apply our own notions of love to God and go hammer people with the "salvation" message continuing to hold "the decision" over their heads as if that is the end of the matter...
"Here, say these magic words, don't think about them, just say them and you will be in Heaven forever"...REALLY?
How is that different from rubbing a rabbit's foot or chanting some chant...tell me, how is it different, are the words magical? Do words save us?

Some people say, be careful of psycholgy replacing our creeds, but are they really saying be careful of thoughts that challenge easy beleivism.

The world of Christianity in America is so unattractive to me because it is so far from my own personal encounter with Christ.

When a group tells the individual, your inner world has no significance if you are not doing
A, B and C properly...they turn out non-entities, non-beings...the work of God is people...individual souls...He longs to reveal Himself personally, not just objectively.
We are the objects of His love, but He does not objectify us, because His love is totally selfless unlike Human love which seeks it's own at least in part.
He knows our love for Him is not natural, He does not expect our nature to be different...but when we encounter Him as He really is, and as only each one of us can, there is a deeply personal experience that transpires.

To get to the place where nothing shakes our understanding that He is for us, not our most despicable actions or thoughts, our doubts, nothing can alter the fact that He has torn down every wall of separation and if we truely come to that place of seeing that reality...well how could you not be whole and at peace with your world.

In this place of our disposition towards life and others, I think the fruit of the Spirit is manifested, not in our works which can be outward and have nothing to do with our intimacy with Love.

In other words, I can start bus ministries, sunday schools, churches, bible colleges and one day the Lover of my soul will appear and say,
"Who are you?'
To me, that is a chilling thought.
Just because it has evangelical trappings does not mean it is an environment where people are encountering a living God.
Why do we think we need to trust in someone elses vision of God, or fabrication of a vision, in order to know God? Is not every soul a portal through which He can be seen and isn't every individual given the gift to know Him and be known by Him.
Fellowship that minimizes the value of the individual and usurps God's authority over them above all others is pernicious and not fellowship at all. It is a falsehood and an association based on something less than the truth.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Forgive me if it is rambling.

[lee (lee)]

Sounds like you have found life outside the Bubble World.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

"POP" Did you hear the air go out?

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

the BITE model sounds like a list of those things that faith asks us to do anyway.

faith asks us to be conformed to the image of christ. every behavior modification listed can be applied to standard Christian thought on how one becomes Christ-like.

faith makes it clear who the sheep and the goats are. Us and them.

faith isn't logical; it asks us to forgo 'reality testing' all the time. what the hell was peter supposed to do on the water after all?

faith asks us to transform our identities all the time. it asks us to deny our humanness, our natural and biological states.

faith doesn't make sense except in the confines of its own object. outside that conception it is 'foolishness' just as the bible tells us.

i guess we're all in a cult then.

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com

[exsec (exsec)]

Dear Bruce,
Thanks for your post. I would love to hear what changes has taken place in GG. (I think that you mentioned that the leadership has made some changes...)
Blessings,
exsec

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Each of us has spiritual gifts.
Have any of us seen them in operation in GG churches?(I have once or twice)
I ask this becuase if it where not for the fact that I attended many differant churches besides GG throughout my walk,I would not have come to know some of the gifts that I have been given.
The use of the gifts by individual believers was never encouraged,though the Word tells us,that is the norm for the body.
Somehow the operation of the giftings where squelched.

Was it because God working through Spirit led believers would have brought light where it was not wanted?

I once openly rebuked a so called prophet (this guy was way off) because the Holy Spirit within me urged me to.
This would never have been allowed (still wouldn't be) in GGWO.

To publically say
"that's not from the Lord" would go over real big in GGWO now wouldn't it?
Yet we are called to use our giftings and not quench the Spirit.(obey God or man?)

In the GGWO setting,the pastor became the "Spirit" in these matters.
A very unhealthy proposition.

That was the big thing that rubbed me all throughout my time in GG.
The Lord had said,but where was the action of this?
Fellow members building each other up as one in Christ allowing the Spirit of the Living God to speak to us through us as it was in Acts.

We have never come out of penticost,it's still that day.We have gifts that benefit each other because of our oneness in the body.
The church in it's origins,never put "one" man in absolute authority over the body.
The term Pastors,besides being plural,spoke of elders who operated by the gifts and calling of the Spirit.
Many of you here on factnet are elders.
The Lord has brought you to it and not some theology mill that requires a piece of paper.

I'm noy saying that knowledge is not good but that it does not readily qualify a person to be led by the Spirit.(the letter kills)
That takes walking in the Spirit.
It's just plain personal and no "pastor" can do that for you.(the Spirit is life)

We each have something for one another that the Lord has given to us for that very purpose.
Not to be stood on by some other person but to lift up others in oneness.

Dave
</font>}

[exsec (exsec)]

Dear Bruce,
I don't think that you answered my previous question regarding repentance having taken place by the leadership of GG...
exsec

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"Some people say, be careful of psycholgy replacing our creeds, but are they really saying be careful of thoughts that challenge easy beleivism.

Excellently stated!

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"Just because it has evangelical trappings does not mean it is an environment where people are encountering a living God.
Why do we think we need to trust in someone elses vision of God, or fabrication of a vision, in order to know God? Is not every soul a portal through which He can be seen and isn't every individual given the gift to know Him and be known by Him"


YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Exsec

Bruce may never answer you in direct terms...he is the classic deflect, defend and denounce everyone and everything GGWO puppet pastor. He can dodge and weave almost everything asked of him. I am sure you are well aware of the type!

I wish you luck.

[exsec (exsec)]

Dear rj-fernalld,
Yes, I am aware...
Thanks,
exsec

[no_touch_love (no_touch_love)]

hey otp did you send out that stuff yet? i hear they were asking about it, you better get on the ball!

http://liquidwaves.blogspot.com/

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

no, i haven't NTL. see, that other guy told me it was from when the pastor said we were in league with the devil and had 'the spirit of a demon.' remember? i think he called it the 'hucklebutt'

?

[no_touch_love (no_touch_love)]

oh you mean Juggy Gills? I thought he was dead? last time i heard, he was givin' the old hucklebutt down behind the bar stool one night!

[orangetwopay (orangetwopay)]

no, he didn't give me the hucklebutt, it was stevens!

[no_touch_love (no_touch_love)]

stevens gave you the hucklebutt? that doesn't sound right!

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Hey Bruce, sometimes the truth is demeaning. You guys created an environment where to question the "ministry" (cult) was to question God Himself. You took innocent people, some of whom got their very first exposure to anything related to Christianity from TBS/GGWO, and you told them "this is TRUE Christianity". They didn't know any better. You told them to ignore their feelings (feelings are BAD!), you told them not to listen to anything other than GGWO, you told them that Carl (and only Carl) has a direct line to God, and now you have the gall to suggest that it's somehow demeaning to suggest that they were duped?

You rat <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>, it's what you set out to do! You told them that the measure of their Christianity is their obedience to Carl! You told them that "real" Christians don't question! Now you try to blame them for falling in line with the program?

I don't think that you were duped. Oh no. YOU, my pompous friend are one of the manipulators. How you can look at yourself in the mirror is beyond me.

Phil Calvert

[john_krainis (john_krainis)]

Right, Phil.

Bruce wrote:

"Another hidden impliication for those wishing to claim victimhood, apart from the surrendering of pèrsonal responsability, is the surrender of personal dignity. For me, to claim that I can be lead about against my convictions and discernment, means to say I am a sheep. It implies that my need to be accepted is greater than my need to know the truth or to follow God. As the analogies often used indicate, you have to accept beforehand that you were a helpless child –somebody without a thinking capacity to discern (called the pre-logic state in child development), or a maturity level to know what you were doing, or an emotional level where you would have had the capacity to maintain autonomy. Personally, i would find that kind of analysis utterly degrading and i do not see how anybody could recover human worth and dignity after having accepted those premises."

This may help explain why Bruce stays with GG: it's too painful ("undignified", "degrading") to admit his participation in a cult/abusive church.

Bruce is saying in essence here, "GG can't be a cult because that would mean I was deceived."

I would argue that it is precisely through facing this fact that one "recovers human worth and dignity". Better yet, we rediscover that God gladly accepts us even though we've blown it.

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

I remember a little seven year old girl who came into our agency one day with her grandmother. She had been repeatedly sexually abused from the age of 3 by her father and placed in the custody of her grandmother by child protective services. While she was being interviewed by the authorities and telling her painful story, we met with the grandmother to talk about the years of support and therapy this little girl would need to recover and live a normal life. The grandmother looked us right in the eye and without a hint of emotion shrugged her shoulders and said, "So. It happens to all girls doesn't it?"

When I read responses like Bruce's and LMAO's to this issue- "it happens in all groups" I lose all hope for a future where people will take responsibility to stand up and advocate for children and say "one child is too many" or "not in my group, family, church, neighborhood".

Bruce, if you consider youself a leader in GGWO, if you're one of those proud pastors sitting on stage, than I submit that it is your responsibility to advocate for policies that protect children TODAY. If you and all your fellow pastors keep right on ignoring this issue, and don't raise a finger to take the first steps than you are no better than that grandmother shrugging her shoulders and offering her granddaughter a life without hope.

[plaid (plaid)]

Bonnie, I agree completely with your post. I shudder and feel like vomiting when I hear someone use the bible to justify people hurting others, especially children. No matter how many times you throw scripture at me, I will never beleive that God wants people to put up with abuse because it's part of his plan. No way, not ever. You can say it all you want, you can couch it in verses and platitudes, but in the end it means you are covering up for people who are hurting children and others. And in my heart of hearts I beleive that god wants us all to stand up and say "no more" when people are being hurt.

[sojourner (sojourner)]

Isn't Jesus the Great Shepherd, by implication doesn't that make His followers "sheep"?
Also what is wrong about wanting or needing acceptance? One of the greatest reassurances in the Word of God is that we are "accepted in the beloved". I think God designed us to need both a shepherd and acceptance...both fulfilled in Christ Himself...
However, before many reach the mature level of faith to see these things fulfilled completely in Christ they may be vulnerable and seek their fulfillment from men...leaders. It is the mature leaders responsablility to safeguard the vulnerable ones who look up to them...not to take advantage of them and seek to control their faith.
They have the burden of deflecting false worship away from themselves and onto God.
I think often a leader who is not under the True Shepherd and who is seeking acceptance from being in a leadership position vs. being accepted in Christ, is precisely the kind of individual who becomes a danger to the body of Christ, a hireling, not a Shepherd. He is seeking his own things, not the things of God and it is evidenced by the spiritual carnage left in the wake of his
actions.
If the sphere of influence of the strong over the weak were not a danger then why does Jesus say
"Woe unto them that are a stumbling block to these little ones"? Why does He say such a strong thing as "it would be better for them not to have been born."!? Doensn't that imply that the Lord clearly rests the burden on those who exert influence knowingly on those yet unformed in Christ? Just my impressions here.
If a leader knowingly manipulates a new believer or an unstable individual, that leader is accountable not the individual...it is the one with the suspect motives who will face the eyes of Christ and in that moment, nothing will be hidden in terms of where the responsability lies.
The ones in power never need the protecting, it is always the ones who are under them who need the safeguarding.

[exsec (exsec)]

Dear Bruce,
Matthew 18:6
exsec

[lmao (lmao)]

bonniescott, When I said child abuse happens in all groups, I was just expressing an opinion that it is widespread. I would never say that we should just give up and not try to do anything about it. My second statement called for the prosecution of any who try to cover up abuse. I hoped that would prevent misunderstanding.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
bonniescott,
I'm going to talk openly about you,ok?

You have the heart of a lion where it concerns the precious children.(I think,Lion of Judah.)
Any child that has you as an advocate is blessed by Love and compassion.

You're called sister and you know it.
Your heart shows it everytime you speak of children.God in you and through you,loves children.

I think I've said enough now.Except"you go girl!"

In His Love,
Dave

</font>}

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

Thank you, Dave.

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

LMAO,
Is it the policy of GGWO to report all suspected cases of child abuse to the proper authorities immediately and without hestitation? NO.

Is it the policy of GGWO to do criminal records checks on anyone working with or around children? NO.

Is it the policy of GGWO to refer members struggling with issues of domestic violence or child abuse to properly trained counselors in their communities? NO.

Do children have any real recourse when they are being hurt by adults who they are taught have authority over them? NO.

Yet you consistently defend them on this issue. Why?

It's not enough to call for prosecution. What will you DO?

(Message edited by bonniescott on November 04, 2005)

[gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)]

" I'M NOT IN THE LEAST SORRY WHEN I SAY THAT IF ANYONE LOOKS IN THE DIRECTION OF MY CHILD TO CAUSE THEM ANY HARM, MY NEW ADDRESS WILL BE MY OLD ADDRESS. TOM MITCHELL 218-374
C/O MARYLAND PENNITENTUARY
954 FORREST STREET
BALTIMORE, MD 21208
BONNIE,
I GIVE YOU MUCH CREDIT AS DAVE HAS ALREADY SAID YOU MUST BE CALLED. GOD IS TRULY OMNISCIENT, FOR IF I KNEW SOME OF THE INFORMATION YOU KNOW, I'D HAVE LOST THAT JOB IN THE FIRST WEEK. GOD FORGIVE ME, BUT I HAVE NOT A MILLA-OUNCE OF LOVE FOR ANYONE LIKE THAT. BEING A VICTIM OF ABUSE MYSELF, I JUST DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT ANYMORE. IT'S TO UPSETTING. BS, PLEASE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, THOSE KIDS NEED YOU.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
The Lord bless you bonnie http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif.

</font>}

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

Thanks Guys, but the policies I outlined aren't rocket science; they're just basic, bare-bones child protection policies required by most regulatory agencies of organizations having anything to do with children, and, in the case of reporting, mandated by the laws of every state in the country.

Has GGWO been negligent here? You bet your booty!
The fact that they haven't had the pants sued off them (again) by now is probably just pure dumb luck.

[lmao (lmao)]

Frankly bonnie, I have been out of gg for quite a while and I do not know what their policies are. Since I do not know you, I have no way of knowing how you would know what their policies are or even more important how well they practice their policies. Please enlighten me.

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

I still have family involved.

[listener (listener)]

And Bonnie,

My family attended a branch ministry regularly until recently (last couple months).

I can testify to you that my wife and I were both required to pass a background check.

I can testify to you that in my capacities, I was educated with specific do's and don'ts regarding how to handle myself in terms of being alone with children, and permitting others to do so. These rules were very similar to those that I am required to follow in other organizations that work with children.

I can testify that checks and balances of power were in place particularly where children were involved, but also with regard to adult ministries.

I have no knowledge of current Baltimore policy.

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

Last year, when I volunteered to work at the GGCA day school (my daughter was in first grade) I had to give references and have a criminal background check.

[listener (listener)]

Bonnie,

In my post above, I tried to be strictly factual. I probably came off as uncaring also.

I don't know how to write this next sentence. I am, by background trained in technical writing. If I begin to let my emotions into my writing, it descends into total drivel. But I have experienced life-changing heartache with regard to issues of child sexual abuse. Not with Greater Grace. They were common at other places. Only one place that I ever served (a parachurch organization) had strict guidelines in place 20 years ago - and I still remember them, and followed them at each subsequent place, regardless of the policy at those places.

I am with you 100% about not covering any of these things up. I think LMAO is totally with you, too. The writings of RHP on another thread regarding covering have shocked me.

But I also understand that events have evolved since the 70's and 80's. There was much confusion about how these things should be handled. I confess to you that I did not know how to handle it when I was told (by children) about what had happened to them. I have worked that through since - with the child, their protectors, and have learned much about my appropriate response since then.

I am not talking about covering a leader. I was a member of the Assemblies of God in those days. I had to live with the events of Swaggart and Bakker, and take the abuse. I loved that the AOG came down properly on Swaggart (and that event was not related to child abuse).

But as time has gone on, we have learned much about just how much went on, how many were hurt, and how many more were hurt because things were covered. The policies that I had to learn at Greater Grace are probably relatively new. It's just a few years since most organizations have implemented them.

A terrible thing happened, at many locations. It is happening still, too frequently. It takes no leadership to join the bandwagon now. But at least oversight, protection, checks and balances ARE being put into place now - not just at Greater Grace - but at all reputable places.

I know, I've said very little, but I want you to know that I am not just a heartless technocrat....

(post edited to remove the word "not" from the phrase " the policies that I had to learn at greater grace are probably "not" new, and replace it with "relatively"

(Message edited by listener on November 05, 2005)

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Listener,
I can vouch for that particular ministry you mention.Children have been protected from abuse by the leaders in that branch for many years.

I remember the care that was put in place for the young.Like you say,it's not Baltimore.
I was once in the postion of protector there for a short while and having read,you know my thoughts about it.

Most of the problems centered around the middle (GGWO) except for some doctrinal issues but I'd rather have to deal with doctrinal issues than child abuse issues any day.

Doctrinal issues are easier to heal than abused children.

Dave
</font>}

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

Dina,
It's heartening to hear that at least criminal records checks are being conducted, but it is the issue of reporting suspected abuse to the proper authorities that most concerns me.

Listener,
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me.

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

State of Maryland, mandated reporter law
http://www.dhr.state.md.us/cps/mandated.htm

[dinaweena (dinaweena)]

Yes, as a mother (and someone who was sexually mishandled) it would concern me as well. I'm not sure what thier 'protocol' is regarding these things....you'd think there would be no question as to how situations like that would be handled...definitely raises some questions. Personally, I am all for public castration :-)

[jayso (jayso)]

Dave, when I was at TBS, the only person who had and practiced revelatory "spiritual gifts" was Carl H. Stevens, Jr. I never knew anyone else to have revelations or gifts of knowledge but him. That is one of the reasons I left. He used to call out people's sins and shortcomings and say he knows this because of the Holy Spirit. Did anyone else use the GGWO "gift of knowledge" from the pulpit? Please let me know. I only saw CHS acting as the special "oracle of God". Most of his "gifts of knowledge" were pointing out a besetting sin or bad habit that one or more members of the church had. Is that Godly?

[nonotone (nonotone)]

No Jayso,

It's not Godly. The fact is that Carl used these alleged "manifestations of the Holy Spirit" to control and to manipulate. Jim Faucet has already testified that he saw Carl and some of his flunkies lie about the "hand count" during one these "gifts of knowledge". Believe me, I spent years observing Pentecostal/Charismatic "hucksters and carpetbaggers" *prior to* coming into GGWO. Carl was *very* subtle and the fact that he basically taught "cessation of Tongues" was used to help lend credibility to the times when Carl did "prophesy", etc.

It was mainly hocus-pocus cirus tricks with Carl as the ringmaster. God alone is sovereign and deliverance from besetting sin comes through a process of growth in "the grace &amp; knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" in obedience to His Lordship. Carl was seriously out of line when he did these things.


Brian Bowman
John 3:21

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Current pastors at GGWO are aware of one man that I know of who is guilty of sexual molestation in the past, accepted hima as a student at SSB, allowed him to work with bus ministry/Sunday school chldren and to repeatedly be a counselor at Camp Life.

Has he molested again since coming to the ministry? I don't know. I do know the child he hurt is a member of a pastor's family.

yes, it has been reported.

The point is that he is still there and has access to the children and the pastors know it.

[lmao (lmao)]

RJ,
How do you know he still has access to children? Does he work in youth work? What kind of access are we talking about?

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

Question me all you like. It changes nothing.

I know because I know. All anyone has to do is be involbed with bus ministry/Sunday school, even on a limited basis and the access to the children is obvious. Camp Life...the access to the children is obvious.

The point is that the pastors, including the child's family, KNEW about him before he ever came to Lenox, and now is in Baltimore wjith that same family.

He now has children of his own. The huge family clan he belongs to has multiple peoblems with sexuality anong it's younger members.

Tell me something? Do you think this is an isolated case? If you do, you still have your head in the sand.

Ask the cutters, ask the kids who wish thye were dead so they didn't have to be scrutinized by teachers, family friends, other older teens.

The damnable cult has so many people fooled. it sickens me.

I have been called to task, like many others even for bringing up the sbject. meanwhile the disgusting misuse of power confinues, the use of children for sexual purposes continues.

This is a subject thart i am passionate about. You will forgive my strong language. If not, well that is between you and God.

[anon_brief (anon_brief)]

Policies are great to have, but after drafting a policy there must be a procedure formulated to outline what actions will be taken when a breach takes place.

The real linchpin is enforcement of the policy and compliance with the procedure.

Here is a link to some discussion of the matter:

http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/2542.html?1098896256

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

Thanks Anon, excellent point.

A note of caution for parents:

If GGCA is doing background checks it’s probably because Maryland Dept. of Education requires it as part of their licensure process. This does not mean that other non- regulated GGWO programs in which children are involved: the youth ministry, bus ministry, Camp Life, etc. have such a policy in place.

Most conscientious organizations that deal with children go well beyond this bare-bones safeguard by educating staff about the signs and symptoms of abuse; teaching children what to do if they are being hurt; requiring that staff avoid one-child, one-adult situations; and of course educating staff about mandated reporting laws, and requiring they be followed.

A good rule of thumb: don’t assume that the program your child is involved in has comprehensive child protection policies in place. Ask to see them and ask how they are enforced.

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Brian,
I can't argue with that.
I had the gift of knowledge working at least twice that I know of and neither time did it have to do with a believer.
Once,I was shown what the purpose of a piece of ritual jewelry was for,in order to witness to a warlock.
The other was a lady that was dieing of lung cancer.The Lord showed me something in her house and where it was,to verify to her that I was sent to minister hope to her.
Not once was I moved to mention her sin or shortcomings.
In both cases,it was a matter of life.

God is good,
Dave
</font>}

[bonniescott (bonniescott)]

Anon,
I followed your link, "8 page pervert forms?" What the ? Criminal records check forms are 1 page and ask for basic information: Past and present names addresses, date of birth and social security number. I have no idea what Lewis was up to but it wasn't doing standard background checks. He probably came up with his own bizarre system of trying to sniff out abusers, which syncs with what I know of Lewis.

You had an excellent point on that thread that I want to repeat here. Statistcly most sexual perpetrators who finally come to the attention of authorities are first time arrestees, underscoring the importance of going well beyond criminal records checks in the effort to protect children.

[jeannie (jeannie)]

The bottom line is the ONLY thing TBS/GG ever protected was "THE MINISTRY." It did not protect the children. Many of us know first hand accounts of rapes and molestations. These now adult children will not come forward, they have spent too many years dealing with their trauma in silence. But we have on this board the story of Preston, her account tells of molestation at a very young age in Lenox and her rape in Baltimore as a teen. The perpetrator was someone who hung around the youth ministry. Do you think he ever had a background check? Another young person responded to Preston's post, someone I know, she was molested at a young age also. I know another now adult who was raped on the campus of Lenox and NOTHING was done about it. Pressing On told of her own sister being raped at the age of 8 in Lenox. She named the guy here on FN!

Why do you think most remain silent? The very mention of child abuse here on the forum by Bonniescott, RJ, Lee and others brings those who scorn and disbelieve out of the woodwork.

LMAO, I know you have doubts about the truthfulness of what is being said but use common sense reasoning. Think of lengths the GG leadership went to when covering up the crap of the last two years. Think about the fact that CHS is a known drug addict and they still lie, deny and protect "THE MINISTRY" rather than get the founder of GGWO help. Is it such a leap to think that the reputation of "THE MINISTRY" would be on the line if a rape or molestation of a child was made public? They cover everything up! Look at what they did to Alan Lang! They not only cover up, they will stop at nothing to protect "THE MINISTRY." Do you really think they care about some little child if they don't care about their own founder? The scary thing is in their sick world they see nothing wrong with what they are doing. You left because of the things you saw, now try to imagine the things you didn't see.

[lmao (lmao)]

I guess my point from the beginning was that gg's abuse of scripture and abuse of power in the areas we can see are what I am focused on including the unaccountable leadership, the marking and the exclusivity which was expressed by CRI and Sandy Cove. These problems exist today regardless of gg's child abuse policies and practices which may or may not be up to date.

Personal attacks and unproven accusations just give them reasons to mark us and those who should hear the truth don't even listen.

[nonotone (nonotone)]

The idolatrous veneration of Carl is at the root of all this. As a result this lead to Carl (and other "pastor/teachers") usurping the authority of the family to protect their Children. It was always about "The Body" (boy it sure was and we ain't talking about the Body of Chirst), these are "Body Kids", etc. It's all so phony and unbiblical it makes me sick.

The leadership's lack of real sexual purity and moral ethics contributed to an atmosphere where this could take place. "Grace was given" because some of the men in charge were themselves guilty of sexual misconduct. Without TRUE REPENTANCE - which includes seeking to help the victims at all costs - these men WILL be judged. I don't care how many "countries they have impacted". Excuse me while I go hurl.

Even one child molestation, adolsent sexual assualt, rape, etc. is *not* worth all of the "activity for Jesus" that these men pride themselves in.


Brian Bowman
John 3:21

(Message edited by nonotone on November 06, 2005)

[aurora (aurora)]

So true.

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

"Even one child molestation, adolsent sexual assualt, rape, etc. is *not* worth all of the "activity for Jesus" that these men pride themselves in."

I agree whole heartedly!

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

The fact is that covering for any act or molestation or rape of a child is a moral outrage, an abomination before God and a crime in this country for very good reasons. The perpretators need to be exposed and locked up for the safety of the children. Let God deal with these pervert's hearts in the jail cells. Who cares what the perverts' "ministries" might have been, that's all beside the point when it comes to the safety of the kids. Better to find em, expose em, cuff em, book em, try em, jail em, and then let God deal with their hearts.

SIDETHORN

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
sidethorn,
it's funny you mention that God should deal with them in jail.I say that because my cousin met Jesus in jail.He was thinking about my sister's life in Christ and it caused him to see his need for the saviour.
He is now an evangelist living on the left coast and Loves the Lord with all his heart.

Yeah,I agree with you there.

He came to set the captives free.

Dave
</font>}

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
In India if a oerson is caught stealing they cut the hand that took it off.
India has very little problems with theft.
I'll leave it at that,you know where it's headed,LOL.

Dave

</font>}

[jayso (jayso)]

Right on, Dave! I say cut off the "offending member"! Good thing we're not God. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/angry.gif

I just thought about the guy who killed the Groene family in Idaho and kidnapped the little girl. He was a serial child molester and most likely a murderer, yet the previous judge in Minnesota let him out on the streets after a very short sentence. What a tragedy.

These kind of people need to be put away for a long time. No cult or church should protect them from the law. Too bad we don't have a "Patmos" in the USA. Hey... we have Guantanamo - now there's an idea.

I just heard a news story today that convicted child molesters are appealing a law that prohibits them from living near a school. They say it "violates their rights". How sick is that?

[jonathanv (jonathanv)]

I think that the simplest way describing a cult is that it is religious, because we cannot be saved by religion. We are saved by faith in Christ's sacrifice. Christianity is not about religion; it is about a relationship with Christ.

cult=religion

[coke_m (coke_m)]

You people are sick!
Go on with your lives!
It's very apparent why you people
were in this cult!
You perseverate on foolishness!
This cult is not worth your time and effort!
The people left in this cult have mental health issues!
They cannot tell themselves the truth!
No amount of your mindless banter is going
to change this fact until they get some professional help!
You people should consider getting some help for yourselves too.
Let it go!

[david_munson (david_munson)]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Have a coke and a smile.
Seems coke is a little repetitious.

Dave
</font>}

[jayso (jayso)]

Yeah, but he/she has a good point!

[rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)]

I disagree that coke has a point at all.

If we had not, as a group and indivudually persisted in telling the truth about GGWO here, many people would not have left...they would not have heard the truths, they would not have had access to the documents pertaining to cover ups etc.

If we had not persisted in keeping the truth out there, the kids that have spoken to me would not have sought help from qualified counselors.

Also, we must noy discount the role FN and our persistence had in the current split, the outing of the cover up we discovered.

We must continue to be persistent, for there are many of our brothers and sisters being fed the kool aid that will poison hearts, minds and souls.

We can't ever give up no matter how many idiots like coke try to tell us to stop by using accusations...

Get thee behind me coke...where you belong.

[jayso (jayso)]

RJ, I agree with you 100%.

When I said he/she has a good point, I only refer to:

<font color="0000ff"> "The people left in this cult have mental health issues!
They cannot tell themselves the truth!" </font> <font color="000000">
</font>
As for all the rest of it - it is just another tactic of the "evil one" to silence those truths which come forth from you and others who expose the cultic nature of GGWO and how they cover for child molesters and the like.

I also say "Get thee behind me Satan!".

[coke_m (coke_m)]

"WOULD" being the key word in RJ's response...PAST TENSE...so let it go and move on with your lives!

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

I moved on with my life years and years ago and I still expose GGWO as the cult that it is to help others avoid it and leave it from within. Repeatedly exposing a cult is not living in the past, its called doing what's right. Cults thrive on silence and secrecy, public exposure is the cure. Great posts RJ and Jayso. Thanks for keeping up the exposure of GGWO. Great job. I extend that to all who expose GGWO and other cults using any method for that matter. Keep up the exposure.

SIDETHORN

[coke_m (coke_m)]

Quite lofty rationalization...however, your mission has been accomplished so why keep beating a dead horse? I will answer, because you people need to perseverate on this stuff to alleviate the guilt you feel for allowing this crap to take root in yet another place, Baltimore!

Forgive yourselves and go forward PLEASE!

[sidethorn (sidethorn)]

Mission only partially accomplished. More work needs to be done and somebody out there has to do it.

[lmbles (lmbles)]

Don't know where I found this, but I've had it saved on my computer for a while. THought this might be a good threat to post it on. Hope it helps someone.

*******************

How Can I Discern Whether I'm in a Healthy or Abusive Fellowship?

Abusive fellowships are often the most exciting Christian gatherings around -- filled with dedicated, committed, enthusiastic leaders and members. Do not let enthusiasm and sincerity be the basis for approval. More often than not, abusive fellowships cannot be recognized by mere outward appearance. By discrediting facts, the leaders of such gatherings control information. Leaders may deny these practices -- or marginalize them in some way. It is important to investigate any fellowship thoroughly.

Abusive fellowships often change the meaning of words. In these fellowships, "unity" commonly means agreement with the leaders opinions. Members are often told that they are "out of unity" when they disagree with the leaders' opinions. Healthy fellowships understand that true unity means that
There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called to one hope when you were called -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4)

Every healthy fellowship will have disagreements, and yet be in unity in the Biblical sense as brothers and sisters in Christ.

In healthy fellowships members commonly maintain friendships when friends leave the group. Abusive fellowships tend to view almost everyone who leaves as a backslider and they view most other Christians as not committed or saved. Healthy fellowships do not consistently tell derogatory stories about those who leave.

In healthy fellowships the leaders prove themselves to be trustworthy in order to be trusted. In abusive fellowships the leaders must be trusted because they are the leaders. To not trust them is to sin.

In healthy fellowships we are admonished to imitate the Christ-like virtues seen in others. In abusive fellowships the leaders are imitated in many more ways than just their virtues. In fact, members take on many of the personal characteristics (personality) of the leaders in a manner that appears unseemly. This is particularly true of those being groomed for "ministry."
In healthy fellowships commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to Apostolic teaching, is absolutely necessary. In abusive fellowships members must be equally committed to the group and to its practices and peculiar beliefs. Some even have members sign "covenant" documents, much like marriage vows.

In healthy fellowships we are exhorted to obey clear Biblical mandates. In abusive fellowships we are exhorted (or pressured) to obey the leaders' opinions --even when our conscience says "no."
In healthy fellowships the confession of sins and "bearing of one another's burdens" is a personal matter that takes place in the context of a larger "family" relationship with other Christians. In abusive fellowships sins are exposed by (or to) leaders and pressure is often applied to confess to the group.

In healthy fellowships secrecy and independence in personal matters -- before God -- are acceptable as long as sins are confessed in private. In abusive fellowships secrecy or independence in personal affairs are scorned, and all areas of life are to be exposed -- even those that do not touch moral issues.

In healthy fellowships we are encouraged to love and bless our enemies. In abusive fellowships showing hatred for our enemies and speaking defamatory of them is acceptable. And often the occasion for "rallying the troops."

Abusive leaders seldom practice this scripture:
...when ridiculed, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered we respond gently... (1 Cor 4:12, 13)

Matt. 18:15
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you.
1 Timothy 5:19, 20

Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

In healthy fellowships Matthew 18:15 applies to every member without distinction -- you are to go to your brother or sister alone -- while 1st Timothy 5:19-20 (a stricter standard) applies to leaders. In abusive fellowships Matthew 18:15 applies to leaders -- you are to deal with them alone -- instead of 1st Timothy 5:19-20. These latter verses are often ignored, thus preventing two or three from EVER bringing an accusation against a leader in error.

Non-abusive leaders rebuke members only for grave public sins, as a last resort (Matthew 18:17). Abusive leaders often publicly rebuke or ostracize members who simply disagree with leaders' opinions. Usually vis-à-vis sermon illustrations or applications, etc.

Non-abusive leaders do not encourage people to leave the fellowships because of differences of opinion. Abusive leaders often assume the right -- unilaterally -- to tell or encourage members who do not agree with leaders' opinions to leave the fellowship.

Non-abusive leaders do not view members as "lacking spiritually" simply because they do not participate in numerous fellowship activities. Abusive leaders view as "spiritually lacking" those who fail to attend most all their fellowship activities. Some even mandate the number of meetings members MUST attend.

Non-abusive leaders do not discourage members from reading information critical about the group. Abusive leaders often control negative information about the group by either discrediting it or by dissuading members not to read it.
Non-abusive leaders do not judge your hearts, but they leave that to God. Abusive leaders constantly judge hearts, motives, and intents. They basically assume -- rather, usurp -- the place of God.

[johncollins (johncollins)]

lmbles,

Good stuff! I wonder if gg will incorporate it into a reprint of their "Choosing a Local Assembly" booklet?

I've recently been considering how much material exists similar to what you just posted. Entire libraries, extensive websites, the ICSA conference Minutus posted about (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/15749.html?1133128701), etc. And considering how much of that material describes our experiences so precisely. And considering how few of the authors have ever heard of the group we were once associated with. i.e.: these principles were not written down, books authored, etc. by "disgruntled former members" out to "get" chs or any in leadership there today. They describe symptoms, based on personal observations of other groups. Yet the symptoms seem to so often apply directly to ggwo as well.

John


ps:
You said you didn't know where you found the article. I found a copy of it (http://www.batteredsheep.com/faq_healthy_fellowship.html) on the website of Battered Sheep Ministry "a place of encouragement for sheep who have been wounded and victimized by authoritarian and legalistic churches." They indicated their version of the article "has been adapted from the pamphlet Discerning A Healthy Church, ©1998 Control Techniques, Inc."

[sidethorn]

With all the recent discussion about cults, GGWO, and the IAGM, time for a bump.

[doug]

There was a man who loved people and in his loving people he prospered. There were people who were jealous for the love he had and he gave them some guidelines that they could follow to make that love known to others.
There were people who were jealous of his prosperity but not for his love and they studied those guidelines and coppied them, some better than others. The counterfits became so prevalent that the original guidelines became defunct and people who have understanding had to discern and work outside the structure.

Even if you have those perfect doctrinal guidelines it doesn't mean God is in your heart.

There was a charity in the USA that supported an orphanage where a war had killed many of the men in another country. Some people concerned for the orphans supported the charity but some out of guilt supported it for their own narcissistic purposes. They felt guilty of their abundant material possessions and leisure time wasted but they didn't really care for the orphans. They just wanted to feel good about their self. The orphans eventually got their own businesses and had the resources to support their own families.
The good people who started the charity left and went elsewhere to do other works and the concerned people who followed the orphans progress stopped supporting the now defunct charity. The narcissistic people projected their own selfishness and told the caring people that they just stopped supporting the charity because they were selfish . The narcissists found new leaders who told them they needed more money for the orphans and they were happy to oblige.

God gave Israel ceremonies made to help man and a place to follow them until Messiah. When Messiah came the ceremonies would be defunct. Israel kept worshiping other Gods in its high places and God took them away from the temple and Jerusalem before messiah came because of their sin. Anyone who remained in Jerusalem was destroyed.
The purpose of the "Church" is defunct. The unholy is in the place of the holy. Jerusalem, the Church, has become Babylon the Harlot. "Precious stones", the brethren, "were in you" you- the Church. And now God is calling everyone out of every Church and many people will be saved outside the Church structure and the holy spirit no longer works through that structure and more than it did the ceremonial laws and sacrifices after Israel was told to go captive to Babylon.

[doug]

There was a man who loved people and in his loving people he prospered. There were people who were jealous for the love he had and he gave them some guidelines that they could follow to make that love known to others.
There were people who were jealous of his prosperity but not for his love and they studied those guidelines and copied them, some better than others. The counterfeits became so prevalent that the original guidelines became defunct and people who have understanding had to discern and work outside the structure.

Even if you have those perfect doctrinal guidelines it doesn't mean God is in your heart.

There was a charity in the USA that supported an orphanage where a war had killed many of the men in another country. Some people concerned for the orphans supported the charity but some out of guilt supported it for their own narcissistic purposes. They felt guilty of their abundant material possessions and leisure time wasted but they didn't really care for the orphans. They just wanted to feel good about their self. The orphans eventually got their own businesses and had the resources to support their own families.
The good people who started the charity left and went elsewhere to do other works and the concerned people who followed the orphans progress stopped supporting the now defunct charity. The narcissistic people projected their own selfishness and told the caring people that they just stopped supporting the charity because they were selfish . The narcissists found new leaders who told them they needed more money for the orphans and they were happy to oblige.

God gave Israel ceremonies made to help man and a place to follow them until Messiah. When Messiah came the ceremonies would be defunct. Israel kept worshiping other Gods in its high places and God took them away from the temple and Jerusalem before messiah came because of their sin. Anyone who remained in Jerusalem was destroyed.
The purpose of the "Church" is defunct. The unholy is in the place of the holy. Jerusalem, the Church, has become Babylon the Harlot. "Precious stones", the brethren, "were in you" you- the Church. And now God is calling everyone out of every Church and many people will be saved outside the Church structure and the holy spirit no longer works through that structure and more than it did the ceremonial laws and sacrifices after Israel was told to go captive to Babylon.

[rjfernalld]

time this rises to the top once more

[sidethorn]

Time for a bump

[sidethorn]

Check out the warning signs of cults mentioned in the top few posts on this thread and try to objectively test GGWO if they test positive on any of these warning signs. Think about it for a while. You might find the results quite shocking. Hint. If you're in GGWO, there's a much better life waiting for you in the outside world GGWO leaders want you to avoid. If you're outside GGWO, this group is best avoided altogether.

[sidethorn]

If you're in an IAGM church, please objectively check out the warning signs of a cult for that church too. You might find the results shocking in this case too. Old habits and teachings in peoples' minds die hard and have not been fully eradicated in many lives in the IAGM. Check out a lot of recent testimony on www.discussggwo.org (http://www.discussggwo.org)!! Best to just move on and find a group that never was a part of TBS/GGWO/IAGM to begin with!!

[sidethorn]

Bump! Try some of these cult tests within this thread on your church or TBS/GGWO/IAGM churches themselves. The results may shock you!!

[sidethorn]

If anyone knows of other good cult tests that can be applied to churches or other groups, please provide them or include some good links to them on this thread. It could really make a difference in someone else's life and spare them the kind of misery so many of us suffered at TBS/GGWO/IAGM.

[sidethorn]

Here's some links to more helpful sites out there with more cult detector tests:

http://www.excult.org/cultc.html

http://www.truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Alethea/Cult.html

[bramble]

I stumbled upon this thread and see is as getting back to the basics of why this board is here in the first place. In my opinion a cult can be defined as follows...

I like the simplicity of the Steve Hasan model

Behavorial control--keep them busy with busy work, worship, sleep deprivation--salvation through works alone

Information Control--limit contact with outsiders, media, family, friends

Thought Control--teach them to reject ideas that do not fit with group mentality, their mind eventually shuts down when encountered with a confusing or conflicting thought.

Emotional Control--put the fear of God or Satan in them. Leaving means--insanity, or damnation etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Additionally a orthodox (small 'O') Christian Church will believe...

There is One God: Father, Son and Spirit. This One God is comprised of Three Persons. He is NOT three gods. These persons function individually and collectively.

Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. He is totally human AND totally divine.

Bible is the Inspired Word of God.

We are saved through:
grace, love, faith and works.


There is more. This is just a beginning.

[ctyankee]

Here's a good site for learning about cults. Don't forget to take the Super Apostle test.

cultwatch.org.

[bramble]

Here's a good site for learning about cults. Don't forget to take the Super Apostle test.

cultwatch.org.

Thanks for the tip. It really hits home! IMO, these cults are mostly the same, only the names are different.

[earnestseeker]

This is good Bramble......Rose Creek Village seems to have a lot of the criteria of a cult....why did it take me so long to see this? I was hurting and seeking I guess....

Peace Out from your ol' cyberspace buddy,

earnestseeker