Charity Gospel Ministries Denny Kenaston

[Anonymous (24.131.162.205)]

anyone know anything about these people?

[Calliej (4.245.23.75)]

Yes! We have family in them...at Ephrata, PA. They are a sect and many people have been hurt by them...they have good tapes (whereas modest clothing, headcovering, family, and homeschool is concerned), this is why people start ordering their tapes. However they stray doctrinally. They believe that you can lose your salvation the very next day after "gaining" it. I've heard other stories (but of course that is "heresay"). I was in a mennonite church for awhile (most of charity is from mennonite and amish background)...it is scarey...
Also funny how they like to BASH Calvin...yet use calvinist ministers from history as examples of good homelife...

[Marliese Hill (152.163.253.102)]

Could you be a little more specific on why you think they are a sect? I was a member of a Charismatic church that thaught one could lose their salvation. I know many Charismatic Christians who are in fear of this. My husband has an Uncle who is a Christian Pastor and he argues that one can only gain salvation through good works. I also know some Methodists who believe one has to work out their salvation. My mother is Catholic and believes one can only gain salvation through sacraments given by a Priest. MY husband and I have attended Reform and Indepenant Baptist churches that bash both Calvin and Martin Luther. And yes, they have used calvinist ministers from history as good examples. When one points out the fact that they were calvinist, they say that "They were, but left the calvinistic faith." Now, no one would ever accuse any of the people that I mentioned as being part of a sect. Most everone would call them Christians.

[FriendInChrist (68.34.76.34)]

Marliese,

As far as your salvation goes, once you're saved you are always saved. You did nothing to earn your salvation, just believed on Christ, and that He died for your sins. That's why Ephesians 2:8 says that "not of yourselves, IT IS THE GIFT of God". God gave you a gift, and His character and nature prove He would not take it back.

John 10:27-29 is crystal clear in the original Greek, no one can cause you to lose your salvation, you can't even do it yourself.

Galatians 2:21 says that I do not frustrate the grace of God, if righteousness come by the law then Christ is DEAD IN VAIN. Meaning if I could work my way into heaven, Christ died for nothing, and salvation is not of the Lord. Psalm 3:8

One last thought (I don't want to overload you) the word HOPE in the NT is the Greek word ELPIS. It means a confident expectation without an attitude of doubt. If you have a Strong's Concordance, check out how HOPE is used in the Epistles. We as Born Again children of the KING, can have a confident expectation of eternal life.

God Bless, I hope this helps

[marliese hill (205.188.117.20)]

Friend In Christ,
I am sorry if I confused you. I wasn't asking a question on salvation. I believe once saved always saved. I was just trying to make a point. Calliej stated that Charity Gospel Ministies was a sect. This person gave two weak reasons why they were a sect. My point was that there are many people that believe they can lose their salvation and they are not called a sect, but rather fellow Christians. I never said that I agree with them or think they are right. A definition of sect is a group of people who hold certain views, especially in religious matters deviating from a generally accepted tradition. If this definition is true and if a person wants to use the fact that a group believes they can lose their salvation as a valid reason to label them a sect, then that person must lable all groups of people who believe that they can lose their salvation as being part of a sect. The other people that I mentioned believe false ways to gain salvation, but they are still considered Christians by Christian society. Christian society, as a whole, is not saying that they are a sect. Calliej also stated that Charity Gospel Ministries bash Calvin. I'm sorry to say that this is also a weak reason to call a group a sect when I have heard Christians bash not only Calvin, but Martin Luther, the Reformers, colored people, and other Christians. This fact breaks my heart. I am not saying that Charity Gospel Ministries is not a sect, because I simply don't know. I would like to judge according to the Bible for myself and that is why I asked Calliej if he/ she could be more specific on why he/ she believes they are a sect.

I'm sorry for any confusion.
Marliese Hill

[FriendInChrist (68.33.185.109)]

No problem that was just encouragement for you !!

[Student of Cults (68.82.215.131)]

The reasons I would classify this group as a cult are as follows:

1. Pyramidal power structure.

2. Rabid demonization of people who oppose their oddball teachings.

3. Overly controlling, extra-scriptural, legalistic approach to member lifestyles, i.e. "Sisters will not cut their hair." "The Bible forbids gold and pearls." Male members are "strongly discouraged" (ahem) from wearing ties.

4. Teaching that if people do not abide by these lists of commands, some of which are extrascriptural, they will became worldly or gray Christians and drift into an unsaved state.

5. Refusing to go "on record" as to what they believe - when it comes right down to it, what the leader says (some of it by supposed direct revelation!!) is IT.

Be very careful if you come into contact with these people! If anyone is interested, I know of at least one Christian support group for recovering members.

[jane mansfield (195.93.34.13)]

hello

I am very interested in charity gospel tape ministry at the moment. i live in the uk and I havent heard such sincere gospel messages for a long time. I don't know very much about Denny Kenaston or his church but am interested in why people think the church is a sect. What kind of bad experiences have people had?

[marliese hill (205.188.117.20)]

Student of cults,
I'd like to check out that support group. Where did you get your information? Have you read their statement of faith? Have you listened to any of their tapes? Or did you hear it from someone??

[Douglas (68.162.42.18)]

Salvation is through works. Forgive us our trespases as we forgive those who trespass against us. If you do not forgive others neither will your heavenly father forgive you. You are saved by works of the spirit. Forgiveness is a work of the spirit.

[FriendInChrist (68.33.184.197)]

Douglas
If salvation is through works, explain Ephesians 2:8-10, and Galatians 2:21. Nothing you can do will EVER compare to what Christ did on the cross to justify you before the Father.
Maybe you can give some more scripture validation for your view.
Forgiveness is a work of the Spirit. What does that have to do with you being saved by grace through FAITH?
The Father has already forgiven us through the blood of Christ.

[Douglas (68.162.42.196)]

"FriendInChrist" You said
"Forgiveness is a work of the Spirit. What does that have to do with you being saved by grace through FAITH?"
Everything. Christs blood was shed for the remission of sin.
"Maybe you can give some more scripture validation for your view."
Mathew 6:14 For if you forgive men their trespass, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you forgive not men their trespass, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22). Forgiving is not a work of the law. To truely forgive is not a work of your flesh nor a work of the law but a work of the spirit. You are saved through works of the spirit and not through things your old man does like keeping the law.
If your trespasses are not forgiven than how can Christ's blood save you if you trampled it?
Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after that we have received knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
Heb 10:29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy/common thing and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?

[FriendInChrist (68.33.184.197)]

Douglas,

I fully understand the shedding of blood for the remission of sin. Christ blood was the ONLY blood that could effectively blot out our sins once and for all. Hebrews 10:10. The only work done for salvation is that which was done on the cross. Salvation is of the Lord, Psalm 3:8.
When you say salvation is by works, understand that MAN has no part in this other than to BELIEVE. John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-10, Acts 16:31, just to name a few.
That was the point I was making.

[Anonymous (69.242.21.100)]

HEBREWS 6:4-8

[FriendInChrist (68.33.184.197)]

Anon 69.242.21.100

What is your purpose for listing the above passage in Hebrews 6? I hope you're not trying to say that we can lose our salvation. These verses do not say that.

[Douglas (68.162.51.63)]

Faith without works is dead

[marliese hill (152.163.253.102)]

Hmm. I found something interesting, Student Of Cults. Charity Gospel Tape Ministries offer tapes by S. M. Davis, Keith Daniels, and Gerhard Du Toit. All three wear a suit and tie in the pulpit and two of them have preached in Charity Churches. Gerhard Du Toit is with Canadian Revival Fellowship and on their Ministry teams. I don't know much on Keith Daniels. I have heard S.M. Davis and if you have ever heard him, the same question must come to your mind as came to mine. If a cult leader or a group of leaders is trying to overly control his or their people, why in the world would he or they make available S.M. Davis' tapes? Hmmm.

[FriendInChrist (68.34.76.34)]

Douglas,

Again, who's works are we talking about? This passage in James is not talking about losing your salvation, it's talking about an outward expression of the faith that is in you. Read the whole context of what James was saying.
Please do not confuse people by listing a verse or passage out of context.
I recommend a book by Harold Barker called "Secure Forever". He does an excellent exegetical study of the subject of Eternal Security. If your interested, I can get info on how to aquire this book.

By His Grace,
FriendInChrist

[marliese hill (205.188.117.20)]

"Sisters will not cut their hair."
I Cor. 11:14-15 KJV
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

No, it doesn't say women should not cut their hair, but it does suggest something. Let's look up some definitions and take a closer look at these scriptures. It states that if a man has long hair it is a shame unto him.

Shame = 1.) A painful feeling caused by a sense of guilt, unworthiness, impropriety, etc. 2.) Disgrace; humiliation. 3.) A person or thing causing disgrace or humiliation. 4.) Misfortune; outrage.

So, in other words, the act of having long hair brings disgrace or humiliation to the man who has long hair.

Disgrace = 1.) To bring reproach or shame upon. 2.) To put out of favor. 3.) Tha state of a person who has lost respect or favor. 4.) Loss of respect or favor.
Humiliation = The act of lowering or offending the pride or self-respect of; mortify; humble.

Do you see what the Bible is saying about long hair on men!?? Hmmm. Why would men want to have long hair in the light of this? So, could we then assume the opposite is true for women??? Does the act of cutting off a woman's long hair bring disgrace or humiliation to a woman with short hair??

"long hair, it is a glory to her"

Glory = 1.) Distinguished honor, praise. or renown. 2.) Something that brings or deserves honor, praise, or renown. 3.) Adoration; worshipful praise. 4.) Splendor; magnificence. 5.) The bliss of heaven. 6.) A state of exaltation, well-being, prosperity, etc. 7.) Radiance; brilliancy. 8.) A nimbus; halo.

Wow! Do you see? The Bible is saying that a womans' long hair is a distinguished honor and a man's long hair is a disgrace! Wow! Wow! Wow!
In the light of this, I don't see anything wrong with women not cutting their hair or it being preached from the pulpit. This does not qualify someone as being in a cult or sect. In fact, this has made me look at my hair in a different light and I will not be cutting my hair ever again. Wow!

[marliese hill (205.188.117.20)]

"The Bible forbids gold and pearls."

I Tim 2:9-10 KJV

" In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-
facedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

Ok, the Bible does say "not" to wear gold and pearls.
Adorn = 1.) To be an ornament to; increase the beauty of. 2.) To decorate with ornaments.
So, we are to adorn ( decorate ) ourselves with modest apparel, shame- facedness, and sobriety.
Modest = 2.) Characterized by reserve, propriety, or purity in dress, actions, speech,ect. 3.) Not excessive; moderate; limited.
Shame-facedness = 1.) Showing shame; ashamed. 2.) Bashful; modest.
Sobriety =1.) The state or quality of being moderate, serious, or sedate.
Array =Clothing; fine dress. To adorn; dress, as for display.
We are not to adorn ( decorate ) ourselves with braided hair, gold , pearls, or costly array. Be honest, does gold, pearls, or costly array really fit with the definitions above??
Array = Clothing; fine dress. To adorn; dress, as for display.
Wow! The definitions really make a big difference! In the light of this, I can see why they don't wear ties or even suits. Ties and suits are expensive, are made to look expensive, and suits give the appearance of having money. What are our true motives for what we are wearing? Clearly, the Bible has a different view on what we as Christians should be wearing from what we Christians believe is ok to wear. Hmm. Something to truly think about. And again, I don't find this qualifies someone as being in a cult.

[Douglas (141.153.155.176)]

marliese hill (205.188.117.20)
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 12:09 pm
If it is a shame for a man to have long hair why did some men of Israel have it and why was there a vow of a Nazerene?
I agree those things don't make you a cult but they don't make you holy either and cults can do them too.

FriendInChrist (68.34.76.34)
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 08:07 am
Sorry for using that scripture flippantly. It does not prove my point but I stand on my point from what I said before.

[marliese hill (205.188.117.20)]

Douglas,
In the Old Testament there are a few things that change in the New Testament. In the Old Testament God was a god of war, but in the New Testament Jesus taught nonresistance, no violence. In the Old Testament some wore lots of gold and yes, some men had long hair. The difference is that we are not part of a favored nation. God's grace comes upon us as individuals, not as a nation. Our job isn't to maintain a godly nation, but to live Christ- like and to draw people to Jesus. The vow of the Nazerene was part of the maintenance of God's favored nation.
Plus, I never said that not cutting your hair, nor wearing gold and pearls would make a person holy. They are called good works and have nothing to do with salvation.

[Douglas (138.89.114.12)]

Debbie
I don't know what you mean by maintenance of God's favored nation. I thought the vow of a Nazerene might have something to do with Jesus coming from Nazereth and him not drinking of the fruit of the vine until he drinks of it new in his Father's kingdom, a shadow of things to come.

[Douglas (138.89.114.12)]

I meant Marliese, not Debbie

[marliese hill (64.12.117.20)]

The vow of the Nazerene really is the vow of the Nazarite. A Nazarite is an Israelite consecrated to God for special service. The most well known Nazarite was Samson. You can read about the law of a Nazarite in Numbers chapter 6.

When I said " maintenance of God's favored nation" ( which is God's people the Isaelites), I meant things done to remind the Israelites that God was the only true god; that punished them for their sin ( such as illness); that would bring them back to the place God wanted them spiritually; and that teach/ remind the Israelites how to live pure lives and how to worship God, ect. In the Old Testament, God's grace was only on the Israelites because they were His favorite nation.

[Douglas (68.162.37.93)]

The law is a shadow of things to come and Israel is a shadow of the body of Messiah, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[marcathill (64.12.117.20)]

Douglas,
Are you saying the law of the Nazarite is a shadow of things to come?????

[Douglas (141.153.139.120)]

The vow of a Nazarite. Yes.

[Anonymous (141.153.139.120)]

Or a shadow of something spiritual

[Anonymous (66.67.186.236)]

Greetings all,

I have listened to Charity tapes for over a year now, primarily Bro Denny preaching. The statement that they are a cult is highly incorrect. I consider myself to be well founded in good doctrine and attend a SOLID independant Baptist church and I have never heard anything that even closely resembles a cult. If you are opposed to giving your life to Christ, who by the way gave His for you, then you might not want to listen to anything that they have.

The statement that they preach that you can lose your salvation is fully inaccurate. I would suggest that you listen to a set of tapes called "Warnings from Hebrews on Perseverence" before you make any further statements regarding their stand on this.

As to the statement that you can't find a doctrinal statement, you can also listen to a set of tapes called "A Declaration of the Faith". I believe it is a five tape set and that gives a great definition of where they stand.

Do I agree with EVERYTHING that they stand for? I can't say Yes to that or No. However, everything that I have seen so far is pretty in line with what I see in Scripture. By the way, there is a lot more that I disagree with in lukewarm Christianity......

Hope you find this information helpful.

[christina31 (christina31)]

First let me start by saying, hello. I am very familiar with these people I have over 200 of their tapes and materials. I come from baptist upbringing and then charismatic. I have been a Christian for 12 years and I have study indepth the scriptures for over 4 years, seeking many ways that the church has went astray from true doctrine. As far as the Kenaston go, they are far from an occult. They truly believe that we are in this world but not of this world. That we are called to live a pure and blameless life They believe in purity and devoting yourselves to God and his work, missions. They love the Lord with all their heart and the truth is in the fruits of their lives. I have spoken with many members of this family and they are very in love with our Lord. Such sweet and soft spoken people. They have background in amish and mennonite upbringing, but they speak alot about how these groups are always trying to do all the right things but no true repentant love for God. How many people confess they are Christians but they live a life that gives no glory to God and mocks the faith that Christ died in vain for. I as well believe that once saved not always saved. I studied this many years ago. Yes of course once you ask Jesus into your heart he himself will never leave you nor forsake you, but you can choose to leave him and forsake him. A formal mental acceptance of Jesus any place at anytime will not save a soul. It must be genuine heartfelt transaction of repentance and faith. ( Eph 2:8-9; 1 John 1:9) It is vain to ask a man to do this who is not ready to do this and had not been truly convicted of his sin and need for a savior. The word says that there are 3 things all must do (John 12: 47-48) 1. a man must hear in order to believe Christ's words. (v47; Romans 10:14) 2. he must believe in order to keep them. (v47; Romans 10:14) 3. he must keep them in oder to be saved. (matt. 10:22; Romans 6:22; Heb 3:6, 12,14; 6:11; 1Pet. 1:9,13; Rev. 2:26) There is a scripture in God;s word that is a warning to the SAVED. To beware of falling back into sin, lest it overtake you and then when Christ comes back for his own he will have to say he does not know you. Hebrews 3:12-14: T"ake heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." Here paul again warns brethren. christians, by examples of Israel's failures in the wilderness. They were brought out of Egypt with the fullest assurance of blessings, prosperity, and eternal rest. By their sin and unbelief they came short of the promised blessings, fell in the wilderness, and were cut off from God. Paul states plainly that Christians, the born again or saved men can also return to an evil heart of unbelief, depart from the living God, be hardened by deseitfulness of sin, be cut off by God, and be finally lost. See God can not look upon us while we are in sin and if we continue to walk back that way and to bring the house (our temple) back into the dark world it is like handing ourselves over to satan. God gives many warnings about how we are to conduct our lives. I thank the Kenastons for their love for God and the truth they speak. I am a single mother of 6 and if it wasn't for God, the Holy Word and the testimony of this family as well as others, there is no telling where I would be. I have learned what a Holy and just God is and what it means to die daily for our savior and to stop living in sin and livng for the world. Not riding the fence, or being luke warm. But being on fire for God and loving our children and what true submission is in the eyes of God. Please before you judge them get there materials and listen for yourselves. I am a woman who does believe in wearing dresses, we are to be feminine and to not tempt the eyes of our brothers and now days our sisters, we are called to dress modestly, men and women. Christians today are having more family problems than ever before they teach on training a godly seed. They have had 3 children so far that have married, no sex prior and are so happy and are in the mission field this day. God says to test every spirit and you can tell by the fruit. They bear fresh juicy fruit that has Christ love all in their lives. Please pray before you slash the testimony of people you do not know. God Bless you all It is rather sad that there is a site like this out there that puts down such a good family. If there were more like them our world would be a safer and more loving and purer place to be.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gifThese people teach living 24/7 for the love of Christ and His calling and for living a pure and unworldly life. Seems to me that the only thing that is hard about these people is living up to what they teach, which is already what Christ taught us.}}}

[christina31 (christina31)]

Students of Cults.

You stated:
"Be very careful if you come into contact with these people! If anyone is interested, I know of at least one Christian support group for recovering members."

The only thing that you need to recover from this group/Charity. Is true understanding of what it means to be a Christian. I have no problem in my life living a certain way that promotes, purity, modestly and love for Christ and His word, if you need to recover from that you need to check who you say you trust in. God says we are to die to self and pick up our cross. I didn't see Christ walking around wearing rich clothing and the finest appearal. He was humble and his only focus was on his fathers business, which is what we should be about. Too many Christians are yelling legalism. I remember the story of the bridesmaids who didn't fill up their oil like they were told and missed the wedding, matter of fact they weren't aloud in. There were more reasons why they couldn't either. Read the story and be enlightened.

[covered (covered)]

sorry, I didn't get back to this sooner.

It was incorrectly stated that I has given "weak reasons" as to why Charity was a sect. I never gave ANY reasons. I simply stated it. Also, simply listening to Charity tapes does not make one an expert on everything they are involved in or any of it's social issues. As I've stated, I have family and friends in Charity. I have friends whose spouses are taking them to Charity. And we nearly went to Charity. Also, I have been in similar community circumstances through the mennonites.
My stating that they are a "sect" does NOT mean that they are evil or such.
I do not believe them to be a cult. A cult and a sect are two different things.
Also, I am not "picking on them" because of their convictions on outward appearance. I happen to dress modestly, cover my head, and homeschool myself.
However, during my unexpected absence I found that few bothered to "discuss" the issue...instead there has been alot of defensiveness.
I was pointing out that though I disagree with Charity (theologically) and am aware that they have issues, they are not a cult, but a sect.
However, Student of Cults has several valid points that can be taken note of in general when looking at ANY group. Even if a group isn't a cult...it CAN be socially cultish (controling).
cal

[christina31 (christina31)]

I statement the comments not just because of their tapes, but because I personally know them. I have been in contact with these people and they are a very dear people.

[covered (covered)]

Many of them are dear people. It is for these dear people that I have concern. I'm speaking more of the leadership, how things are run, and testamonies I have heard from those that have experienced abuse of authority or unreasonableness. Also their attitude of superiority to other Christians (I'm speaking of the group as a whole here, not individuals as I know not all individuals feel that way).

[christina31 (christina31)]

I am speaking of the Kenastons they are friends of mine, and a very humble and prayerful people who want God's best for his family as well as others. They are very thoughtful and do not want to see sin creep into the church as it has for many years. We have people calling themselves Christians who are more than boatfloaters they along for the ride and God is looking for the unblemished spotless bride who honors and worships the Lord and FOLLOWS his word. The Kenastons are true Christians and I have been a witness for myself that they are sweet and dear people. I am not sure about anyone who follows their teachings, but I have listened to their tapes and see only concern and love for God and his people. It is because of their love for purity and God's Word that I have become the believer that I am to this day and the seed that I raise (6 of them) I know the fruit they bear is of sweet flavoring. I finish listening and studying with their tapes and I am so in love with God's word and with God himself. The TRUTH sets you free. I have been convicted of many of my sinful ways as well, the Kenastons draw you to live a holy life unto God. One that seeks to honor the Glory of God and to love the bridegroom. I am sorry, but I see not ill scripture in that?

[christina31 (christina31)]

"I'm speaking more of the leadership, how things are run, and testamonies I have heard from those that have experienced abuse of authority or unreasonableness. Also their attitude of superiority to other Christians (I'm speaking of the group as a whole here, not individuals as I know not all individuals feel that way)." The only time I have seen many people offended by these people are those who do not want to submit to the will of God and who yell legalism. God has an order in his Church. The church we see today has strayed far from that order. God says he will not be mocked.

[covered (covered)]

If you did not read my post clearly then let me remind you before you go lumping me in with others "who yell legalism":

I cover
We have 5 homeschooled children
We dress modestly
We do not believe in D&R
We celebrate Biblical holidays not secular ones

Also, we came to these things NOT through the Kenastons...but through God's leading. And albeit we are Reformed in our doctrine (in case you don't understand that, it means not arminian, what an arminian would not-so-correctly classify as calvinism).

As far as background...I have been in anabaptist groups, I have relatives in Charity, I have friends in Charity related churches, I have their publications and some of their tapes (the ones I can agree with them on).

Also, I NEVER said they were BAD. I said there are issues...Lots of churches have them. If Denny wants to get rid of them then they need to be confronted. However I understand that when there is an issue pertaining to him or others of leadership that he is not so willing to listen to it as he believes in the Gothard-type Authority Figure. (Gothard believes that persons of authority are above reproach and should be obeyed even when wrong-leaving it up to God the person should obey (participate in the wrongdoing) anyway.

I am NOT saying Denny is bad or doesn't have a good heart. But he is not perfect either. And I believe that authority figures are to be held accountable just as the laity.

You are too busy taking offense to look at the actual issue being presented.

Not all those that disagree with Charity are "not submitting to the Will of God" or "yelling legalism". (no where in scripture does it say to follow Denny Kenaston) The Charity churches are not the Remnant church as a whole. To claim to be the only "group" with truth and salvation is what is called a "sectarian group", believing THEY are the only ones.

The Remnant referred to in Scripture are God's people out of every nation. The saved are the remnant. Some in your church are saved, some are not. Some in mine are, some are not. Some in Charity are, some are not. Those that are are the remnant.

Also, change is happening in many "denominations" and "independant" churches. Charity didn't invent this change. My example in my church is encouraging others. I'm worried about changing the heart first...that will lead to the outside.

One may seem ahead of another by dressing modestly...but that other may have a better prayer life tho she should wear pants. I don't assume I or a group is above others due to appearances.

[christina31 (christina31)]

Dear covered, I totally agreed with everything you said in you post above mine. AMEN. So we see eye to eye. No I believe men are not who we follow we follow the WORD and that is Yahshua, and Him only. I am very sorry if we had the disagreement, I took certain things that were said very different than what was intended. Also can you personally email me and tell me a little more about your statement: "And albeit we are Reformed in our doctrine (in case you don't understand that, it means not arminian, what an arminian would not-so-correctly classify as calvinism). " I am very interested to learn more about your findings, this has interested me. I am reading a book about Church History. Would love to correspond on this matter more indepth, I am new at learning all the past theologies.

Thank you
dying2self4him@bellsouth.net

When you email please put from: covered in the subject line

[doug (doug)]

RE: "YAHSHUA"
This is a teaching from the communities Apostle "Yoneq", otherwise known as Eugene Elbert Spriggs, that "YAHSHUA" (and David Alaxander in other places) in his above post is prosletizing for.


For more info see "Twelve Tribes" on this web site.

<font color="ff0000">Execution of Justice
(Letter from Elbert concerning discipline and the seed of Abraham)
The reason Isaac was so willing to let his father sacrifice him was because he had
been raised his whole life knowing that he did not belong to himself, but belonged to his
father, and he was not living for himself, but living for his father. Hephzibah is coming to
understand that she is living for her father and belongs to him. The other day she was
having great difficulty being obedient to his command: not to suck her thumb in bed.
Elbert asked her to stick out her thumb because he was going to cut it off. He took a
huge pair of scissors and came toward her. She was terrified, but (after receiving her
discipline) she willingly stuck out her thumb to be cut off rather than let it cause her to
stumble in her obedience to her father. Elbert didn’t actually cut it off, but he wants
Hephzibah to understand that it is better to have your hand cut off now rather than later.
He wants her to be saved.
It is absolutely necessary to raise our children to know that they do not belong to
themselves, but to their father. How else can they believe that they don’t belong to
themselves except by training them as our Heavenly Father trains us to believe this. We
only “regain our true life” if we lose our false and criminal life. Whoever wants to save
Execution of Justice Page 6
1900.00.16-L01.DOC 020612.1326
his life will lose it, and whoever loses it for My sake shall find it. Abraham received back
the promise only after he had killed his only son the only son who could bring about the
promise. Abraham had faith to surrender his only heir. Abraham was tested. He endured
under trial to see whether he would obey (Heb 11:17-19; Gen 22:1; Jms 1:12). Abraham
obeyed by faith for he heard God say, “Abraham, take your son, your only son Isaac,
whom you love, and go sacrifice him.”
The error of “the local church” and many churches is in allowing doctrine to
substitute for obedience. We can do as they say, but not as they do, for they do not truly
discern the Body of Messiah though they have much wonderful doctrine. Without seeing
Gen 18:19, the Body of Messiah doesn’t make sense.</font>
Note: Elbert is not the little girls father but is the apostle of the community. I don't see a close resemblance to his lying to a little girl and teaching the faith that Abraham had in Isaac.

David responded on Dec 21
<font color="0000ff">I don't know anything about the above...but I DO KNOW that the truth that sets men free can be found at www.TheLitmusTest.org (http://www.TheLitmusTest.org)
It is for Christians Only. Truth will always be attacked. Those who are wise will not be put off by such things. The fact is, anyone who wants to see the fruit of our lives can visit us at anytime; and see that our children are some of the most wonderful on the whole earth. As the Word says, "wisdom is justified by her children". Sincerely, david</font>

My reply Dec 22
David
<font color="0000ff">I don't know anything about the above…</font>
Are you saying you don't know if Sprigs taught that and if it is one of the communities teachings or you don't know if there is anything wrong with what was alleged in the teaching CD that Jacob took from the community?


"Yahshua"
Was your apostle speaking from the holy spirit when he threatened with a large pair of scissors to cut off the terrified little girls thumb and did lying to her to scare her teach her the faith of Isaac with Abraham? Is that why Isaac trusted his father? Because someone terrified him with a lie?

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

From the author of

The Remnant Seeking Fellowship in Plain Clothes.
A Brief Analysis of the Philosophy and Practice
of The Anabaptist Remnant Movement Among 'Charity churches' in North America.

Hello everyone. I have read most of the comments pertaining to Charity C.F. and Denny. My wife and I have both been very close to Denny and Jackie and their family (having worked in their home and on their little farm on and off over 4 years), and many other leaders within the movement and with many others still part of Charity churches and those who have left.

We were very involved with these people for four years as we attended Charity. We were highly respected by many of them even though we had admitted differences. We saw and partly admitted the problems they had. Denny himself admitted some of them and told me personally to have patience with poor leadership (at that time he was on a sabatical and was still coming out of it so that Rick L. was the head leader, etc.). He told me to minister to the people and report to him, etc. (see the book for more details). I did that for several more months while I freely homeschooled a member family under their blessing (and while my friend, who later became my wife, went to africa as one of their missionaries, etc.). What I continued to find was that heads of families would come to me and admit various kinds of sins which put me in a difficult position. I found them hiding behind or stumbled by the public and private teaching of these leaders (including Denny himself). It was hard for me to accept this as the movement, especially the Kenaston family, was so impressive in many ways (see my opening chapter on Commending values in the movement). But after repeated experiences and testimonies I had to get real with these matters. I did not tolerate slander against that leadership and told people who grumbled to go to such people they were troubled with--I did not want to hear it. But as time went on I saw how the common teaching--not necessarily or primarily the public teaching, but what went on privately and in smaller circles--was dangerous. I am not even talking about those not believing in perseverance of the saints (yes I did see great delusion in people unsure of their salvation too). What troubled me most was the fact that authority was highly manipulative at certain times with certain types of people on the one hand, and the message of sanctification and freedom from sin was very contradictory on the other hand. What I found was that the leaders were not actually biblical leaders in several ways of looking at it. And that these self-proclaimed leaders actually were setting up many more like-minded leaders throughout the land. Thus, the problems they were causing only continued to spread as they would lay hands on so many others.

Now you must understand that not everyone had bad experiences. Those who were really excited about the movement, or those who never examined things very deeply, were the blessed of the blessed. These had a rosy time. And most newcomers, who are idealists hoping that they have finally now reached the promised land, are of at least the first sort. And that is why it generally takes people around 6 months to begin to experience problems. So people who are concervative (however that term is meant) and not generally of a theological focus may not experience difficulties. But single people living by themselves, and especially people who have a conscience before God to test all things or examine everything, will eventually find their idealism to crash in many ways. This I have seen hundreds of times while there and after we left. And if such people voice any concerns they will feel the crushing weight of the system upon them (more or less depending upon how persistent they are). Many people leave at that time, and others are forced to leave by slander against them. And I do admit that many such people are also at fault themselves.

After we wrote our book we eventually met up with the family that actually started the group which became Charity. Yes, people are under the impression that Denny and Mose started it. But actually Luke Martin (who is now living for many years in Upper state NY (Perishville)) started the group. Luke claims that he had gathered a group together for two years meeting in Lancaster County before Denny and Mose came on the sceen and set up camp. He also claims (and if anyone wants to talk to him they can ask me for his number) that among the other problems with these men at that time, that they deceitfully sought and obtained the Mennonite/Anabaptist kind of liniage in order to be ordained by such groups with the full intent of leaving them after getting such "blessing" or ordination. This, among several other scandals did not sit well with Luke, and eventually he left. His testimony is important because it goes back right from the start and shows and continual line of deception to this very day. My research at first only covered the time of 1996 to 2002 but then we learned so many other things. Over time bits and peices came together and we now see that the whole system is bad and always has been. Even Jackie Kenaston's (Denny's wife) testimony this year (on tape and on their web site) reveals some very interesting clues. So what we had found before meeting Luke was a history of deceit throughout the 1990's and beyond. But little was known of the first 8 years of Charity. Scanty info exists about them, or is given by them as they had lots of turnover. Several people, including a Mennonite Bishop name Lyle Kropt down in Arizona were able to share about their deceptions and problems in those years. But we only learned about such people after we wrote the book. Then we met Luke who shared his testimony and those of others from that time period to the present.

We have known people who have left for every possible reason (good and bad), and still keep in touch with people within the movement. No one else has attempted to write anything about them good or bad. While they, not interested in writing books about opposing movements, have spoken volumes of books against the Anabaptist Hutteriest, Amish, and Mennonites, and many other groups. Our book attempts to more carefully anylize their group, less harsh, and without slander. It is assumed that if a group feels that it is acceptable to slander and criticise other groups, that criticism is welcome against one's own group. Well such criticism was not welcome with our book. Yet we have not received one word by any of the leadership in the movement about the book even though there have been over 12000 visits to the book online and they have received books sent to them. There has been no attempt to respond to us, but say privately, or to their congregations, that we are liars and other things. They have condemned us without due process or Christian patience, etc. They continue to condemn numerous people. They enslave many people in their cultic system. They are grossly hypocritical in denying abusive authority in their public teaching while they continue to this day to exercise it. They refuse to discuss any of the numerous examples of abuse and instead use ad hominem arguemts and distractions. There is no real accountability in these leaders. We have learned of some very serious scandals throughout the movement that are routinely just swept under the carpet.

There are some less serious problems with the group, somewhat serious problems, and very serious problems. All need to be address. Yet it is important not to confuse the different degress and types of problems. Many people do that and make matters worse.

Most people have a difficult time in defining a cult. First, I want to say that whether this group is a cult or just a sect with problems is not necessarily important. It would be difficult for people not familiar with the group to have enough evidence to prove to themselves honestly that they are in fact a cult. It is no small sin to accuse people of such wickedness without clear proof. Nevertheless, some people are forced into such circumstances where they can and ought to come to a conclusion either way.
What then is a cult? After working with a former CRI counter cult group in Toronto Canada for some time, the leader of that group, an ex-JW elder, David Aspinal, wrote a paper on five characteristics of a cult (see
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Alethea/Cult.html
). I modified the small tract a little as you see it online. This small paper deals with 5 points about idolatrous and abusive authority structures. It is fairly basic and is what people would generally agree to as cults. My claim is that all of these points are found with the Charity/Eprata leadership and beyond. Secondly, I claim that it has been justly proven to me and many others, that they are also engaged in deliberate deception in maintaining their abusive manipulations. Can a cult be guilty of idolatry or ultra-authoritarian abuse and not be guilty of deception? Whether or not that is true needs to be considered. But it is manifest to me that the level of deception is not accidental or occasionally spontaneous, but is systemetic...

I do not encourage anyone to take my word for it or those of the other side. If you need to know and are involved in it, then do what is just and right. Do not only listen to one side. Do not only consider the present. Go to the foundations, see the history. Ask the leaders why they have never responded to my book publically. Call up Luke Martin to find out how the group actually started. Examine Jake Hyles school where Denny started out as a minister. Just be careful not to look too deeply as you may discover some things you wish you did not find.

If you wonder why we wrote such a book I will say that our circumstances demanded it. It seems wherever we go people are mentioning them positively or negatively. I have a large Christian publishing ministry and am in contact with thousands of people all over the world. I can't say how many people have asked me about them. We just see so many people try them out for a season only to have become abused, and then actually turn away from some of the values they liked within the movement. Something needed to be done not only help these kind of people (which many have been helped by the book), but to do justice to history (and represent the good and bad as it really is). Now the book is not exhaustive but is covers a lot of material. It is not perfect, but it was the best that we could do under our circumstances. It is not merely a theological difference even though that is important.

Well enough has been said above and in the book. Here is the link to the book online:


You can read our book online at: http://truthinheart.com/Remnant

Hopefully people can be careful either way they judge.

Rick Friedrich

[ex_yathed (ex_yathed)]

Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 12:16 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEWARE !!! and be aware!

ex_yathed (ex_yathed)
Intermediate Member
Username: ex_yathed

Post Number: 176
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 24.183.33.235

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)
Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 7:12 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just saw on another page of the Religious Cults and Sects page that David Alexander(aka Daveed Derush) is evangelizing (recruiting) all over this web site with links to their newest "Free Papers"(Litmus Test). Its from a computer in Georgia so he is either at their Savannah or Brunswick community.

So, if you dont know, the Twelve Tribes are considered a high control destructive fundamentalist group (cult) by countless professionals and Cult experts.
You can check out there threads under Religious Cults and sects: Twelve Tribes,Community of Believers, Northeast Kingdom etc.

[ex_yathed (ex_yathed)]

As you can see, David Derush has taken my warnings to all the boards as a chance to recruit for his cult which claims they are the Only Ones and the Only Way and if your not with them, your going to the Lake of Fire for eternity or to the first death to pay for your own sins if you can. They are just like the rest of the cults on the factnet boards.
To see both sides of the story go to
http://www.twelvetribes-ex.org/

or if you wish, you can contact me personally at exyathed@yahoo.com

[doug (doug)]

What I shared, David, is not slander and not falsely accusing you of evil but is the teaching of your apostle

I'll repeat my question to your denial of knowing about the teaching "Execution of Justice" from Sprigs AKA Yoneq your apostle.
Are you saying you don't know if Sprigs taught that and if it is one of the communities teachings or you don't know if there is anything wrong with what was alleged in the teaching CD that Jacob took from the community?

Your community claims to be the Twelve Tribes of Israel. If you are that makes your apostle much greater than any of the 12 each representing one tribe and puts him on par with Moses and Jesus/Yahshua.

[summerwind2003 (summerwind2003)]

I started looking into headcovering way before getting introduced to the Charity ministries. I live in Texas so their church is no where near by, but I still order tapes from them since they are free.To me personally they are not a cult like in a bad since, but type of culture different then todays churches. They are not into materialistic things &amp; glamour like some churches portrays.God spoke to me &amp; this Ministry is where i'm suppose to be for now. Also thease tapes made me open my eyes to be a better wife to my husband.

[miss_maggie (miss_maggie)]

Rick Friedrich, I really enjoyed your post. I discovered your website about 18 months ago and have enjoyed the information you have there. We tried to form ties with Charity Gospel, but my husband is divorced, which they disapprove of for any reason, so we were unable to further any involvement. My husbands divorce came about 20 years ago when his ex-wife left him for her drug dealer. She committed adultery, left the marriage and divorced my husband while he was on duty in the Army. There was very little he could do about it. She took their daughters with her and he was unable to take custody from her. A couple of years later we met and married and have had children of our own. According to Charity Gospel my children are bastards and my husband and I are in an adulterous marriage. They believe there is no reason for divorce at all, ever.
<font color="0000ff">
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
</font>
How much clearer could the Word be? DH's ex-wife was guilty of adultery and fornication and when she left, he was free to remarry. If we lived according to Charity Gospel rules my husband and I would have to divorce because they do not recognize our marriage as valid. I would have to be a single mother for the rest of my life. How can breaking up a good solid family, in the interest of a false interpretation of the bible ever be God's will? I don't think it can be. I think God created my family and has blessed my family. Charity Gospel would have be destroying my family in order to follow their false teaching in this area.

I like Charity Gospel. I still listen to their tapes. I've learned things there that I never learned anywhere else. I appreciate what they are trying to do. They have their divorce doctrine totally wrong though. It goes against scriptures completely.

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Miss Maggie,

Thank you for your comments about my site.
I am not sure if you have come across a smaller book that I wrote called:

Do You Have Any Doubts About Remarriage?
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Doctrine/Remarriage.htm

I think this will help you with your understanding of the scriptures you quote and the conclusion you make about them.

A few points to consider. The early church did not allow for modern divorce but only separation (the view back then was that divorce was merely separation (see Paul) and that those who believed that ended the marriage were of the world outside of the church, which was legal like today). This practice of remarriage while the spouse is still alive is relatively a new view with professing Christians. For those reasons alone it becomes those believing it to demonstrate why they are right and the great majority of the church has been wrong. I mean, to give real proof for their claims. The sound rule of biblical interpretation is the following (I quote my web site):

FUNDAMENTAL FACT ABOUT PROOF.
"No proposition is, properly speaking, proven, till facts or arguments are adduced, which not only affirm its truth, but contradict every opposite proposition. How often is this fundamental law of evidence overlooked and disregarded in almost every department of human investigation. In Theology, for example, how often is an hypothesis denominated a doctrine, which merely consists with a given class of passages of Holy Writ, assumed as absolutely affirmed by these passages, when, in reality, they equally consist with the contradictory hypothesis. Let it ever be borne in mind, that no passage or passages of Scripture prove any one doctrine which do not contradict every opposite doctrine. No facts affirm any one hypothesis which do not equally contradict every contradictory hypothesis." Asa Mahan, Intellectual Philosophy.

My little book shows that your interpretation of those verses are not the only FAIR or possible interpretation. In fact I show that your interpretation cannot be the true one because of the immediate context, the context of the whole Gospel, and the history of those times, etc.

Without mentioning all the facts of the matter I will add a few more comments about this subject:

Does it not sound odd to make the "innocent party" claim? Think about it for a minute. When a spouse cheats on the other, that is supposed grounds for the innocent party to separate and end the marriage (two separate things) and then be not married, and then marry again. While the guilty party cannot marry again without adultery? What kind of logic is that? If the innocent party marries again why would it be adultery for the guilty part to remarry? Adultery means forbidden sexual relations with another while you are married or the other is married. But if the innocent party is lawfully remarried then why would the guilty party be condemned to be single? You cannot be guilty of adultery if your spouse is already remarried lawfully. The only way it is adultery is if you are still married. When you think about this you see that your understanding of the 'innocent/guilty' position does not make sense. See the book for my position on these points.

Anyway, whenever someone makes a complex and controversial subject out to be so obvious then they do not demonstrate fairness of judgment. The divorce and remarriage issue is not so straightforward that anyone should be able to conclude in the matter in five minutes. The fact that the majority of believers in history, especially the early church, have interpreted it contrary to popular opinion today, shows this. There are several places that clearly state there is no possibility of remarriage while the real spouse is alive. These scriptures could easily be quoted dogmatically and insisted upon while the two you quote are ignored. But where does that get us? Instead all passages must be considered. We must be honest and look carefully at those passages which do or may in fact contradict our theories. If a possible alternative exists we must consider it. If one exists we are not permitted to use that verse to prove our point if we are just and righteous. Other interpretations do exist for those two verses as I have shown in my book. You say, "how much clearer could the Word be?" In proving your theory the Word would have to say much more to clearly teach your doctrine. These words make perfect sense according to several other positions held. The true doctrine in these matters does not come down to these verses.

You use the same sort of argument Charity uses to justify its cultic views of authority and other practices. You say you have a solid family and God is blessing it. How can that be judged and used to support a doctrine? We cannot determine if a doctrine is true by whether a family looks together or not. Not only does Charity use that argumentation to justify its practices, so do gay people use that argument to prove their family relationships. It is perhaps one of the most frequent and deceptive of arugments used to justify practices and beliefs.

I recognize the difficulties involved in these matters. Either way there are problems. I wrote my book on the subject because so many remarried friends of ours (yes even those going to Charity) had continual doubts about their remarriages. They would be bothered by the arguments from the other side. So I decided to take a different angle on it and bring up the principle of doubtful actions. We must not do anything doubtful (Rom 14:23). And is there reasonable doubt about this practice?

You need to be careful in calling something false teaching as if it belongs to Charity. The entire early church would not recognize a modern remarriage even with children. Charity did not create this teaching. Nor are they using it to try and destroy your family. Millions of people today still believe in covenant marriages. This is not a Charity matter. However, I do find it incredibly inconsistent for Charity churches to now acknowledge polygamous marriages in Africa! While they expect westerners to separate they do not expect men having more than one wife to separate! Now that would be something to bring out.

The fact that these multi-family relationships are so problematic and destructive to society is but another reason why there should not be the possibility to remarry while the spouse is alive. The bottom line is that marriage is not a contract but a covenant. Covenants are life long. Contracts can be ended without death. Marriage is a covenant not a contract. Do a study of both in the scriptures and it will show a great difference. That is a great problem today. People do not have a sense of commitment. If they don't like it they just move on. But what may be true with our jobs is not true with our covenants before God. If marriage was not for life then the scripture misleads us in Rom. 7 and elsewhere. Again, there may be grounds for separation (which is divorce) but separation is not annulment, or some kind of ending of the marriage to the point where one is free to remarry. That needs to be proved. Civil law has no authority to end a marriage covenant. Either does popular opinion. If people feel that marriages are contracts then they are a lot more inclined to get into one with the possibility of ending it for another one (just as if people were dating). But if people realize that marriage is actually a covenant they will be much more careful about who the marry because it is for life. Just think what would happen if the West felt that marriage was a covenant as the bible says? It would be like the good old days when divorce was not so common. Yes some people would suffer by living single for the rest of their days, but that would be comparatively less trouble than allowing for contract marriages which gives us what we have today. I happen to know women with children that have suffered because they see marriage as a covenant. Has God blessed them? They gladly suffer hardships for the sake of the truth and the good of society. They do not judge a doctrine by whether it is difficult for them personally. They look beyond themselves at the big picture. The modern church temps them to get involved with other men. Or the judge them and condemn them for being faithful to God in their covenants. So I say that the I think the modern popular opinion today is not only new, but fails to see the big picture, the historical picture, the nature of marriage, or covenants, of biblical interpretation, etc.
"Miss" I hope this does not offend you. But of all the remarried professing Christians I know, it has not been very easy for them to hold their theories.

Respectfully,
Rick Friedrich

[summerwind2003 (summerwind2003)]

Hi;
Since the last post I still order tapes from them &amp; I gave to Jehovah Witness friends the "headship coverings" lol now one of my friends wants to "talk" tommorow. oh boy....

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Summerwind2003,

Just because someone gets interested in truth through a particular means (like Charity tapes) does not mean the end (people receiving some truth) justifies the means (using their tapes when such may lead such people into a snare).

We also have people interested in that subject. And it is exciting. JW's may give you a run.

Far better tapes are Tom Chapin's tapes. I have a link to the 10 tapes series on his site. http://truthinheart.com/Audio.html I don't agree with everything, but there is much more content and substance to the teaching. My listing it is for educational purposes with warning. We do need to do that sort of thing.

So how do you know it was God who "spoke to you" and "that is where you are supposed to be"?

Sincerely,

Rick Friedrich

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Henry,

Your response is typical. The attention is turned from the objective facts to questioning people's motives. This is what often happens to anyone questioning a movement like this. There has to be something wrong with their motivations. I cover this in the book, along with your questions, if you wish to read the book. The false humility beliefs amoung these people offen assumes everyone MUST have bitterness when they are wronged. Naturally, if someone leaves for certain reasons, and is also wronged, and if they at all mention the latter, such people assume there is bitterness. Now I know a good number of people that are really hurt from these people and are still bitter or have eventually overcome that. I have tried to help people with that. And now I have had people contact Luke Martin (the actual founder of the Charity group before Denny came along and gave it such a name). He has more time to councel such people (a large number of persons which are continually produced from that machine). We have rebuked bitterness and unforgiveness whenever we have found it, and have not manifested it as you accuse here WITHOUT any substantial evidence. My friend, please consider that when you so accuse you actually do what you accuse.

Now if you have some fact, why not address that? I have addressed the points in great detail. Why use this kind of fallacy or tactic to try and discredit the facts presented? Your comments show you did not read the book (or pay attention to it). It is therefore prejudice in you to make such comments before considering the whole presentation or contacting us personally. You must understand our persective under the circumstances we are and have been under. If you begin to read the book, you will have these questions answered shortly. I started out talking about non-resistant love. I showed that my analysis of the Chartiy people is similar to theirs of so many other movements and peoples (although I do not resort to the slander they do, and I am prepared to help people deal with shown errors I point out as we have for several years now). We do not revile as they do. The leaders are given to slandering what they do not understand or agree with. This was the first thing that really bothered me in the brother's meetings (but also with individual talks and smaller mettings). Unjust judgments are brought against many people, and unjust decisions are often made about people and what they should do without fair examinations of facts, or hearing the other side, etc. When I saw that happen with Mose Stolzfus regarding his own son (who I had often sat beside in church and who lead singing, etc., and was important in the church), and also to Gary Martin, who was the cheif editor of the Remnant for so many years, when I saw that happen, and realized I had been mislead about them, I had to repent of allowing myself to be so prejudiced. No I don't believe the way Gary and Myron believe. But I don't need to slander them in my dissagreements. So what I was getting at in my related non-resistance chapter is that these folks are not peaceful in their frequent judgments and slanders against those they dissagree with. While there I saw that happen many times in big or small ways. Since we left a multitude of identical independant stories have been shared.

My good friend Vern Martin, who has now passed away, was an pillar man at Charity for years. We often talked while I lived there (when I first lived there I lived in his brother's welding shop). I never forget in all our discussions about non-resistance, what he said about the Charity people in general. He was very honest in his positions and he was not all agressive. He was one of the most scholarly of those people and we had some really intelligent conversations. When we got into it he said that while most people down here profess to believe non-resistance, they don't practice it and would not do that when it comes down the the situations we discussed. So I was rather confused by that kind of testimony as he was to. Also in relation to that, I never forget what his brother Lawrence Martin, another main guy at Charity (uncle of Gary Martin just mentioned) for years (probably now at Eprata as he lives closer), said. When I moved into his shop we would often have interesting talks. I was blinded by all the glitter and glamour of the tapes and the great meetings, etc. Well he put it very simply. He said with his hands the following. The preaching is up here (hand at head level) but the people live down here (hand now lowered half way to the ground). I tried to correct him, saying that was not the impression I got from the tapes and sermons and the way people came across. And I said that would mean people were hypocritical, etc. He assured me that this was the case in so many words. I refused to believe it and assumed Denny was not acting on a stage. But even Denny later told me not to think much of him and be dissappointed. But my problem was with what he and others were saying in the sermons. If they were the sinners they personally admitted to being at such times, why then judge others in their sins as they do? And why preach in such a way as to make people think you did have it all together? Why talk as if things shouldn't be if that is the way you actually have always lived??? Well this acting was so impressive on stage (and I know about acting as having done that in the past) I was somewhat blind to it. Now I know these leaders are actors playing games with people's lives and hopes....

If Denny and Mose were merely unbelievers and hypocrites that I had doctrinal differences with, that would be one thing as is the case with so many groups out there. But the fact is, these people and many of the other leaders, are destroying people (both believers and unbelievers). They have all the characteristics of a cult. They create an environment where people, especially women, cannot function in life (physically and spiritually) without them. Thus when they leave they don't know what to do. Before they would leave they fear what would happen to them. And while they try to leave (depending on how involved they were) they often are pressured and manipulated in several ways. Not saying this is in every Charity church the same. But it is happening all over even still today.

I did not share my experiences in the opening chapter at first, because people like you assumed any mention of personal dealings means bitterness. But after many opposite complaints, where people insisted that I show my involvements and give examples, I put them up much later. You can't please everyone obviously. If you actually read the book with a fair mind you can clearly see my manifest motivations. But if you assume 'these are the people and wisdom will die with them', or they are the real people of God today, then you probably assume that anything contrary to them is mismotivated. This is basically what I have found people to do. They ignore the real facts and only look at the hazy picture.

The book was hopefully for the people in the movement, but also for people outside to take warning. Examine the testimony before you judge. The book is not some kind of revenge. If that was the motivation then I would have shared a host of embarrasing scandals that I have never shared with anyone. There are many things that could thus be shared that would utterly crush the reputation of certain people. I have no intentions of doing that, and would fear what such things would do to the rest of the family. The things we have shared are public matters. It is a tiny chapter of the whole story.

Why assume Charity is the innocent party or the victim? Why assume others must have bitterness? Numerous cults have arisen as mentioned in 2 Peter 2 where men have devoured people's souls. Those who love the church and the lost will try and help people out of that kind of thing. You need to get past the subjective prejudice here. The book is not about our subjective hurts as people who don't read it assume (only people unfairly skimming over the opening letter assume that). In fact people who read beyond the opening letter often tell us they were glad it was not that, but more of an objective consideration of doctrine that applies to all kinds of churches. Nevertheless, what is better? to bring up other examples from other people, or our own? We thus gave a few examples out the hundreds that could be shared. Yes we feel they were evil actions, so yes we don't feel warm about them. Does that mean we wish evil on such people? No. True love rebukes if you read your bible. It seeks not ONLY the good of those in the wrong (in this case not merely doctrinally, but in their life choices and actions) but also, and often more importantly, the numerous public who may be influenced and abused by such people. Do read Ephesians chapter 5 entirely. While I do not think it is becoming for a Christian to go around being critical of everything they see in others, there is, nevertheless, a scriptural command to expose the darkness, especially in people who claim to be children of God and who actually cause so much stumbling to themselves and others.

If these men are in the darkness, and refuse to be at all accountable, at all approachable, and continue to distory churches and individuals, it certainly becomes people to warn against them. At first I hoped the leaders would at least give some response. Some of the leaders we never had a problem with and they never even sent a word back to us. Not one leader responded to the book. If these leaders felt we were in the wrong, why not at least tell us personally? Why do we only hear what they share with others? [Yes, and I will tell you that there are people in their midst who don't have the courage to leave and do share what is said.] The real fact is that they know the truth and refuse to deal with it honestly.

People walking in the darkness do not believe the truth of God. Those who enslave and manipulate others are people to take note of and warn against. If you want doctrinal differences to look at, focus on that. The view of authority AS PRACTICED (and partly taught) is the big concern. Most of the other problems come out of that. The presumption is that they are the people of God in the sense of a papacy. If you refuse them you refuse God. That is how they sometimes even operate towards people in their neighborhoods. And when people leave, that can often be the case: When you reject us you reject God. There is much false pride in the movement. In fact it does become idolatrous at times. So my big concern is with their idolatrous presumptions. It is selective men in place of Christ in many different things as mentioned in the book. At many times there is no place for people to follow Christ personally but to rather submit to things that goes against their consciences as under Christ's leading. But again, it is not merely in holding to such beliefs and here and there applying them to people, but it is beyond this, it is such men lying about it in the process. Being caught lying about such manipulation and then slandering and diverting to get out of it...

When I wrote the book I knew a lot about the movement because I was really involved. But I have learned a great deal more than everything up until the point in the years since the book first came out three years ago. I can't even mention the most serious stuff. In fact, that is one reason why we are leaving the book as it is (which is very serious already) and not getting into even the more serious stuff. We feel we have done enough. It is not a big focus for us.

Anyway, if anyone is serious about this group, they ought to talk to Luke Martin in Parishville NY (upperstate NY). Call me and I will give you his number if you can't find him in the book. He started the group before Denny was even around. If you don't know that, and think Denny started it as he has always lead us to believe, then you don't know their history. But be careful what you find out about that history. You may discover what you wish you never knew. And then you can see that things have not changed in over 20 years.

The book stands as written. Not one person has given any evidence against it. Not one leader has said any public word about it. All that can be done is avoid all the facts and just try the ad hominum fallacies (attacks against the person). When you cannot address the facts, just try and discredit the person.

With no bitterness about it.

Peace to all in the truth of Christ,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

Summerwind2003:

Emanuel Esh from Charity has a very good message on the headcovering. I think its called "Principles behind the woman's headcovering." He not only covers where, scripturally, the principles behind the headcovering are, but addresses what happens when a woman doesn't veil.
He answers questions such as, is a woman who doesn't veil saved? If so, does God answer her prayers?

My fiance had listened to different messages and read materials on the headcovering but said she didn't really understand it until she listened to this message.

Blessings,
Eric

[northwestsister (northwestsister)]

The lure of Charity Ministries is strong to anyone who studies the scriptures solemnly without the lens of denominationalism. But something I found is that it particularly appeals to those who are angry at the "institutional church", those who due to past sin or resentment of other Christians need to feel "good enough" or "better than" through the outward righteousness exalted by the Charity Church.

The very fact that these are the people who are drawn to it creates a likelihood that the abuse of spiritual authority will take place. I was a victim of such abuse. The environment created was this:

1. I see you are seeking the truth! That is truly commendable. My church is one of the last strongholds, if not THE last stronghold, of biblical integrity. Only "the remnant" will be saved! Are you sure that you're saved?

2. Your salvation is in jeopardy! You need us to tell you the truth of God. You, too can become part of God's Remnant.

3. "If you really love God, you will do X"

(X being a practice or rule not explicit in the Scriptures - for various mennonite churches, this means you may only own a black car, wearing colored socks is worldly and means you are potentially hellbound -i'm not making this up-...with Charity this meant not tempting your brother into lust by failure to wear two layers of clothing, never cutting your hair if you were female, etc., but any edict given by an elder, however arbitrary, essentially requires mandatory observance)

4."If you don't do X (because I said so, and I am ordained by God), you must not really love God and therefore you are hellbound."

This scenario is a hallmark of Christian cults.

I became familiar with the Charity Gospel Tape Ministry and Charity Ministries in general through my involvement with a Christian women's group at Yahoo Groups. Unbeknownst to me, the list owner and several women were being mentored by a certain "patriarch" from Lancaster, PA. I was introduced to the tape ministry and moved in with one of these families.

After having lived with this family for some time and having observed several families (and having observed several families since then through online groups): the "patriarch" was targeting women in their 30s and 40s who were bitter against their husbands or had something in their past they had not submitted to God, and needed to feel "better than" their husbands or "good enough", as I described above. He counseled these women, asked them to become his "daughters" and then influenced them to influence their husbands...much as we see in Genesis and 1 Peter 3, women have influence over their husbands through their conversation. Someone who privately counsels and influences the women can topple their houses, much as the serpent did in the Garden of Eden.

This "patriarch" is actively and aggressively recruiting at Yahoo Groups and by word of mouth is influencing more and more families.

While I cannot say with certitude that any of this happened under the direct authority of the Charity Church, the emphasis on absolute obedience to authority in their teachings, especially with respect to women, and overemphasis on outer righteousness creates a spiritual climate in which pride, manipulation and deceit become standards of practice.

It took me some time to realize what was going on, that these were "captive silly women" and I was being led to the slaughter with them under a banner of "righteous remnant" bolstered by pride, avarice and witchcraft/manipulation.

I do not doubt that most if not all of these people had at some point a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ, a relationship that had been supplanted by a relationship with a corrupt hierarchical structure.

We cannot rely on a church or its agents to save us from the lake of fire.

The damage done to me by these confused and corrupted people has not healed yet, although it has been several years. I do have compassion for them and hope that they have since come closer to Christ and walked away from these cultic relationships and devilish heart attitudes.

Only this week, I came across another woman who has been lured by this "patriarch" and the Charity Church, and it has made me physically sick.

As the proverb says, it is a snare to a man to call a thing holy, and only after taking vows looking into the matter.

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Dear Northwestsister, I appreciate your sharing this. Many similar stories come our way. My heart goes out especially to all the women who get trapped into such situations.

For women married into the movement it is especially hard. What happens is that they end up having many children (which is not a bad thing) and end up feeling for the sake of peace that they must go along with things. 'If you can't beat em join em'.

Many women are also not given much time for even a spiritual life. This was what my chapter about intermperate hospitality was about in my book. I've seen families have full course meals for all three meals of the day. Then some of these women have child after child and have so many children they don't know what to do--no joke. [On a side note, while I was there many heads of homes admitted in private having sexual lust problems and revealed that they expected a whole lot more out of their wives than what they could give.] These women can and do have break-downs, and then they are rip for abusing. They are good at breaking down people into submission, but it can be rather sophisticated. So what happens to such a woman under such circumstances? The last thing they have time for is thinking for themselves. That's the job of the husband.

It is true that they have training of women in these churches to manipulate their husbands that do not believe their practices, etc. There is a lot of cultic training in this group. But I am not going to get into that because it can be dangerous...

I also see not only women in their 30's and 40's but a lot of teens and young 20's coming in there. Now it is true that they do help relieve some of the women, but not enough.

The part about not cutting hair is interesting. I know for a fact that certain women do in fact cut their hair secretly in Charity churches (I'm not going to say who). Some women's hair will grow to their feet if never trimed.

There is no evidence from scripture that women's hair should not be cut or trimed. All it says is women's hair should be long (1 Cor. 11) (it says it should not be shaven or sheared, which is either no hair or sheared short like sheep). And how do we know what that is? Look at the context. In the context we have the same words used for a man in the opposite sense. Very simple here. A man is not to have long hair. Sooooooo. If man's hair is ONLY long if he never cuts it, then that would be ridiculous logic. Man's hair is long when it goes down to his shoulders and maybe a little longer. This everyone basically agrees with. Look at all the rest room door pictures. If it is that long we cannot say it is short hair or sheared like sheep. So in the same way, a women does have long hair way before it goes to its longest extent possible. Once it goest down to about past the shoulders people see it as long hair generally speaking.

There is no evidence from scripture or history that I know of that says women were to never cut their hair at all or trim it. If that was the case we would find references to it JUST LIKE the nazarene vow in the Samson story. Nothing like that exists. But those who know the original Greek can see that there is no grounds for such ideas in the 1 Cor. passage or elsewhere.

Anyway, I know this will get some people offended who think women can have short hair, etc., but I thought I would mention this mistaken practice that leads to unreasonable expectations on women. If you can imagine having think hair that goes down to your feet, and then having to put it up in a bun under a covering all day long. This is not very comfortable and certainly is not natural. What we do is let the hair hang down as it is supposed to and put a covering over it as we see in 1 Cor 11 and in history. And sometimes put it up when doing certain things. The sense in the original is that the hair is to hang down, and the appeal in the passage (context) is as we see things in nature (naturally not artificially "does not even nature teach you?"). Even the book that Charity gives out "let her be veiled" says the Greek says the hair is to hang down.

They did not write it or publish it. I have it on my website by permission of the publisher. So this is indeed strange that they send out contrary messages. Such conflicting messages cause great confusion, especially when they come down so hard on one side. Mind you, visitors do not see this sort of hard line. Only those within the camp or who are being initiated into it, are 'broken down'. Outsiders are allowed to practice much of what they wish and still be treated nice. But those inside must play the house rules or they find themselves outside of the blessing, and thus become "rebels whose sin is as the sin of witchcraft". Of course hell is just around the corner for such who question God's anointed and dare to upset the system.

Some women in that movement do believe the same way as I mention about cutting hair but are urged to abandon their independent ideas and settle for group consciousness--part of the relativistic humanistic philosophy of our times (otherwise known as "brotherhood" expectations.

This is one example of lording over people's consciences and at the very least gives many women more head ackes because they can't "let down their hair" (under a covering) and have to keep it up all the time.

Also the "double coverage" can get out of hand as mentioned. While it is a generally true rule, especially that people should not have to see people's underwhere lines or body shapes through thin close, it did get way out of hand.

When we were leaving Charity, one of the things that helped that was this very issue. My wife had already seen through the arbitrariness of dress codes (see my introductory letter in the book for details), and we were both on our way out. Then in Jan. 2000, while Rick L. was leading Charity, he ran a Charity meeting that lasted one Wed. night several hours (I still have it all on tape but am not supposed to share it with non-Charity people--for obvious reasons you know). What they talked about was from wedding rings being bad, to blue jeans being bad, to veilings getting too short in the church, to the biggest subject of the night: double coverage. Well the evidence presented for each position was perposterous! Several things stand out from that night.

One was that at least one man, who is now a leader, only owned jeans. He did not have any other pants. I know because I lived with him for several months. Rick L. made the exclusive claim that all jeans were bad and should not be worn. Well, several working men, one of them a painter and another one who ran Laurence Martin's welding/machine shop where I once lived for 7 montns, made some appeal. I think they may have some agreement there, by saying not all denem pants are form fitting and bad. But the fact remains that they were trying to push a ban on all jeans! My wife can tell you the other details about socks and shoes and etc., I don't care to remember things like that.

The other thing that stood out was that while all the talk was going on about veilings getting shorter and people not being double-layered, one of the ones guilty of such disclosure of body parts was none other than Denny Kenaston himself! Whether it was in that meeting or outside of it, several women mentioned that he often wore thin white shirts that you could see right through. I do remember that and found that odd when ever I saw that from my sitting in the front row at Chairty (or beside the Kenaston family or Mose). Now Denny was not one who actually believed in all those dress codes, but went along with the group consciousness and then urged those things as laws. While I do think he no longer wears seethrough shirts, he certainly did while the leaders, including himself, were pressing hard on women to put more loads on their backs. And while many women were singled out for immodest dress in certain particulars, I do not remember seeing men rebuked for wearing tight clothes (until Rick L. tried to remove all jeans). I am the opposite of a femanist, I am just reporting what I saw.

The fact is it is not a holy movement at all. All it is is a selection of values used to gather people together in one growing movement for several complex purposes. Some people mean well and eventually see the leaders (and their selfish and idolatrous purposes) as they are. The leaders, some of which are just going along with things, are trained manipulators. Their theology of authority and leadership is directly the opposite of a servant shephard as found in Psalm 23 and 1 Peter, etc. It is rather one of finding new ways to break people down like animals. It is an oligarchy tyranny, and each man is allowed to have his own papacy in his own home.

Northwestsister, I hope you can heal from this cultic activity. The first step is to call it what it is. The second step is to take firmly the hand of Christ and let Him walk you through those times and sanctify you of each and every one of their influences upon you (which will help you not overreact against the good things in the movement). If you let Him, he will open up the heavens and give you a Joseph experience where you can bless multitudes of people as Joseph did after he got out of prison. The promise is there that he will sanctify us through and through (the strongest word possible in the Greek: see 1 Thess. 5:23, and the many works we have on that subject on our website). Many people see this as only person sins, but the fact is the Lord can and needs to sanctify us from all negative experiences. Essentially, what we need is to make Christ are great Leader and Teacher and Healer, etc. (over 60 relations of Christ to the believer). Just as men tried to be that for us idolatrously. The Holy Spirit reveals the person of Christ to us in mini baptisms of divine light. He introduces us to the actual person of Christ. And our negative experiences are washed and purified through that infinite filter of divine love! This is the secret of all the great people of God in history. This is the only answer to dealing with former abuses.

The mistake people often make is just focusing on the individuals and try and work out why people were motivated to do bad things. Often what only happens is the person abused still struggles to deal with the sincerity of the abuser and gets caught up in selfish considerations and focuses. That is why the abusers and sympathisers with the abusers (as in above posts) assume people can only be bitter when objecting to wrong-doing in such movements. But when we take Christ by the hand in such ways, and open up our entire lives to Him for inspection, correction, and sanctification, espeically our present and future, then it takes our eyes off of any selfish considerations of examining such things, and places us in God's hands. I am not recommending ignoring any wrong-doing as many advice. You can only be right with God as you are honest in everything (see the false humility passage in the book) about yourself and everyone. I once tried to get right with God while messed up in a group of people, trying to ignore them and their sins. Well, I just couldn't break through until I admitted their actions as they really were. I just wanted to deal with my own sins, but they were tied up in the sins of others...

So what I am suggesting is nothing mechanical as so many church help programs suggest, using false psychology. What outsiders joining Charity are looking for in the Charity movement is for a movement of God. People are looking for the ideal setting and be swept away in all the blessings. This was also a problem in the great revivals of old. But the real answer everyone is seeking, especially for those looking for total healing, is MUCH MUCH closer and instantaneous! It is the last place people are willing to look. It is being absolutely honest before God (going over every former sin as best as possible with Him) and believing upon Christ to be our God in the way breifly mentioned above. He then becomes everything we need, and we have need for nothing. We then become that kind of person that blesses so many others as Joseph did and so many others did in church history we like to make biographies of.

You know you have this when everything becomes different, it is like a blind man beginning to see. And the cheif characteristic about it is all the motivations change from selfish ultimate ends or focuses in life to becoming benevolent and unselfish. This way there is no bitterness in replaying abusive history. You have Christ leading your way, and Him directing. You are doing all things for His sake, and only that way can you help yourself or anyone else. He becomes so big that all others become tiny and insignificant.

I once had a vision as a new convert that removed my fear of man. I don't make anything of it as people do about visions. I was about the place of the moon in the sky looking down at the earth. I sensed that the Lord was beside or behind me. The picture showed me the idea of how big God was even though I never saw Him. As I looked down at the earth, I saw little ants running to and fro. These were people. Whatever happened at that time I don't know fully. But what I do know is that I never again felt man was something to worry about or fear.

So what I am saying is that God in Christ becomes our all in all and overwhelms all the temptations, and evil influences of the past, present, and future. I could write hundreds of volumes about this, and that is why I am publishing hundreds of volumes of others who write much better than I can. I hope this helps.

Be careful in your helping others not to get entangled in the web of lies. Also be careful how much you do that because I have seen these people agreesively distroy individuals, move into areas and disrupt fellowships, etc. You are not only dealing with individuals but something more serious...

Sincerely,

Rick

[henry (henry)]

Rick,
Just a short response to what you had written to me.
Rick, I did not want to come off as one that was accusing you for being bitter or seeking revenge. In reading the things that you write, I was merely observing from a readers perspective, that some of the stuff left impressions of the sensings of improper heart attitudes towards them, and not the heart of Christ. You see, I don't know you personally, I've met you briefly, years ago, but I don't know you. I don't know your personality, the tones in your voice and all of those things, and so all I can do is interpret your heart by the words that you write.
Anyway, so far that I know anything about you, you are my brother. Maybe you don't think so, but I am more of a friend and a brother to you than what you perhaps have perceived. With this whole movement (remnant) there are a lot of individuals that walk with God, not in a sinless sense, as you know. I know that you know far more about these things than I do in that you lived right in there. I guess that there is just a fear in some way, that with others that have had bad experiences there as well, and sharing back and forth about it, maybe not for you, but perhaps for others, unChristlike tempers, criticism, and such things would be stirred up in their own hearts.
Some of these things that you are sharing in this last response do concern me. I can not say though that it entirely surprises me, but it sure does concern me. We are trying to be very careful in our own midst regarding these same issues. They are not at all to the extent as what you described about Charity but nonetheless, we are trying to be careful that we don't end up in extremes or false liberties.
More later, and I'll try to make some time to call you in a few days.
Henry

[happywife (happywife)]

Henry,
If you are the Henry who knows me (Rebecca+Greg), would you please email me privately?

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Henry,
Your ISP places you: 64.231.180.44 resolves to HSE-Kitchener-ppp321813.sympatico.ca
So I am gathering you are the Henry I met some years ago in the new Charity church in Aylmer Ontario, or at the Moorefield group where I was visiting while I was living there. I did appreciate the Aylmer group more than any other group in Charity. Things were much different there. They were just starting out as a bunch of young people. Very open and giving people. One of them, John Ens, even gave me a violin for free. I had no bad observations there. The only concern I had was that they had Mose Stolzfus giving them direction. But even then, I noticed them saying they had their differences with Charity and did not want to become like them. I was only there two or three times, and had wished I had visited more. Always wanted to, but ended up being in the States from then on most of the time. And after the trouble with Charity we didn't want to cause any trouble and just got on with our lives. One of the reasons for the book was because we had later met a whole lot of people in the movement like you Henry, most of whom we knew much better, who would latter bump into us and ask us why we were no longer a part of the group. It was always a difficult situation at that point. So eventually we felt the need to fully explain our mind to hundreds of people we know within the movement and hundreds more outside of it. See the introduction letter for more details about that.
http://truthinheart.com/Remnant

Henry, if your group is still the same then it is much different then what I am talking about. I did not see you guys as having abusive authority and being liars and manipulators, but rather young believers who assume the best in people, etc...

Henry, do you realize that you are one of the only ones who even cares to talk to us as one still supportive of Charity. Yes we have talked to some friends within the Charity churches, who secretly called us because they were afraid of what others would think, some of which have left now. But all these other people we thought were friends never even said one word in letter, email, or by phone. All was just silence. The only word we got was from those secretly telling us what they saw within brothers meetings, etc., about what was said about us. Or from visitors who asked about us and were told bad things. But never did we get them tell us anything directly. Now I know if your group was at odds with someone, that you would attempt to at least talk with the person. So the silence tells us and many others the truth too. It is not Christian behavior.

The truth is that those familiar with the movement will see that the book is true. No not everyone will agree with our doctrine of holiness or other matters. But the fact is that people know the book is true. I know because I heard multitudes of people admit the things that make up the book. There is no lies or exaggerations. In fact I could have been much harder as many people told me. I could have just slammed those people as the cult they are or even revealed many embarrassing scandals. But it is not about destroying persons but calling to repentance and urging people to believe the testimony of God about the matters mentioned. Yes I mentioned a very few matters because I was urged to again and again, to back up my complaints. Some did not believe we were that much a part of the group as we claimed. I don't think people are claiming that now.

Anyway, Henry, I feel for you and your people. You get all these wonderful tapes from these leaders. You visit them, or they visit you when everything is just supercharged. This is what most people see. But it is unreal. It is not the norm of what happens while living among such people. This is why people find the book so hard to accept, even as I found it so hard to come to that place myself. Believe me, it took years. How can people pretend to be something they are not? As young people it is so hard for us to see that. As young believers we assume things are always better than they are. Experience teaches us to be more cautious with people in time. I remember the Aylmer group as being that way. I had real concerns that they would be poisoned by Charity. But I wasn't about to cause anyone trouble and say anything negative about Charity while I was visiting. No I kept many things to myself until long after I left. Even now we have only shared 1% of our concerns. Nothing more is needed though.

Henry, you say you don't know my tones or heart but yet say positively that I actually come off as a certain way. You have to be careful of prejudice in this respect. And if you sense something you must quote what you refer to or it will not help anyone who reads it but only will promote prejudice. Pre-judgment or prejudice is one of the biggest problems in this world.

What you may be referring to is certain places where rebuke is given to these leaders. Or in my addressing them as insincere and warning others about them. Let me explain. At first I was hopeful that at least some of the leaders, who had been our friends (thinking about outside Chairty itself here), would have at least said one word to us. But no one said a word. Only one of the leaders we sent the book to has agreed with us at least in part and as left the movement up here in Michigan. But he never said a word to us since we gave him the book. Anyway, when we wrote the book three years ago we still did not understand how bad things were outside of Charity in all the other churches. We assumed better. But when we were completely ignored and instead slandered, and especially when multitudes of testimonies came in of wounded persons, some credible, some not credible, within Charity, or within the Charity churches (I notice now they have removed their church listings on their website), then the pieces came together that this was far more dangerous of a movement than we first realized. At first we only thought what you think, that people's theology was bad, and a few prideful men were abusing their authority, etc., and that many were being hurt. But when we saw that it was across the board, and leaders all over were engaging in horrible scandals, lies, and manipulation, then we felt the need to address as we did in the revision. While hoping for their repentance, our voice was mostly going out to those that could be wounded by them. No I don't think such leaders are brothers at all but impostors and deceivers as the bible talks about. False prophets who are destroying many people. Yes, I have have witnessed false prophesies being given. Luke Martin in NY, who FOUNDED chartiy, tells us that they predicted Jesus would come back by 2000. He rebuked them many years ago for that, but they never repent of such thing. I don't know every one of the leaders in the supposed Remnant Charity movement, as more and more are multiplied. But I do know a good number of the main ones.

You may not agree with the practice of warning people against dangerous persons as I have done, and as these leaders frequently do about those they think are different from them. That has been the only criticism against the book: that criticism itself is wrong. Well the book explains that part in the opening chapter.

Henry, you probably have only seen very little of what is happening, and only hear what is admitted, like "nobody's perfect" and the like. If that was the only kind of problem, problems found in numerous groups across the land, then there would be no book. But the fact is, things are very rotten and dangerous. People are being destroyed all over the place. We see it all the time. [Not to mention testimonies like courtships are lied about and made to sound so much more godly than they are. Some are made out to be divine, when in fact fathers are courting young men for their daughters. Men who feel the call to be single, urged to marry their daughters, and the same daughters being told to pray about such men! Contrary to the tape teaching. (I dare not mention names.) But when put on paper you get a whole different impression. It happens. The beginnings of another are happening right now.] We were compelled to do something about it. If you saw the things we testify to, you would understand our language. Again, we are not talking about a brother who has had a fit of pride and rage here and there. We are talking about systematic deception, a philosophy and program of manipulation and training in it.

Henry, you guys need to examine your attachments to such groups. You are a leader there if I remember correctly. If falls upon you to deal with these things for the sake of your flock. Charity has a bad reputation with those outside the church. The bible address that. The individual leaders have hundreds of people they refuse to deal with. They just ignore them most of the time. They are unqualified leaders according to the scriptures on many accounts (see the book for details). They are not even non-resistant according to their profession. The do not take the time to even try to be reconciled to those they offend.

You people need to be careful that you "do not share in the sins of others." Or become leavened in such mischief as Paul warns. If you neglect to be a Timothy in your group, what Paul warned Timothy will become of you and your group.

Your efforts to even call, show that you are concerned. I wish you all all the best. Life can be hard to face when things go against our ideals. Jesus was a man of sorrows because He was rejected by His own. Paul too. Many a good man has to go through the fire of misunderstanding to be proved of God, and confirmed in His will. If the Master had to go through it, all the more so do we....

Peace in Christ,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

It's most unfortunate that we live in a day and age when if someone disagrees with someone else over a Biblical issue, they automatically assume they have truth and the other person is wrong.

What I so often hear is the following reasoning:

1. "I heard the leadership (of whatever background) teach x"
2. I disagree with x, so I went to the leadership to explain to them why they are wrong.
3. The leadership did not agree with me, therefore they are false prophets, evil, liars . . .

This has been particularly true in some of the Holiness circles I have been around. Followers of Finney will call followers of Wesley demons. Followers of Mahan will call followers of Finney evil.

While there is too much religious acceptance/relativism in this day (whatever you believe is true for you, whatever I believe is true for me, there is no ultimate truth), there is the equal and opposite extreme of "anyone who doesn't see things exactly my way is evil." Let us not stray from the straight and narrow to either one side or other. May God give us grace and humility to seek out truth in gentleness and not to puff up our own selves, our reasoning, our logic, our thoughts.

Blessings,

Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

This discussion is about Charity and its associated churches. Your first post was about Emanuel Esh and his teaching on the covering. So I am assuming you are referring in this last post about Charity and their leaders in reference to what I shared. Especially in regards to your mentioning some of the main authors on my website. While you could be talking about some other people elsewhere, it appears that you are referring to me. If I am wrong let me know.

In all my research of these revivalist authors you mention, I have never heard anyone say the followers of Mahan call the followers of Finney demons. This is rather strange, and I wonder why you would even mention such a thing. The reason why I say that is because Asa Mahan is only recently become known again in the Christian world. In his day he was well known. But was forgotten many years latter. There was no real noticeable following of people following Mahan that thought people following Finney were evil. Those authors were one in spirit and theology and philosophy. The people who appreciated them both were the same people. Both men taught in such a way as to not make for followers of men anyway.

In recent times, a friend of mine, James Hamilton down at Asbury College did his graduate work on Mahan and Finney in the 60's and 70's and revived this author Mahan through the publishing of a biography about him. This brought some attention to Mahan but still the Christian community did not really know of this individual. About 7 or 8 years ago I started to publish his works and since then people are learning more about this man. And by the way, Denny loved his writings and recommended them to Keith Daneil. I have been in contact with even his descendants, but I do not see much of anyone following this man as you say. I hear people really appreciating him. None of these have given any indication of thinking Finney, or people who appreciate him are evil, nor of Wesley and his people. That obviously is not true of me. In fact just today a man wants me to publish Wesley's CP book, which I accepted.

It is true that some people are foolish and follow these or other men in place of Christ, and people doing that are wrong no matter how true any humans are. Such are doing what Paul rebuked in many of the Corinthians.

This is one reason why it is wrong to call yourself by a name like a Menonnite or some other man. Yes we follow people like Paul as he told us to, but only as they follow Christ. In fact I just preached last Lord's day about that in Phil. 4:8,9. Notice Paul says "everything".

Going back to the three authors you mention. All were humble, and if any one really does follow such men in the way Paul tells us to follow men, and obviously such men were in consistent agreement with such men, then such people would not be calling the others doing the same evil or demons. I have not found any such admirers of these men to do that with any others. So I find your comments very strange indeed.

Now I have been in constant conversations with thousands of people over the 13 years of my ministry, mostly with pastors, leaders, and people zealous for God interested in the authors I have on my site, or opposed to them (yes the Charity controversy is a very small thing in our focus). These have been evangelicals, weslyan, holiness people, charismatics, calvinists, reformed, skeptics, plain people, etc. And I have found many hypocrites, many people seeking God but not yet finding him, many followers of men, of different men, and some good souls here and there in every state in the US as far as I remember. Yes I do see certain types of people get what they think is a good idea in their heads and then get all dogmatic and immature and slam anyone who differs with them. Some people are so mistaken or prideful. Some people even act like they appreciate one or all of these authors mentioned, but act totally opposite to their Christian example. But the same is true for anyone claiming to be a Christian with Christ, who does the same. One type or group can call another evil. Many are wrong in doing that, some are justified (as Paul was in his day).

So you need to first realize that just because you go in some supposed 'holiness' circles, it does not mean that people who may like a particular author, are in fact consistent with that author or their teachings. Is that not a fair statement? Not everyone who follows Christ actually does, right? So there is no point mentioning these names in this way. Because these authors did not promote such opposition to each other, or the people who appreciated them. So if anyone did or does that, it is their own problem.

In regards to your second paragraph, it seems you are obviously referring to my situation, especially as you mention these three authors on my websites, and as I have been posting a lot of info about Charity here recently. If that is true, then your description is hardly an example of what I have experienced or described. Let me say again:

I did not merely hear leadership teach X. I lived there on and off for some 4 years while my wife was there altogether for more than 4 years. Both of us were very much part of the heart of the movement and met very many people not only at the church and all functions, but in their homes. We therefore saw the teaching applied in real life. And I did have a lot of heads of families at Charity and in other Charity churches come to me for advice or confess things or discuss things. I knew then a great deal about what was happening and the teaching as it was understood and taught from the pulpit and practically out of the pulpit with individuals or in brother's meetings or in private meetings, etc. So that was hardly an I heard X and differed with it and called it evil because I merely differed with it. Read the book and see it was a whole difference from that.

Nor did I merely go to leadership. I suffered under it for some time in intense prayer. I prayed for Denny for many years as I have never prayed for any person before or after. He told me he felt my prayers and believed that they were answered. At times I thought, and he agreed, that what I prayed for about him resulted in some of the substance of his messages. I was very hopeful and wished for all the best in these people. I certainly came in there with the greatest respect and hope. I gave my life and money and time out to those people. I did disagree with doctrine at the start (but did not know all that I know now about what they believe), but I did not engage in confronting the leadership as you suppose.

Most people knew where I stood on many things. All will tell you that I was not disrupter in such matters. In fact, when I first moved there, and stayed in Lawrence Martin's shop, he attempted to introduce me to Mose Stolzfus at someone's house after church, in a controversial way that embarrassed both of us. Mose and I were forced into a controversy which we both noticed and avoided somewhat. Did I go after Mose where I differed from him in that matter? No. And later he even baptized me! And let me say here that in that first introduction that we were forced into controversy, or at least differing positions, Mose was not able to answer the evidence presented about Revival historically spreading to all areas of a city so that all people were actually converted (and the discussion was about what would result from such a thing he supposed never could or did happen, but which I showed did sometimes). Some of that discussion was rather serious in its results. But this was hardly me acting like X is wrong and all that. No in fact I did just the opposite.

And in fact, it was Denny who first invited me to stay there for a permanent bible school instead of me going to Penview (which I had for a few days gone to). Jackie his wife, said to me personally, that it was a rare thing for him to ask anyone to do that who was a stranger, and that she thought it was seriously of the Lord. In my first talks with Denny, he suggested that we would have such a school. But that never really happened, and what I suppose now, is that they expect the tapes to be the school. Anyway, I did patiently wait for any discussion about truth and doctrine and practical matters. But rarely did Denny take more than 5 minutes to discuss anything. The only times it went longer was when I would drive him to airports and we would be in the car for an hour or a few.

Did I go to the leaders and merely explain to them why they were wrong? Obviously everyone knows I never acted that way. I patiently tried to understand their positions and ways of life and tried to learn whatever I could of the truth. Where I differed I patiently prayed about it and sought humbly to hope for the best. It was very difficult to keep silent and ignore some of the scandals and things.

Now, as mentioned in my letter in front of the book, I did gain really good standing with Denny, and my Cell group leader Myron Weaver and others, near the end of my living there where I was helping out homeschooling a family. I explained to Denny the difficulties I had been in with regards to the sins of the people in the church and the serious problems with the leadership not functioning as pastors. Denny apologized for that and told me to have more patience with them and continue on in ministering to the people and report to him. So did I go and slam them with my differing views of things? No. And Denny knew my beliefs all that time.

It was months later that I finally concluded that the system of leaders was altogether insincere and corrupt. The people were only being ruined by the things I show in the book. I had no more leading to serve the people any more in the way I had, and was going to move on. When I was urged by a friend of mine, who is now my wife, to not just quietly leave without any explanation, but to at least write Denny. So I did in Dec 1999. It was a private letter sharing my observations and points of view. I did not stir up any trouble in doing that, and a month later Denny had the longest most serious talk with me ever. And even tough we fundamentally disagreed over 3 major areas of subjects, he told me at the end that I was blameless in my talk with him. So that was the end and I was leaving. I did not see he believed the truth about what it means to be converted to Christ and saved, that he had an abusive and dangerous view of authority that was idolatrous, and that his churches stress on certain particulars like modesty was excessive in view of the fact that other physical duties were grossly ignored, etc. Yes, even though we discussed those things out over 3.5 hours so that we both well understood each other, he still called me blameless in my actions that night, and he left my home not having much else to say. And did try to trip me up in my talk with him that night, but did not phase me because I was full of joy and the Holy Spirit.

So that was my exist, as the other leaders never did take much time at all to build any relationship with me, almost all my dealings were with Denny, same with my wife. There was no need for me to talk with the others. The only reason I did further was because Denny told me that in order for me to have permission to VISIT ANY OF THE CHARITY CHURCHES that I needed to discuss if I was allowed with Rick Liebee! That should reveal a lot in that statement about what they view about their denomination and visitors, etc.

So did I have my issues that I tried to correct these leaders in in the way suggested by Eric? By no means as everyone knows. I brought nothing on myself. I attempted to leave quietly in good standing with everyone. Even Denny begged me to stay with tears and fist punching hand for the sake of the affect on the youth if we left. That was after our long discussion and him knowing I was courting my wife.

Eric and everyone who keeps assuming this, it is not merely about some doctrines and issues of difference. It is about serious sin that we left. Serious abuse and serious lying, manipulation, serious scandal, crime, and the like. I patiently tried to encourage these people as best I could with my life. When asked I humbly shared my positions about things. I was never aggressive, and people appreciated me for that. EVEN EMANUEL ESH APPRECIATED ME. Ask those who were in his Explore the book class. When I visited that class he would sometimes ask me if what he had just shared was correct. And that was not sarcastic. It was because he respected my bible knowledge. Later when he was made a leader and didn't have time (as I shared about him complaining to me about not having the time to be such at the time of his election) to study or be a leader, he became a monster of a false prophet. Yes I remember long standing members in the church complaining when he was elected that he was not fit to teach. So what happens to such a man put in such a place as so often happens in the movement? See the book and watch these 'leaders'. The more people that share, whether still a part of Charity churches, or leaving, or left, the more they share this same serious problem.

So what happen in 'my confronting these leaders with their errors' as I am made to appear. When in fact the opposite was the case. We were quietly leaving and they would not have it without a judgment and condemning of us (first me and now my wife).

Well I finally agreed to meet with Rick L. as we never had any trouble with each other. I thought I might as well share why I have left the group instead of just sharing it with Denny. And who shows up to the meeting? Emanuel Esh with no warning. And what is discussed? Not what I discussed with Denny, but my courtship. And who talks most? Emanuel. And what does he do? He flips out with many insults and then prophesies as an Old Testament prophet (I made sure I understood him in what he thought of himself) that my wife and I would end in divorce as others have who did not take his advice to do something like end a courtship. What a curse. Now later on, after getting rebuked by good old Aunt Merriam and my wife I believe, at his home, he made a pathetic phone call and confessed his having been wrong spirited. But did he take back his actual words, no.

What later followed that sad meeting was nothing but Denny begging me to stay even though my US permit to stay in the country was expired anyway. And after we both left they did not see to tell me about a brother's meeting where they would judge me without inviting me to be there.

Hardly a case of me acting in this way at all. It was totally the opposite and the leaders in fact did this very thing. And yes, they have prophesied things that have not come to pass. Many others have witnessed this. In fact, in Henry's own church Mose has shared that the congregation was in for trouble with the Canadian government. Has that happened? We'll just have to wait for that one. Did Jesus return by the year 2000 as they predicted many years ago in the presence of Luke Martin and others over the years? No.

Have these men been willing to stand behind their prophesies and doctrine and abusive behavior? No. Is this a case of some kid being prideful and differing with the leaders in this church. By no means. Is "anyone who doesn't see things exactly my way is evil"? I have NEVER given that impression to anyone. I work and live with many people I differ with in many things. All who know me, know me as just the opposite of that prideful attitude. I always try and learn what I can with people of differing views. I often share that in order to criticize people you need to first know what they are saying, why they say it, learn something positive about it or the experience, before you oppose it. I have been very patient with many people over the years, especially the Charity people. And I have seen patience have its perfect work both in me and in others.

But when men are resolute in spreading lies after being caught and confronted with them, when they manipulate people and aggressively attack people wishing to be left alone, while pretending to be nonresistant, then it sometimes becomes necessary to say and do something about it, especially if circumstances force people like us into it.

I appreciate the warning. But the assumption behind it is that things are not as serious as they are. If they were not, then I would not be sharing what I have. The matters are either serious or not. We need not divert the subject into something else.

Sincerely,

Rick

[davescousin (davescousin)]

I have been in a Charity church for eight years; two and one half years as a deacon. We have recently resigned our ministry and membership, we are currently still attending the services, though we are intending to move elswhere. We have quite a bit of family in various Charity churches including Ephrata.
I have been to Charity (Leola and Ephrata) several times over the years; mostly for revival meetings etc. Many of our church people go periodically also, including youth bible school. I have met, probably all of the leaders there but couldn't say that I really know them personally. Neither do I know Rick. Therefore to those of you that question Rick's accounts or motives I have no knowledge of the specific incidents he relates. I will however say that I know enough about the Charity way of dealing with issues and people that I would not question the accuracy of his accounts.
I would simply like to share some of the reasons why we ourselves are leaving. There are some reasons that are specific to our congregation I will not share those as much as the issues that apply to the Charity churches as a whole.
The first and most troubling thing to me is the amount of people that go through the Charity churches and it seems to me that many or possibly most of the people leave in worse spiritual condition than when they came. This applies to whole families as well as individual youth leaving their families and church. It does seem that some people do well in the church, but for most of the people that I know that is not the case. When people really get honest they will admit that they are struggling and the dynamic revival messages that are preached are not reality for them.
If I would share all my concerns I would repeat much of what Rick shares in his book so I won't go into a lot of detail. I will say that the authority issue and the revivalism are two issues that he discusses in his book that really don't need further clarification but I will simply say I believe the way Charity teaches and practices those two issues is in error, and is also a cause of why so many people in the Charity churches struggle with discouragement, guilt and finally disillusionment.
I also feel a contributing cause at least in our congregation and I think in the churches as a whole is an independent, individualist mentality. There is an extremely strong teaching on our individual relationship with Christ. But a weakness in brotherhood relationships, the church is looked at as a place to fellowship and worship God, but it is not generally felt that that would have a great effect on our relationship with God. Scripture teaches that we can't love God more than we love our brother and I think if can't get along with or we mistreat our brothers and sisters our relationship with God is called into question.
We are looking for something probably in the mennonite circles that is more community oriented than the Charity churches seem to be. Where there is more of a genuine love and concern for each other and people really trust each other and treat each other like family.
Regards:
Paul

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Paul,

Thank you for your courage to share these things. I wish you all the best in your search for fellowship, and most importantly, the love of God.

Your comments remind me of my visit years ago with Peter Hoover (in his home while at Shippensburg PA). He is the author of the Anabaptist history book The Secret of the Strength: What would the Anabaptists tell this Generation. He is also from the same area I am from in Ontario. He had real concerns about Charity's authority problems and warned me while I was there to be careful. He is also more community-minded.

While I do point out a few of the excessive hospitality problems in that movement, and where there is too much community being nosy, I do agree that there needs to be more love of the brethren. There is lots of that rural good values of helping people out in natural matters, and lots of giving, but big problems with spiritual matters. Yes, when it comes down to it, people admit that they are not there spiritually, and they just keep on getting hyped up from one big meeting to the next.

Yes, we can't love God if we don't love our brothers, or neighbors. Lack of love is as good as hatred, just not always emotional (see 1 John). When one loves God, it is God's love he has, and he loves as God loves, and walks as Christ walked. The love of God is not something he invented, but is received from above. It is divine, heavenly, pure and lovely... It not only feeds the poor and needy, but keeps itself unspotted from the world, and seeks everyone's spiritual interest with a character that is the fruit of the Spirit, the Holy, not unholy spirit. God's love is holy, and His people are called saints. Saints means litterally "holy ones". They are really mostly know for their love, especially towards one another.

My friend, whatever happens, do show that love to these people. Some may do what they can to prevent that.

Peace in Christ,

Rick

[davescousin (davescousin)]

I know many people in the Charity churches and I think many of them are sincere people and doing the best they can but they are hindered by the teachings and practices of the church they are in. Most of them are unaware of the things that are hindering them. One problem is the lack of articulating a clear vision for the church, so people join the church not completely understanding what is expected of them or what the church stands for. But they are drawn to it because they see it as having more spiritual vitality and being more open minded than where they come from.

I would like to repeat what I shared in my previous post that it is a great burden to me to see the many wounded and spiritully wrecked people that leave the Charity churches.

Many of the Charity churches are experiencing a tremendous amount of turmoil right now, some are actually closing their doors. Instead of looking at what may be some of the root causes of the problems, however, it is generally simply attributed to attacks of the enemy. It is thought that since they are walking with God more closely than other christians and consider themselves on the forefront in the spiritual battle Satan is focusing more attacks on them than he does on most people.

I preached regularly for about three years in the church that we were in and received many comments from people that my messages were different than the messages that others preach. I felt that we heard so many harsh negative messages that I would generally try to preach more uplifting and encouraging messages rather than try to preach such harsh negative messages.

At this point I am not sure just how public or active a stand I should take on the things that I see. We are still attending the church and I have only shared some concerns with a couple of the leaders and a few people that specifically asked why we have resigned from the church.
(I was surprised by how few people did ask.) I don't like the idea of stirring up a lot of controversy.

This is not a case of a disgruntled exmember as some probably think. I have always had a heart for the church and love the people. I was ordained as a deacon; and a couple of years ago when our pastor resigned I was asked if I would consider becoming the pastor. I declined, not feeling I was qualified for that office, but did function somewhat in that capacity for about a year and a half until new leadership could be instituted. I had wished to resign earlier but was asked to stay until new leaders could be appointed. We were also well regarded and appreciated by most people in the church as far as I know, except for a few people that attacked us (especially my wife) for wearing clothes that were not considered "plain" enough. Attacks consisted of bold, aggressive, public rebukes and private slander that we would hear about through the grapevine from other people.
(By the way the same thing happened to our previous pastor) which in large part was responsible I believe for him finally wearing out and moving away. I deeply appreciated our pastor and was saddened by the relentless assaults on his character by a vocal minority. It illustrates a problem I believe in putting too much emphasis on "plainness" and having people as a part of the church because they "fit in" plain clothes etc. but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Most of my experiences come from the local congregation I was a part of but they are representative of the Charity churches as a whole I believe. I have visited other Charity churches and have family in several different Charity churches.

I would just caution anyone that is considering joining a Charity church or is already a part of one to keep your eyes and ears open and consider carefully and prayerfully the things that you see and hear whether what you see is scriptural. Don't just get caught up in the excitement and emotionalism of it but consider the fruit that you see in peoples lives and consider whether it matches up with what they are saying.

With all that said I will say that there is some fairly wide diversity in what is called Charity churches. In fact some churches that are somewhat independent get labeled that, whether they want it or not, So some of the groups scattered around the country would have to be evaluated on an individual basis rather than opposing them simply because someone calls them Charity or Remnant.

I think too, we need to consider that any other church we go to will have its weaknesses. Since the church is made up of imperfect people, I believe there will always be imperfections in the local congregations. I know that the bible speaks of the church and people as pure and spotless but that is because of Christ's blood and grace, not because we always live perfect lives. I think we need to compare with scripture and be led by the Holy Spirit so we can discern whether the church we are in simply has imperfections because of the peoples humaness or whether it contains fatal flaws in the teaching or practices that will prevent it from having God's blessing and yielding the peaceable fruit of righteousness.

God Bless,
Paul

[summerwind2003 (summerwind2003)]

Sorry it has been a few months since being online.How do I know it's from God? because God leaves a peace in your heart,not confussion, &amp; I know that he spoke to me, cannot elaborate further.

[lightmom (lightmom)]

The Charity Ministry has been a stream in a desert for me and I know I was led to them by the Spirit of God. Since June 25 of this year, my life has changed and new things the Lord showed to me were confirmed by that ministry. I look forward to receiving their tapes and I know the blessing of the Lord is upon that place.

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Summerwind2003 and lightmom,
I heard a lot of people say the same thing as this. My wife and I said the same sort of thing. We FELT that the Lord was with these people, but over time we saw the so many of those people leave saying they were mistaken. And we saw we too were mistaken. We must be careful in going by our feelings and saying the Lord says this and that and leads me hear and there. The devil gives a false peace. He is called the angle of light. And his ministers act like ministers of righteousness. The ministers in this group are wolves in sheeps clothing. You can't see it right now, but be careful. As for confusion, this group causes a whole lot of it by giving contradictory messages and standards. That gives no peace in the heart for those caught in the middle of the lies and manipulation. Tell me how people can not be confused while persons the leaders think have devils in them are allowed to be active in the meetings and fellowship for YEARS! Such individuals have caused great confusion for members, regular attenders, and visitors. The list goes on and on. The only ones who have peace about the movement are those who so exhalt it and thus have praise from the leaders and who also ignore all the corruption and confusion.
Lightmom, Yes I know many tapes can have good things on them. That is how they get people primarily sucked in. And yes the Lord does use the work of unrighteous people to bring about good. Just look and Joseph and what his brothers did. The Spirit of God did a wonderful work in Joseph and saved the world by it no thanks to the brothers intentions. These folks teach a lot of truth in a godless day. No doubt that can be used to help people as I said in my book. It doesn't at all mean that these folks are sincere in their lives, and are not manipulators and deceivers.
Well I know that is impossible to show you women these things at this time. I know it was very difficult for me to consider such for some YEARS down there. But I do want to say that you need to be careful in following your feelings. Because the devil will lead you around into great delusion.

Rick

[henry (henry)]

Greetings,
Just dropping a note this morning. Rick, we have not forgotten about coming to visit you. We are just very busy.

I read the book a couple of months ago and must say that I have to agree with that what you have written. I will say that I was expecting something bigger and more aweful than what it was, in hearing how others think that the book should be pulled. I'm glad that it has been written. It is a very needed book for the movement.

We were not ignorant of the things that you have shared in the book, but have seen, perceived and have been burdened by many of them. For someone like me, there is nothing offensive in the book. It is simply a healthy evaluation of the movement as a whole - yes, perhaps with some uncomfortable examples. As for the examples, anyone reading the book who doesn't know of them, will have a hard time to even know when it is a specific example in such a way as to get defensive or offended. You have to be very unfair and proud to rail on the content of the book. It refreshed, and opened my eyes a little more to the issues that we had already come to understand, that were in the movement.

Rather, I felt as I read the book, that if there are those who read the book, and thought it was unfair and too critical, that they could be perhaps the problem or promoting the problems in the movement. I share this for anyone and everyone. Read the book. It is healthy.



Rick, where are you attending now? What type of church is it? What type of people make up the church? What are the practical expressions of your doctrinal beliefs?

Also, we read your health story and were blessed.

God bless.

Henry

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Henry,

Thank you for your comments. You are welcome to visit as I said before. I trust you will find us in person to be even more encouraging. We too have been very busy.
I have found the same thing that you mention above. People are prejudiced against the book and assume that it would be like other critics. And what I have found even beyond this movement, everywhere, is that selfish people assume other people are selfish, and thus would act as they would. So then they judge you or are prejudiced against you. Of the very few that have criticized the book, most have not read it entirely (usually beyond the opening letter and assume the whole book would be of that kind of narrative), or have rushed through it in a few hours searching for trouble and out of context quotes. After they make their hasty comments and I respond and show that they have not read the book, they never respond, except for a few that have appologized. So I still have not found one response to the book that opposes the possitions and conclusions therein, from someone who has carefully read it. And like I said in the book, it largely consists of sentiments expressed by various leaders within the movement from time to time, or from invited speakers like Zac Poonen and Keith Daniel, etc. So my point was to put them together as I had presented to Denny Kenaston upon my leaving of the group. And that was only because the leaders not only did not receive it, and instead tried to accuse me of mischeive in my courtship after we left the group (and still the book would never have been written for those reasons alone), but later twisted the real story for a few years (2.5) to others, and was continuing to do this sort of thing to numerous person (which we would bump into accidentally from time to time). We saw close friends get ensnared. We saw young men mislead about courtships. And I need not repeat all the things I have shared in above postings on this board.

So the book was still written in hopes that people within could change things for the better as we had hoped in Dec 1999 when I wrote Denny and Jan, talked so long with him about these things. We thought that maybe if it went public as the Scriptures urge us to do in such circumstances, that perhaps it may at least indirectly help matters. As I think it did from some reports. It at least made a lot of people look out for such abuses and problems so that they were less frequent in the open. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, the people are always fed the 'progress' line and so were lead to believe things are getting better, and we're moving on from the past. But we have not found this to be the case, as they have not reconciled numerous problems left undone. For example, I had been on friendly terms with one minister in the movement who is a minister now but wasn't when I knew him. So in a visit with another friend I fell into a hurt family who had been left to the dogs, and the leaders had lied to the authorities about that family not being part of thier school. So I went out of my way last year to confront this old friend about this. And later they did have some kind of clearling up of the matter. But no attempt had been made to see how this family was doing or why they had left. There just is no responsibility in these leaders most of the time. Because so many come and go they just let most go without followup or concern. But there is a great number of these wounded people. And the only answer for them is the truth in Jesus. They can't get on with life until they deal with what happened. And it is true that many such people act a way that is not right. But that does not mean that everyone does, nor that people should assume that we have (as they usually do), or that the book is of that nature.
So we think that some of the 10,000 people who have visited the book website have been helped. Unfortunately the leaders have never responded to us directly about it, and the same things still go on as always.
Yet we are not prejudiced against such people and have even had some people in the movement do work for us. And another who we hoped had been a blessing, it turned out was pushing network marketing products and misleading us saying the product had no presurvatives but actually it did have sodium Benzoate in it. So we see there are nice people who are good workers, and bad people who are greedy and liars within the movement. The people are on the one hand and the leaders are another matter. In the book a distinction needed to be made and often was between the two. Because so many people come into the group and go out from it, it sometimes has some good folks pass through it for a season. And it also has some good values. This we stressed right from the start, and even had a whole chapter about the commending values in the movement. Hardly what you would expect from the kind of people we are made out to be. Yes, there are some jabs here and there. But they are not known to anyone but the persons themselves, or those who know them. As I said, I could have embarassed many a person or minister with specific details about named persons, but that was not becoming or necessary. So it was largely left in the general, and such and such story happened, but the name is not mentioned. And we also wrote in general about things relating to most professing Christian churches, because we knew many would read this book, and we wanted to try and help them. So the book is not some gossip tale or slander as most assume it would be. There is some creative poems that were intended to make you think. A little sarcastic at times. But they seemed fitting for the circumstances.

The book will be evident for those involved. It is written to their consciences, and not to the surface of the problems. It goes deep to the heart of the matters and does not draw people into another group, or focus on surface issues. It presents holiness to all people. It explains what authority means while it rejects cultish authoritarianism. It promotes wholestic godliness as opposed to the kind of selective godliness that focuses on only some parts of life and neglects other parts, it shows the difference between a false forcing of agreements or even modern spinless ecumenicalism and true biblical unity; it shows what is necessary in church leadership: the spiritual and mental requirements for such; and some other related issues.

As for our fellowship, doctrine, etc., that is too much to say here. As we are no longer planning to move back to your country and mine, we are focussing more and more locally. There is nothing impressive here, but we are not pretending it is.

The health story is much outdated, but the principles remain the same for us. One day I'll get around to updating that.

Keep in touch.

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

Summerwind2003 and Lightmom:

Keep seeking God. (Mt. 7:7-11) He will reveal Himself to all who seek. Test the spirits. (1 Jn 4:1) Not every spirit is of God. As you well noted, the spirit of God sows peace, not discord. (Galatians 5:22-23) Look to those who sow peace and joy and order, not bitterness, anger and slander.

May God bless you abundantly.

Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric, Summerwind, and Lightmom,

A few more things to add:

"They have healed the brokenness of My people supperficially, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace." Jer. 6:14

And the truth brings a sword to those who would ignore it, twist it, or live consistently with it:

"Do not think that I cam to bring peace on earth; I did NOT come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." Matt. 10:34-39 NASB.

So while you should avoid groups like Charity who do sow bitterness, anger, and slander, be also careful of those who preach a false peace and brotherhood, who are not actually a holy people willing to divide themselves from ALL sin and corruption. The truth divides. Wicked people tell you there is no such necessary divisions. Some will tell you don't worry about sin in the camp it will take care of itself. Don't worry about error, just peacefully go along with the rest. Unity is the important thing. Just accept the groups of people the way they are and be joyful about it. Anyone trying to go against that is rebellious, bitter, angry, and if they say anything at all they are a slanderer. So they slander such people as opposing the great organized system that seems so impressive on the surface. Wonderful "blessings" are continually uttered. But when you look carefully you find just what Jesus said so long ago... There is great efforts in these groups to get people feeling hyped up. The ultamate goal is to get people inspired. I have experienced much of that. But if you watch the people, that only lasts a day or a few, and then it is not lasting (as admitted). Why is that? Because the forcus is not right and thorough. The end is not sufficient. It is usually because much deals with the emotions, at least in the way things are preached or presented. What is missing is actually the expectation for people to be fully completely holy. So wonderful stories are told that inspire the heart. Great. Even several issues and practices are pressed that need to be fully practiced. Great. But the cheif check on whether you are doing well or not is if you have little or no conflict. My wife had a terrible time with this down there. I said, it is not that you have to have no conflict with people, as that will not happen ("be at peace with people as far as it is possible" it says), but you deal with the spiritual conflict in your soul. When you conflict with others, what arises in your soul? Do you allow bitterness, anger, and revenge, etc. Or do you give it over to the Lord to deal with? So there is a difference here. Jesus opposed all the religious people in His day especially. Paul too; even the top Christian leaders in his day that were real believers. They hurt both of these. So what did they do? Did they just say, go now, be happy and go along with the show? Don't sow discord and preach the need of the hour. Don't point out what needs to be done. No, rather these men dared to cross everyone, while they KEPT their own souls in holiness. Great trials indeed upon their souls. Times of great greif and sorrow, as well as times of great sympathy with God and with men. But we can't judge them and so many others by the external conflicts with men, and assume they were full of bitterness, anger and slander, just because things got discorded and people accused them of disturbing the false peace in the religious institutions.
So we see that the Spirit and spirit of God sows holy peace which will sometimes result in total chaos in the affairs of this world (as in the times of Christ and in various revivals), and leads often to severe persecutions of the righteous (while the false believers are throwing the stones and accusing those standing for total truth and total holiness of disrupting the peace and systems, etc.); He and it (the character that is) also causes great conflict in the soul (which needs to be dealt with spiritually and NOT with earthly measures and helps); and He other times this results in transforming society as people decide to follow the Lord in all of His ways.

To misunderstand this is to surely fall fatally in the road to distruction. One clearly has never read the bible from front to back who does not see the difficult road of the lovers of the truth. One has no real Christian experience who does not see this very often in their own lives (as I pointed out in Sunday school this week): "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But bad men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." 2 Tim 3.
To those who love the truth, there is great peace among them. They tolerate differences of oppinion, and have great patience with each other. The dividing factor is SIN, not theory.

One scripture in parting about holiness. These folks do not believe in holiness. Don't even think someone can be holy in this life. And that is the fundamental problem.

"Do not be deceived, Bad company corrupts good morals. Be sober and come to a right mind as you ought, and STOP sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame." 1 Cor. 15:33-34

Notice that this is not some impossible suggestion but a rebuked expectation.

So may God bless you the only way He can, as you walk with Him as Jesus did:

"if we walk in the Light JUST AS HE HIMSELF is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin." Don't be deceived by fancy/spiritual talk/fallacy.

Sincerely,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

"be also careful of those who preach a false peace and brotherhood, who are not actually a holy people willing to divide themselves from ALL sin and corruption. The truth divides."

And yet Jesus was a friend of sinners, both those who were not saved yet (such as the woman caught in adultery Jn 8:1-11) and those who were saved but sinning (such as Peter who denied Jesus 3x Mt 26:34,69-75). It was the Pharisees who accused Jesus of the "sin" of associating with tax collectors and sinners. Mark 2:13-17 Perhaps some humility is helpful here. "There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 May we seek to help all to draw near to God.

Blessings,
Eric

[dutch (dutch)]

Aaron Hurst of Charity gave a good message touching on some of these things. Its called "The Times and the Seasons." Available on Charity's website.

Eric

[dutch (dutch)]

Re: Calliej, FriendinChrist &amp; the eternal security discussion -

Many denominations believe that repentance is part of salvation. If we read the scriptures, there is the teaching that one must repent of, or turn from his or her sins to get right with God. I wouldn't think a particular group is a sect or cult because they believe that repentance is necessary for salvation and that if one refuses to repent, he or she will eventually break his or her relationship with God. Most Christians I know do not believe in the modern day understanding of eternal security and yet I've never met anyone who thinks you can be saved one day and then lose it the next day or hour or minute.

David Bercot wrote a book entitled "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up" that contains some surprising &amp; interesting history on this subject. He traces the early church fathers' teachings on this and other subjects. Very revealing.

Blessings,
Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

"Blessings"?

Again, you need to read your bible.

Look at your first example. How did Jesus end this story? "From now on sin no more." This is hardly being "friends with sinners." This is rather a strong expectation for the person to stop sinning. There is no such example of Jesus being a friend of sinners. While Christians are friendly to all people and peaceful as far as possible, James tells us in 4:4 "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." This is exactly the opposite to what you said. If Jesus ever was around sinners He always "exposed the darkness". Read Ephesians 5: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, and offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this YOU KNOW WITH CERTAINTY, that NO immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolatrer, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. LET NO ONE (LIKE ERIC) DECEIVE YOU WITH EMPTY WORDS, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. THEREFORE DO NOT BE PARTAKERS WITH THEM; for you were FORMERLY DARKNESS, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. And DO NOT PARTICIPATE in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, BUT INSTEAD EVEN EXPOSE THEM; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light."

We are to be holy as God is holy; walk in love as Christ loved us; absolutely remove ourselves from sinful practices; and expose such sin when proper, etc. I'm not the one who said this. If you believe the bible then you can see this.

Further, Jesus exposed the sins in those who followed Him. They did NOT continually manifest a sinful lifestyle. They repented, and one pretended to be holy. No one is saying that Christians cannot sin. But simply that they should not, and no sin should ever be tolerated as is the case in Charity churches generally (some sins yes, some sins no). This is not limited to Charity circles obviously. But is the point Eric, you are arguing for it appears.

There is a vast difference in out reach which rebukes the sins of sinners in the RIGHT way (as Jesus did) and tolerating the sins manifesting as people do in so many 'churches' like Charity denomination. When Jesus was around such tax collectors and the like, He was not doing what James said was hatred against God, He did not sport around with them or merely associate with them as you sound like your suggesting. Notice every example. What was the point? Every story exposed the sin in a very unique way. Jesus penetrated deep into the hearts and lives and got at the real heart issues. His words cut deep and some repented, ironically the religious often hated Him and wanted to kill His name as they do today. Calling Him proud, not humble, etc.

So you are very wrong Eric. While the Pharisees were 'holier than thou' in mentality, and did not care to reach out to the lost, and were sectarian bigots according to the New Testament, this was vastly different from the Christian injunction to not be a friend with the world. We have two considerations here. Keeping ourselves unpotted by the world as James says true religion is. And also in the attempt to really help the world. If we do not rebuke sin then the world will not be convicted, if the light does not exist and/or is hidden under a bushel. Christian rebuke is primarily a walk of personal holiness that sometimes regularly speaks out against sins in others, and is just as quick to repent of any personal fallings. The only who loves another will tell them the truth. The one who hates his brother (Christian or non-Christian) will let him continue in his sins. Rebuke comes in many forms along with much prayer means to win the souls to God. James again: "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins." Last verses of the letter.

Jesus called some men to follow Him. The did and repented. They fell at times but got up. Jesus never tolerated there sinning and always rebuked it as we see. Yes this does happen in the true church. But that is totally different than making a false church open the doors to sinners to assemble unrebuked or partially rebuked for years on end. And worse than that, to then over-rebuke people for some sins while others are totally ignored (selection), or to rebuke and slander people about things that are not even sin. The really worldly churches today don't rebuke anything but those who show they are false in that. And we here see some people who do the same thing with Charity circles. Again, they come down hard on people about modesty, while many of their minsters have large bellies and are gluttons! I said this to Denny years ago. He had nothing to respond. Why? Because one of the first impressive sermons I heard of him was at the Men's Prayer Advance in Feb 1997 Virginia (Harold Vaugh gathering). What did he preach on? Fasting. And he pointed his finger and said something like, if you have a big belly you have years of sin under your belt. Well I was impressed for a good long while until I realized that he tolerated it all at home. It took a while for me to realize that game. It is all hype and impressive, but not consistent and real at home. So how can you press down hard on some people, and call them rebels (and equal to witchcraft) for not complying with some strict regulations, and then tolerate several or many other forms of worldiness (which are admitted to be such by a good number even within the camp)?

What is meant by the call for humility here? I have a whole chapter that deals with that claim in the book. You would do well to actually read the book Eric. Humility is not degrading oneself or misspeaking about character. Humility is being honest before God and man. If you believe you are a Christian, there is no false humility in saying God saved you from being a non-Christian and all that is involved in that. You can humbly say what God did for you. Same with holiness. Persons are not the Source of thier salvation from either hell or sin. "And you shall name Him Jesus, for He will save His people FROM THEIR SINS." First verses in you NT bible. If Jesus opens your eyes, you naturally are glad to see and show people that Jesus opened your eyes. But also naturally, those in the darkness, the religious darkness especially, will call it pride as they did that poor blind man. They will conjure up slanders against the man and even his parents.

So the biblical fact is that sin is not necessary in the believer and should never be tolerated. That is the major theme of my book as that is the theme of the NT in light of the redemptive work in Christ. His work not only made it possible, but as I mentioned many posts above here, He HIMSELF is our sanctification. He is our Life. While we walk with Him, we "are pure as He is pure". We are righteous as He is righteous (read 1 John letter). "In Him is no sin." While we walk in the Light AS HE HIMSELF WALKS IN THE LIGHT we have fellowship with God and His children (called children in the spiritual sense of HAVING THE SAME CHARACTER). Yes there is a real danger of falling from that. Thus the means to use to rid ourselves and others from such falling.

So yes, the main evils of the Charity movement are their cultic authoritarianism and associated or resulting evils (as most opposers of Charity acknowledge) but also the selective tolerance of sin and that rejects biblical holiness as some sort of false perfectionism. Perfectionism is a form of religion that seeks to save itself by its own boot straps and makes a hobby of holiness doctrine while not really walking with God. It naturally is repulsive. So then unholy people rail at anyone mentioning holiness as if they are the same sort of persons.

All have sinned, and all are in need of God. But does "all have sinned" mean all are tolerated to continue sinning? No. "Go and sin no more." These are the last words of one of the scriptures you listed. Why not believe them Eric? Is there anyone you should trust more than Jesus? Will you trust Aaron Hurst more than Jesus? Jesus said "go and sin no more." That is the highest evidence we have that we can open that commanding officer. This is the command AND promise of God.

What use is it to draw near to God? With what character? This idea of bringing people to worship God with unclean hands is abhored. Read James 4 again. The people cannot come close unless they realize who they are and that their crimes are voluntary and need to voluntarily stop as they Behold The Lamb. Your reasoning is contrary to this. It hinders people from seeing the truth. It is exactly the opposite of the essential teachings of scripture. Again, we must admit ALL OF THE TRUTH. We cannot hide from God anything. We cannot partially draw some of ourselves to Him. We cannot retain some prejudices and attachments to clubs and sinful denoninations. We must come clean with the truth no matter who joins us. It is honesty my friend. And as I found, I could not get clear until I also dealt with my relations to others.

In the book I specify these things in more detail. God's way is opposite to carnal religious person's way, who seek to imperfectly sanctify themselves. This is the greatest offense in the world. Though the truth is graciously given, it is an offense to those who just cannot receive it. They cannot usually because so many reject it, and ultamately most poeple follow either the large crowds or sects seem impressive like Charity. "They just all can't be wrong. So I'll gamble with that lot." Yet the key to this is seeing that people are not wrong in everything, and it is the truth in their ways or ideas that convinces people. Everyone has some truth, and no one has everything correct absolutely. Here is the danger though, as Asa Mahan once wrote:
"Naked error is powerless to deceive, and borrows all of its effectiveness from mere fragments of the truth with which it is associated." Those fragments are what attract people. And they are presented in such a way as to hide from view the attached errors. The the Charity "Blessings" are pushed in front and made to look so sweet and attractive. But behind them are also many ...

The bible uses the word happiness or blessing not arbitrarly or flippantly. A deep reading of the scriptures shows that one can only be happy while they are holy. This is the way God made us. One cannot live contrary to the way they were made to live and have ultimate satisfaction. You may have the congradulations of men and parties, but that is fleeting and has to be renued. One may put on false religion and look pious or even tolerant. But you can't go to God in prayer in any sincerity. Everyone knows this in their conscience.

So I wish that everyone may find God as He really is, and thus receive His calling to know Him in the WAY He has for us to know Him. Not man's imperfect way, but through the Perfect sacrifice and the Perfect Spirit that sanctifies us with the truth and revelation of Christ. "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to make you stand in the presence of His glory BLAMELESS with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time now and forever. Amen." Not later, now. "For the grace of God of God has appeared, bringing slavation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live sensibly, righteously and godly IN THIS PRESENT AGE, looking for teh blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us FROM EVERY LAWLESS DEED and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. [Eric] THESE THINGS speak and exhort and REPOVE with all authority. Let no one disregard you."

We can't stand on tradition my friend, nor experience. We need to stand on the bible. For it is the Word of God. Now who should I believe over it?

Sincerely,

Rick

http://truthinheart.com/Remnant/index.html

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

This again is confussion about eternal security. Yes that is not an easy subject to conclude on. But the confussion is regarding your claim that the non-eternal security position does not result in any clear point of being in a lost state. I'll get back to that below.

But first, most professing Christians today probably believe in modern eternal security. We can agree that matters of importance in these matters regard how people live out their beliefs and not merely what their theories are about it. So the fact is, most people in "christian" circles act like their FULL repentance and/or obedience has very little if anything to do with their eternal destiny. Thus anyone not just believing but acting this way is believing the modern eternal security position.

I well remember a person I was asking about this to at a bible college I went to long ago. The student was very nice until certain points. He said that no matter what he did he would always be saved. So I asked him what would happen if he became a murderer or hated his brother, would he still have eternal life abiding in him? He said, yes of course. When I showed him 1 John 3: 15 and like passages, he had nothing but abuse to through at me and eventually said I don't believe that!

And here I was merely enquiring. I spent many years carefully investigating these subjects. There are three major positions, but people often act like there is only two.

1. The popular theory that even many Arminians practically hold to, that no matter what you do or become, once you have had some sort of belief in Christ, you are saved no matter what. Historically what was called Antinomianism. Against the law. Not subject to the law of God. The law of God cannot hold you accountable anymore, for various reasons.

2. The position that you can and some actually do fall away. Now either this ends up manifesting itself just as 1. in that it is mere theory and people live like antinomians, or it falls under a b. heading: There is something that can happen in the real beleiver's life that results in a loss of salvation. And some actually die in that state.

3. Now most people think that is the only options. But I saw a much different alternative in a third. A view finds the truth in both positions and rejects the errors. It is this. The old Perseverance of the Saints. That you can fall away, and that the wages of death are sin. But none will actually fall away. Very similar to 2. b., but the seeing the scriptures about the keeping of God, etc., showing that none will be lost. But this is vastly different and often slandered to be the first position. The fact is, like the old time Calvinists, the wages of sin is death. And what is sin? What happens when we sin? And what is Salvation? Is it merely a position? No it is not merely some destiny. IT IS LIFE IN CHRIST, FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD. WHO WILL DARE TO SAY THEY CAN BREAK FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD AND BE SAVED!!!? Not one of you will dare get alone with God with sin on your hands and in your heart and have any assurance that you are heading for glory! It is not about getting their physically and trying to turn things upside down there. Heaven is fellowhip with God IN HIS SPIRIT. Not merely with the person of the Spirit, but with the spirit (character) of God. That is why we are his children. That is what BORN ANEW MEANS. This not some legality technical transaction. God came to save us from our sins. Sin separates us from God. It calls for rebuke. We need forgiveness from it. It is serious. "IF WE SIN" we have an advocate. But dare ANY OF US act presumptuously about it? When the Master says, Go and sin no more, dare we say, I don't believe it. My church acts different. I just can't do it because I'm imperfect and YOU made me this way by birth!!
The devil said it from the beginning "Did God really say..." Say what? Say what? Say what? What did the devil attack first? What is he still saying today. You know it. Say it. Don't ignore it. He tempted us to deny the eternal judgment against personal sins. Today we still have it.
Here is the Charity position in all confussion. No we don't fall away because of any particular sin, just some abstract point where we sin it up so much that we must be lost. Or if we disobey church or parent's authority.

I have examined this position very carefully for some 15 years now in numerous churches. 'We don't want to hold to antinomianism because that is clearly unbiblical, so we opt for a vague position of general apostacy that hardly can be identified. Or perhaps is the extreme sins of cursing Christ in the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But the people of position one will rightly force these people into a corner. "When" is a person lost if they can be? When was the believer Adam, lost? What did God really say? What did the devil try and make Eve believe? How does that relate to what popular ppinion is still pressuring upon us?
At what point does Ezk 18 make the case in these matters? When did Jesus say the point is in Mark 9:43-50? Romans 6:23? These are not general apostacies. It is simple sin. Just one hand or foot or eye.

Notice one additional scripture: 1 Peter 4:17-18: "For it is time of judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And if it is with difficulty that the righteous is saved, what will become of the godless man and the sinner?"
For 1. position. How can there be any "difficulty" as mentioned here? If there is no necessary CONTINUAL repentance and obedience, this passage makes no sense, among hundreds.
For 2. At what point can the believing fall? Again, what is salvation. Can we actually think we can come before God WITHOUT BEING IN FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST??????? Is that not the ULTIMATE presumption? He stands ready to save us. But what happens if we don't let Him and try and save ourselves? What happens when we sin? Is there any fault in Him when we sin? If He offers perfect salvation from sin in this life as quoted above, then what excuse have we? And if we reject that, what does that mean? When He very very clearly calls us children in reference to our characters, and shows us that salvation from hell is IDENTICAL to salvation from sin, then who dares say we can be saved from the one and not the other?

Again, how can we break fellowship with God in sin and think we are still having eternal life abiding in us. When we sin we are not loving ourselves, all beings, or God. We are choosing to be selfish and putting our own interests above that of God's whole kingdom and all that is good. This usually is not some decision to do THAT, but nevertheless always is just THAT. It is a governmental choice. It depends upon God's government to forgive that rebellion and crime against Him and His great kingdom (the guilt of which is multiplied when we consider the great salvation He offers from such a degrated lifestyle and result). No court in the world opperates with the false justice people hold to theologically in these matters. You don't commit crime in society and expect the judge to still treat you in good standing. You come to the judge with that attitude that you deserve the same treatment, joys, benefits, protection, as all other citizens and what will he do? Some have tried that and got what they deserved. Now how much more with God?

Was sin such a triffle THAT HE WENT TO ALL THAT TROUBLE TO NOT ONLY MAKE ATONEMENT FOR US IN REGARDS TO BEING ABLE TO FORGIVE US, BUT ALSO TO SANCTIFY US FROM IT? Man, if it is such a light matter then He would not have gone to the trouble. Just would have merely pardoned those who live in sin. Thus you see why those who believe such things know nothing or care nothing about the atonement. They don't know anything about a mediator. They are either positionally just in all their sins, or only consider some big sins as really worthy of hell.

If you would carefully read the scriptures in light of the purpose of God and all that He had to do to accomplish salvation from Hell and Sin, you will see that either most of the work of God was in vain, if these false theories were right, or there was actually a need for all that He had to do. Jesus did not come to be some mere good and impossible example. He was not mere martyr. Every action was necessary. And it will secondarily win your heart over to Him like nothing else can. If you have not been saved from your sins then you have not stopped to understand the story--the REAL history for you personally. You need to first understand what Justice is, what love is, and then what mercy is.

Anyway, Eric, you have not met very many people in christian circles then. I have met hundreds and perhaps thousands of people who believe that the wages of sin is death. They are all over. In many denominations. Maybe you've just been sheltered in Charity circles all your life as I have seen a good number of people. I don't know. The fact is, either sin separates you from God or it doesn't. Either you can loose your salvation (and really what does that mean?) or you really can't. Who can tell us that sin doesn't separate us from God and need forgiveness? Who can say it doesn't matter if we sin, just a minor thing really??? Who can say only certain sins are damworthy? Did you read where it says the covetous will not enter the kingdom of God? Or the unrighteous? Or where it says merely, "the like" as in Gal. 5? These things result in the wrath of God. Indeed, Rom 1:18, just holding the truth while in unrighteousness. There are hundreds of passages to make this all very clear. But the false views in these matters make it all confussion. And as one quoted above, confussion is ...
Now I'm not saying there is a vast difference between those who believe that some actually do fall away in death in sin, and those who think it never will happen. That take some honest time to figure out which is true. I held to the first for some years and now am in the second position. But my difficulty in this is with those holding position 1 or a position 2 that amounts to it.

Just a reminder again, what did the Devil question? Do pray about that one.

May Jesus be made unto us Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption. He will do it unless we reject Him for the status quo doctrine of imperfection...

Sincerely,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

Also, in perhaps one of the most surprising instances, Jesus ate/communed with Judas but knew Judas was to betray Him. John 13

There are only 2 paths in life, one to heaven, one to hell. May we guide, direct, lead, help each and every person to salvation through faith, repentance and life in Christ. No one is too far gone. Anyone can turn from their sin. No person has the right to decide who will be saved and who will not.

Lord, may you draw every one we meet to salvation so that they are not lost. Our hearts are as Yours - we do not want a single soul lost to the enemy.

Blessings,
Eric

[setaprt4him (setaprt4him)]

aletheainheart,
Are you preaching that as Christians we can and should have sinless perfection here on earth?? Have YOU stopped sinning???? You are telling others to examine others' lives to see if there is any sin. Is YOUR life sinless? Let's not forget that pride cometh before the fall.

[dutch (dutch)]

That's the trouble with sin - all sin is the same in the sight of God. Matthew 5:21-26 So a sinful assumption (which violates the "law" of love) is just as sinful as the murder of a man by his neighbor. Lack of compassion is as sinful as taking a stick and beating someone. Obadiah 11 So we need the grace of God and the blood of Jesus every day, every moment. There is none righteous, no, not one. Romans 3:10 No one is "good enough" to get into heaven. No one can say "I've just gotten angry with my brother, but HE lied, slandered, cheated, etc." Perhaps Matthew 7:4-5 is helpful here.

Praise be to God who can take away our sin. 1 John 1:9 Though we never reach sinless perfection, God can and will change our lives if we put our trust in Him.

Blessings,
Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

People,

You need to have faith in God and not in man or your own experience. Faith comes by hear the Word of God, doubt or unbelief comes by listening to the fallacies of man. Why do you not address those obvious scriptures quoted? Instead you distract from the truth and use inflamatory words like sinless perfection, and base all your beliefs on the carnal experiences of those around you. Then Eric says God can take away our sin but really can't actually!?! He quotes the Word of God but then right away takes it away from all of you. He denies the power of God while speaking flattering words. Flattering words to carnal experience. Everyone likes to hear that we are all sinners and always will be. What wonderful redemption! God promises to save us FROM our sins and Eric tells He only came to save us in our sins. When God tells us numerous times to be holy, to turn from our sins, even stop sinning, we are assured with a more correct testimony, a more believable oath of testimony, that our experience PROVES we just CAN'T! You see people, this is the reasoning the devil has used for all the precious teachings of Scripture. It is always the same: Did God really say that? The devil quotes the scripture and twists it in a way that the people do not end up believing it. So we have Eric quoting Romans 3 which all parties agree with. The passage was given to show the Pharasees who didn't really believe they had ever sinned as Gentiles did. It was not given to justify or excuse people of present or future sin. If you read the chapters before and after that you will see just that. But instead of being fair and honest with the Word of God, you twist it to fit your own philosophy and/or experience. Then again, 1 John is quoted, and the substance of it is taken away with some mention of a phrase that has reference in most people's eyes to that which we are not even talking about. As you all know that is generally referred to as having never sinned and/or coming to a place where it is impossible to sin. Both of which have not been mentioned, but rather the opposite has been presented to you.
Eric, you all suppose something will take place in heaven that believers in God just simply will not sin. Not that it is impossible for them in the sense of freedom, but they simply will not. Why do you not see the promises of God for you right now? Did you not read of the "precious promises" in the letter of Peter? What did he say they were for? Not for your philosophy, they contradict that unbelief. They actually win your heart over to God in view of the atonement. They will lift you up above your flesh and the world. This is God's salvation and not trying to save yourselves as you are doing. You cannot save yourself from really any sin. People just go from one sin to the other when they try and do it themselves, and don't have total faith in God to have Him do what He promises.
Read not just those scriptures above, and not just the letter of Peter, but also the book of first John in total. You will again see, that Jesus came to "take away our sins" and so we could have true fellowship with God in the Light JUST AS JESUS WALKED IN THE LIGHT. Don't iscolate verses from the whole letter. See the whole message. You know that it was written against the false Gnostics teaching of the times (the new threat after the Jewish controversy was dying down). These people supposed not only that sin did not exist but that the material world, especially Christ's material body, did not have existence and was illusionary. This was the neo Platonic philosophy and exists more resently in Idealism and Eastern philosophies and New Age groups, etc. These denied thus that they had sinned and needed redemption from sin. Thus John showed not only that he and the apostles had toched Jesus, but that he rose in the flesh and remains on in the flesh. Further, that evil does exist, and all humans have fallen into it and need redemption from it. But only One can do that work, which has been done. Etc. But notice, that IF you say we must sin always, then you PRACTICALLY teach the same Gnostic Heresy. First, the letter promises us deliverance form ALL Sin and Sins. Secondly, teaching that sin is normal, expected, tolerable, or the like, amounts to the same thing that there really is no sin at all. That false philosophy takes away ALL guilt of sin and all penalty of it. Take away the sanctions and you have not real law. You only have advice. You thus make the scriptures only abritrary advice and not either the law or promise of God! God says a proposition which is also a promise (for those who have a believing heart to receive God's oath), and you say we cannot do what He says or experience what He promises! What an "assumption" indeed! What "Lack of compassion" for sinful people to take away ALL promises for their redemption when God promises to do so "IN THIS PRESENT AGE", "today", "FROM NOW ON SIN NO MORE." Did that women turn back and say, sorry Mr. popular experience tells me your wrong. In fact your and unreasonable tyrant expecting me to do the impossible. Why should I believe anything you say when you deceive me about the most important thing in life?
Eric, why should I believe anything in the scriptures when you claim what God says is not actually true? Especially when this is about the most important matters? I have only seen people deny the promises of God because they either fallow their own experiences, the experience of the majorty, or some popular or family tradition.

If you are Eric Wenger, son of Tim Wenger, I would be interested to know. I once had very interesting talks with Tim at Charity about these and other matters.

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

Wow. I've never met anyone before who believes that he is absolutely perfect in every word, thought and deed. You have become Christ in your mind. Wow.

I don't think I need to respond further. Your words speak for themselves.

May the name of Jesus be proclaimed among the nations! Acts 1:8

Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

You're just playing games here. No one is claiming perfect judgment, freedom from error, or best comminications.

And by the way, even Christ had bad thoughts enter into His mind. As I said before, read Hebrews and you will see that He even had the same flesh as we do. He shared our weaknesses and limitations. YES, even all our TEMPTATIONS. Temptation is not sin. Deeds my be mistaken too. Words may be well meaning but wrong. Bad results may even sometimes follow what seemed best and which was innocent. Even obedience to God may mean you disobey your parents or leaders (as in the case of Christ at least in the last sense). We don't live in a non-conflicting environment. God is the judge of men's motives ultimately, and sometimes what even good people think is sin in someone may actually not be. BUT God has given us the promise that HE can KEEP us from falling. Read also 1 Cor. 10:13. Who does the keeping? From what? Every temptation. Eric do you really believe there is a way of escape for every temptation? No, you are telling us this is a lie from the apostle Paul. You are saying you can't escape every temptation but because you are human and not yet in heaven, you MUST give into temptation. Thus, making void the promise of God again.
It seems that you may be mistaken about words in some of this. This is sinless perfection. This is not some perfection in words or judgment. Not some perfection in outward physical performance. We are talking about perfection in love. Perfection in simply doing what God would have us to do in our motivations. Walking as He walked as He promised we could (see the above quotations. Read this carefully:

"By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we IN THIS WORLD. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." 1 John 4:17-18. NASB.

You are again distracting from the scriptures to mere professing Christian experience. Above we rather see what the truth is. John does not talk of a mere possibility but actuality. Actually, the norm. IN THIS WORLD. Not having to wait till the next. AS HE IS SO ARE WE! But you Eric, think John was rediculous. Now the same statements are multiplied in this same letter and all over the bible. Said in different ways. "Righteous, just as he is righteous." Blameless. Holy. Cleansed from all filthiness of the flesh. Perfecting in holiness. Cleansed from all sin. Slaves of righteousness having been slaves of the flesh. Perhaps some 100 different related expressions all given to real believers, and also as promises for those who would believe. Now you can stumble upon a few texts that out of context are used to prove otherwise, but the bible is clear. God has promised, and instead of considering his promises, you try and distract people from the truth of God to try and make someone look sensational or proud or whathaveyou.

Jesus Christ is made for us what in 1 Cor. 1:30-31? We have not boast in ourselves but do boast in the LORD. Can you not give God the glory for salvation? Shall some merely tell you of the promises of God and you call them a blasphemer? This is very sad and sinful.
Again, your denial of the possibility of being saved from any or every temptation, is not only "making God a liar" but also reveals that your method of sanctification is contrary to the Perfect Spirit of God. It must be self-righteous. A person who does not receive God's salvation, which is perfect, is setting up their own in place. Which necessarily is imperfect and carnal, and resorts to even sinful fallacies to justify it. Even charging those who show it contrary to the Word of God as blasphemy. Now if my challenge to a sinful self-saving sanctification, which is admittedly imperfect is blasphemy, then what else can I say. We are speaking about a different god. This is not the Holy Christ of the Christian bible, Who was named Jesus (Matt 1:21) because He was to save His people FROM their sins. This is instead a Christ who really doesn't care to save us from all temptation as promised, as needed most. It doesn't make us SPIRITUAL CHILDREN OF GOD, but mere pardoned in sin, left in the mire to squirm in bitterness over the filthiness of the flesh which Peter told us the promies of God are meant to lift us out of.

Come on man. Enough with the games. You know what your bible says. Let go of experience considerations, and take the testimony, the promise of God. Let aside all the fallacies and assumptions. Stop stumbling about words.

You make these contradictory statements every post. "May the name of Jesus be proclaimed." But What does Jesus mean? SAVIOR FROM SIN given to all the nations!! So why do you say that and yet deny that. I'm not assuming that this is misinformation on your part. But it is at least confussion.

Respectfully,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

No games here, friend.

You most recent post does not alter my understanding of what you have said previously.

Can you really say that you've never driven even 1 mph over the speed limit? Can you really say that you've never spoken to your wife in an ungentle tone of voice? Really? Is there anyone else who will say that they have never done so? Or do you just categorize these as "errors" and not as actual sin? I can count several times in your last post that you sinned against me with straw man arguments and assumptions. You have also sinned against others, including Henry, in your original response to him. You have not apologized or made restitution to him or me or others, so that you are continuing in sin. Can you really say that you never sin? Can you really say that you do not fall "short of the Glory of God."

I won't dare argue that I haven't fallen short of that Glory.

The problem with your interpretation is that NO ONE is saved. Not even you.

It's not surprising that you have had difficulties with Charity churches. I would think that you would have difficulties with most every body of believers out there.

I wish I could convince you to fast from theological junk for a while and just read the scriptures.

God bless you Rick.

Eric

[dutch (dutch)]

"Here paul again warns brethren. christians, by examples of Israel's failures in the wilderness. They were brought out of Egypt with the fullest assurance of blessings, prosperity, and eternal rest. By their sin and unbelief they came short of the promised blessings, fell in the wilderness, and were cut off from God. Paul states plainly that Christians, the born again or saved men can also return to an evil heart of unbelief, depart from the living God, be hardened by deseitfulness of sin, be cut off by God, and be finally lost."

Christina31, you have very eloquently stated truth. As I indicated in my earlier post re: CallieJ and FriendinChrist, people who don't agree with contemporary eternal security generally do not believe salvation is like a light switch - now saved, now not, now saved, now not . . .

Blessings in Christ,
Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

You are indeed playing games. You did not even read what I wrote. You never care to look at all those scriptures, but just try and accuse. No one is saying Christians can't sin. Obviously the can. Must they as you suppose? No, as shown in the bible all over. Do Christians come to a place of stop sinning at coversion? No one here is arguing for that. Is that common? No. Do any who have been saved by the precious blood of Christ ever been lost at the end of life? As far as I see scripture, that will not happen because the way God comes after us in love and knows the future. That is no grounds for presumption as so many fall into with modern beliefs. The fact is, so many people have no fear of God and no sympathy for the justice and mercy of God when they think they are coming to God in faith, which really is only a hope for heaven, as selfish consideration of their future or present, and not having primarily the interests of God in heart and mind. Thus so many expect heaven upon reading so many scriptures of perseverance of the saints, when actually they have never been born anew as described in the bible, which is a life in Christ of faith and love and not unbelief, etc. All such saved persons can at any time turn from that salvation and sin. It is always possible. The danger is always there. And when one wanders from the truth we must try and restore them, and if so done, we have saved their souls from death...
So you are mistaken about both doctrines of scripture: the penalty of sin, and holiness, and also the final salvation of the saints, which by the way, means "holy ones."

No, unlike many modern people who call themselves 'holiness people' I do not have a very limited definition of sin. It sure would be easy to call so many things mistakes when they are really sin. We have come across a good number of such people who are clearly proud in their own eyes of their "sanctification" from the big sins.

If I fall into sin I deal with it. No truth of scripture rests upon whether someone consists with it or not, or even describes it right. You know that very well. Otherwise Christianity would be false merely because so many false people profess to be such. You are looking to man again to confirm your beliefs. We need to look to Christ, Who He is, What He has done, and What He has said. Why do you continually look elsewhere? I have shown you, even in your own words, that the bible proclaims and expects what I have shared.

As for Henry, we had a very nice conversation on the phone after that post. If something is sinful or mistaken, I should like to know. I did not gather that from him. I doubt he would be coming over first chance he gets if that was the case, and then say all those words.

Do you know what Eric, when I shared these things with some people at Charity, some of them agreed. Obvious some do not. I know people still in the movement who believe these things. Also, that the wages of sin is death. So why do you come here and make everything appear so bad? Just who are you anyway. I have not hidden anything, not even my phone number or email. I looked up your IP, and it is from the area just west of Harrisburg PA. You said you figured me out and need not say anything further. When I corrected your mistakes, you still claim you were right! Well I'm not expecting you to change your will. It is apparent you are not a man of scripture and belief in it, but a man of experience of man. If you need to be convinced that the scriptures are true, I'll give you reason to believe. I have spent many years in apologetics, dealing with numerous skeptics. I have also seen the same skepiticism among religious people. They're everywhere. Skepticism has two sources, mistake/ignorance, and a sinful choice of the Will. People refuse to believe the truth and distract their own minds onto a selection of facts supporting their desired beliefs. They thus prejudice themselves and attempt to force or persuade others to believe or at least accept the same.
You call me someone who has theological junk. I have quoted many sciptures that clearly demonstrate what you call junk. None of them you care to accept or even respond to. And yet even the words you used that were snips from scripture support this supposed junk. So it appears you have nothing but names to call in all your posts. Good and bad coming from the same keyboard. It feels just like the time we visited a wedding at Charity a year after we left. People even greeted us with kisses and blessings, but yet we were condidered wolves by some of them. (And I know from being in many a brother's meeting how these people admitted to often giving a mixed message.) So this blessing and bad naming is nothing new to me.

So I leave you to God. I hope you can go before the Lord and pray about these verses. Please do ask the Lord whether 1 Thes. 5:23 and 24 is true or false, whether He is really "faithful to do it" to believers. Ask Him if when He says "Be ye teleos as your Heavenly father is teleos" if He is playing games with you. Ask Him if Peter was right when he quoted the old Testament in the same way saying "Be holy for I am Holy". WHAT OTHER WORDS DO YOU EXPECT TO TEACH THIS TRUTH? The Lord used every possible way to promise and command the life above sin and lusts, etc. It is stated positively and negatively. Illustrated in numerous ways. Contrasted with unholy lives. Every conceivable means used to show us. This is the very reason Christ came into the world and "to destroy the devil's work" See 1 John 3 for the context. That work was sin! Even Jesus' name means savior FROM sin. Not savior from hell. Or Savoir to make you a little less sinful from the world and give you a licence to continue on in that mire. Every true need has a corresponding remedy with God. Naturally, so does sin. God has provided a "way of escape for you" Eric. Everytime. God is faitful. As His children He expects us to be faitful. He tells us at least some were faithful. If none were that still would not change God's expectations and commands and promises. But indeed some have been faithful. Yet our eyes need to be upon Jesus and not man. Set your sights low and the result will be low. "Open wide thy mouth" and God "will fill it". Do not neglect such a perfect salvation. Do not despise the testimony! Consider all that Jesus did for you? No longer hinder people from believing what God has promised for them and YOU!

Sincerely,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

Rick,

Honestly, you appear to equivocate on these things. You have accused churches, including Charity of not holding to a standard of sinlessness as you stated in your previous post (That Christ saves us from Sin and Sins), but then you say that yes, Christians do sin. You say that the leadership of churches teach higher standards than what the people are living. Isn't that why they are leaders? To lead the people deeper, into a fuller walk with Christ?

Regarding my comment on the theological junk, even if we accept Finney's or Wesley's teachings on a second definite work of the Holy Spirit (which I don't) they believed that prior to a person receiving that second work, the person is "carnal" (as they defined it) and could sin.

I have not intimated in any of my posts that Christians are to live in constant, daily, unrepentant sin. Quite the contrary, as you even agree, the verses that I have quoted do not support that. We are not to live in unrepentant sin and the scripture clearly shows that God gives us the power and strength to overcome. But the fact remains that Christians, yes all Christians will sin at times - perhaps in ways we know at the time, often in ways we don't realize. If we never sinned, we would no longer need the Grace of Christ. I don't believe that we condemn any honestly seeking brother or sister or leader in their sin because, we too have sinned. Is their sin right? No. Is our sin right? No. Which leads to my points that we are to seek to lead others deeper in their walk with Christ. If they refuse to repent, they will eventually go out from the protection of God. With God’s mercy, others will hopefully lead us deeper in our walk with Christ.

You make these statements, Rick, like "you haven't even read my post" or "you haven't bothered to read my book" or the like when they are not, in fact, the truth. For example, just because I say that Christians can sin doesn’t mean I reject God’s teachings through John which you have charged me with. Just because someone doesn't see something the same way you or I do doesn't mean they are wrong or refusing to read what we write. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps both of us are wrong. Someday we will find out for sure.

I have honestly sought to bless you, Rick. It seems to burn you that people do so when they disagree with you. We can disagree on these things completely, but I can still wish God's blessing on your life, and I do.

Best regards,
Eric

[dutch (dutch)]

On a completely separate note, missiological studies indicate that there must be a significant event or series of events in a person's life before he or she will leave a given system. Most often, these events are traumatic.

For example, for someone to leave Islam, there must be a significant event or events in his or her life that disrupts the system so much that the person leaves. In my experience with Muslims, this was often from witnessing violence/abuse to or by their families or friends in the name of their "faith". The trauma caused the individual to reconsider their system.

Non-churched people generally need a significant event to cause them to consider the concept of God, such as near-death experiences. Otherwise, they tend to remain where they are.

The same truth applies in the Christian church. Consider, if someone is happy with his or her congregation, he or she is most likely to continue in that congregation. It generally takes some significant events to cause people to leave their congregations and go somewhere else. Particularly with respect to religion/churches, it generally takes VERY significant and traumatic events to cause someone who is acclimated to a particular congregation to leave.

My point is that "young" churches like Charity and other first generation churches do not have an existing group of people who have been born into - and continue in - the congregations. Therefore, those in the congregations have left other systems to join them. Again, usually these people have had traumatic events in their lives previously that caused them to leave their previous church or religion or sinful lifestyle.

This is why I believe that "young" congregations - newly formed churches that do not have generations of people in them - notoriously suffer to a higher degree than established congregations. It is notorious that young congregations have more people who have been hurt in the past than established congregations. This most likely explains why many of those who come into young congregations are not helped and leave. There are more people who have often suffered the great trauma in leaving their old system and carry those burdens into the new.

I think we need to be extra sensitive to people in young congregations because they do so often carry greater burdens and emotional considerations than those in established congregations.

Blessings,
Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

You're "blessing" me is not "burning" me. Your blessings are not real blessings when you misrepresent what I say and twist it to mean something else. You have not corrected yourself in that.
I am not troubled by anyone disagreeing with me. In fact, I take special pains to always look on the bright side of any experience, believing in the precious truth of Roman's 8:28. ALL THINGS WORK TOGETHER FOR GOOD FOR THOSE WHO LOVE GOD AND ARE CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSES. Words, especially in print may often obscure one's real meaning. But I often tell my wife about bad experiences in life. FIRST, learn something good about the experience. Then understand what all has taken place if you can. Then you are more in a place to examine things. So I often take the time to search out what people say. Differing opinions often will bring things up not thought of before. No one finds me as you claim, burned by people that disagree, but in fact people have accused me of the opposite, spending too much time listening. Yet, I have learned that you must not cast your pearls before swine when they just will trample them. And Eric, if there was not a lot of other people on this board reading, I would not spend any further time responding to your apparent games and avoiding all the real issues. Jesus did not respond to people playing games, but did sometimes when other people were watching.
So I look on the bright side. Through your fallacies, the gospel in parts and peices has been brought out in several specifics and distinctions. I know some will receive the truth. Other's will not get beyond their experience and those around them. Others will ponder it for years perhaps.
Well if you wish God's blessing on my life, then do the first things first, and don't twist my words before other people, and confuse what has been presented. Thank you.

You are still wrong. You keep assuming that my position is one that a Christian, even after a certain point, can't sin. This is why you said you dismissed me before. If you had read the book with any attention, you would have clearly seen that I was not saying that. Also in the above posts on this board. So why do you continue to insist upon this? Sinlessness as you are refering to is having NOT sinned as in the holy angles who never fell. We are not arguing for that. No author on my website either. In fact, some of the authors I publish even taught a constitutional sinfulness which is different than actual sins. I understand what they meant by that. Yes it is a little confusing but those were well meaning persons and feared God, and the works do help beyond history. Anyway, No one is teaching that it is impossible to sin after a certain point or experience. And we don't need to discuss the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second work of grace or whatever. That need not be part of this subject. The simple fact is, as you now admit, that the grace of God is ALWAYS THERE for us at all times.
YET you still have a fundamentally wrong understanding of sanctification. Notice your fallacy. [By the way, when you attack the person and their experience you commit the ad hominum fallacy which sidetracks from the issue at hand and focuses upon something not really part of the issue.]

Anyway, your fallacy is assuming this: "But the fact remains that Christians, yes all Christians will sin at times - perhaps in ways we know at the time, often in ways we don't realize. If we never sinned, we would no longer need the Grace of Christ." This is again opposite from what you say right before it: "We are not to live in unrepentant sin and the scripture clearly shows that God gives us the power and strength to overcome."
So you need to answer yourself here yet again. Soooooo, where does this great fallacy come from: "If we never sinned, we would no longer need the Grace of Christ."? It is either a one or another fallacy ambiguisly stated. Either you are wrongly stated my position as if someone has NEVER sinned, in which you again misrepresent what I say, or you are in fact referring to an absurd position that we need to keep on sinning in order to have the grace of God in our lives!!! Clasic Luthran teaching. Either position is obviously false. The latter is false because in heaven we all agree that we need not sin to have the grace of Christ in our lives. RIGHT??? And have we all had enough of sin to know how much we need Christ? And WHO says we need to sin in order to have the Grace of Christ? Most absurd teaching. Indeed, we can not only learn from our own past, but we can learn from all those in the world about sin. And how about CONTINUING to repent from sins formerly done? Does one need to do them again and again in order to have Christ's grace??? NO! Yes, the Christian life is actively rejecting the bad for the good. Christ IS our sanctification. Those who need to sin in order to experience Christ's grace are greatly mistaken, obviously. That's all backwards. And notice that even Jesus "grew in Grace" without every having sinned. He needed not to sin at all to grow in grace. Growing in grace has nothing to do with gradually giving up sin, or falling and getting up, falling and getting up, etc.
Again, if you mean the first, as in fact you state it, you are talking about the old Gnostic heresy which I clearly spoke against in an above post. We are not talking about Never having sinned. "All have sinned." Period. All have fallen short, and can never stand on their own righteousness. Obedience can never save someone who has sinned. We need a substitute to stand in our place and a work had to be done to clear that offence (conditioned upon our repentance as you first mentioned--as a judge cannot pardon someone who is manifestly a criminal not won back to the laws and good in society). We can NEVER appear in our own names for all eternity. We stand on Christ alone. And if we walk away from fellowship with Him and sin we have no such representation (even as that parable teaches on forgiveness and the king and servants). Again, WHAT or better yet, WHO is our salvation? Salvation is not some absract declaration or ticket. It is the PERSON of Christ. When we have HIM we have life. He is the eternal life. There is no life without a pure fellowship with Christ through the Spirit.

So WHY would there be some need to sin in order to experience fellowship with God? Especially is this absurd when the bible says contrary. The more we walk with God the more we learn of God in truth. Sin only slows any such process down in and of itself. Well I could hardly imagine someone to say we NEED to sin that grace may increase when Paul said he was slanderously being accused of. Well I guess things never change, do they?

As for the books I publish, which I did not bring into this, but you did. I'll have you know that I gave Denny Kenaston my CD years ago, and even books by Asa Mahan. He HIGHLY recommened Asa Mahan's Out of Darkness Into Light. He gave copies to Keith Daniel when we were staying at Denny's home duing one Bible school. I was there when he praised Mahan to Keith and said what a wonderful book that was. So you're acting like this is so rare a position is way off my friend. During that time I also ran 60 copies off of that book and gave them to many people in that denomination. One of them was Andrew Weaver, Denny's son-in-law. And later I found out Denny had wanted to give him a copy. A lot of people in that group and many Christian groups appreciate Finney, Mahan, and Wesley. So your talk about this "theological junk" being so unpopular is also ridiculous.
As for my dealings with Charity on these matters, I found that these leaders contradictorily preached these things and at other times rejected them. Usually depending upon the particular sins involved. When it came to several prized issues and practices, there was no toleration for those sins. But other matters were permissible. So often I heard strong searching messages that amounted to the holiness doctrines. Then other times parts would be denied, especially in practical dealings with others. I very clearly remember Tim Wenger (who would be your father if you are Eric Wenger--I don't know). After Emanuel Esh was chosen for leadership at Charity, he said to me in front of others, that Emanuel would often preach thus inconsistantly, and even things that were clearly wrong and heresy. Tim was no small person at that church as he was at the time someone involved in screning the tapes for Charity. And one time, as I worked in the tape ministry, he told me to listen to the one tape of Zac Poonen (who also believes in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and who prayed for my wife to receive such in Denny's house, etc.). During that time Charity was putting out Zac's series, but they removed this tape and put a lable on it saying something like "Do not listen to." Tim listened to it and urged me to do the same. It was sometime later that Zac came to preach and even did mention ALL of the things in that tape. Well anyway, this contrary messages did cause a lot of confussion. I still have hundreds of tapes from those days and from the earilest times. You would be amazed at what all they have preached, and who they have promoted and what they preached. My point is that everything I have said in the book pretty much, and in these posts, is consistent with much of the preaching over the years. My problem was why they were not consistent. And what I later found is that they merely used the truth to draw people to themselves, while personally not living consistently with their own doctrine (like non-resistance as even Vern Martin told me very clearly several years before he passed away when I first started going there). So I saw these men were having a power trip with people. And that was why I pressed so hard on the false authority of these men, who did not expect to even consist with what the bible said a leader must be. So this discussion on this board is more about abuse of authority, than the lack of holiness.

Going to the first paragraph of yours above now. No inconsistency in saying Christ came to save us from sin and sins and yet a Christian can fall into sin. What you fail to see, which is not an inconsistency in my statement, is that no one SHOULD sin. The grace is always there as said above. Grace to save, not talking about pardon at this point. John said in 2:1, "IF we sin" not WHEN we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, etc. The context clearly reinforces that fact that sin is not harder than we can bear. That Christ really can save us from FUTURE SINS. Can you not always live by faith? Eric, why must you sin at times? And if so, how often? Is there a certain time we need to sin to get caught up?? Must it be daily? Weekly? Monthly? Can you live by faith ALL DAY? How about all week? All month? Is it just God's fault that He made us a certain way that we must needs break His Holy law now and then? WHAT ABOUT PSALMS 119? Read that through today and tell me if you feel the same way towards the psalmist as you do me? Absessed with the law of God and holiness? Well in Christ we have that desire fulfilled perfectly. See the whole New Testament.
So no inconsistency in me, but rather in you and Charity. When Charity leaders recommend such books that teach aboslute holiness for believers in this life, when the preach so many things like that, and then preach opposite and even tolerate sins, while not tolerating others of equal nature (as shown in the book) then that is serious inconsistency. And when such people accert authority over persons they have no real authority over, especially people wanting to get away from them, then there is reason to deal with that more seriously than so many other churches that are admittedly worldly, and not having some power trip. What makes them so dangerous is how much truth they use to draw people in. I had no interest in focusing on them, but circumstances pressed me for some years to respond as I did.

When I said they teach higher than what they live, that is, than what the leaders experience. There is something wrong when a leader does not practice something he presses on others. That would be fine if we were talking about the ressurection of the dead and strive to be perfected in that way (as even Jesus said he was not yet perfected in while on the earth (exact same word used as Paul in Phil 3)). But when a truth can be experienced, and we preach it and do not show first of our lives as an example, then we again contradict scripture teaching about leadership. Very simple really, Eric. You can't say, don't be worldly and have a big fat belly and go to worldly restaraunts weekly. You can speak against gossip and spread slander all around. You can't say you need to obey God and accept His authority, or the supposed authority of leaders, when you as a leader are not under God's authority but rather twisting it and selectively doing so. You can't preach about "getting clear" with God and going over all your sins in order to get saved (as I have seen them do with numerous people in meetings), and then live a life which ignores sins or does not live clear and clean before God. But this is what happens. Sure we are told this is occational stumblings. But it was not the case when I was there. Clear continual serious contradictions continued, and I have no evidence they have stopped, but rather reports confirm the same is happening. And I will say here that women in all sorts of places are in fear but do admit these things. Yet for the sake of children and who knows what they do not expose them publically.

Further, both Wesley and Finney and Mahan all believed that a Christian could sin after they experienced that deeper work in their lives. I just finished publishing the first annotated edition of Wesley's Christian Perfection by a Nazareen pastor. Very good extensive notes. I differ with Wesley in some things but appreciate him more now studying that extensive book with numberous other writings of Wesley quoted in there. Wesley, as Finney, believed they knew many people who experienced the baptism or whatever you call it, and did fall from it. The teaching is not that you CANNOT SIN, but that a closeness to the Lord is available that greatly helps the matter. As in the statement that the Holy Spirit it amung you but later shall be IN you. And at the same time Jesus said in John, that it is BETTER that I go away, so that the Comforter may come to you. Now think of your own experience. Imagine Jesus walking with you every day as He did with them. Now, He tells YOU, that it is better that He goes away. You will have a better experience if The Spirit comes to you. Well most professing Christians would be a lot better off if Jesus was with them daily. So you need to deal with those kind of statements as well as all the other promises (a few of which I have quoted above).
Anyway, use of the word Carnal refers to those who have not entered into that deeper relationship where the Spirit reveals the persons or offices of Christ to the soul. Thus, these Christians (some having really repented and been saved, others not truly saved) fumble around in up and down, as many in the Charity churches do. Going to the alter to get saved again. Falling into sin later, up an down. Whether really repenting or not at times, is uncertain. So some people truly do believe for a season, and then sin. Then repent, the sin. What times, how often, depends on the person. It is conceivable that one who has truly been born anew, can fall many times. Such is consistent with bible truth and holiness (even though really inconsistent with what should happen). This is what such men taught as well. If you care to examine their writings just a little you will see that. It is only those who don't care to or wish to smear them who try and make them say inconsistent things. And as people who disagree, I think we should at least not smear the other side, and accurately present the other side. But this is not what you have done. Using inflamatory phrases as sinless perfection. And making your agruments against another obviously false position as assumes my position is that some have not sinned. Even after I clarified it many times.
Even you seem to believe in a sinlessness if you are meaning that to being presently living in a state that is not sinning. But you are confused and go back and forth between that idea and the one about having never sinned. You drag in scripture that shows all have sinned to defeat the idea that we can presently live above sin. Most confusing. I hope you eventually drop that.

Now it is very true that you can be so sinful that you do not live your life as a moral life, where you do not examine your ways and motives and live by faith that you do not have the love of God compelling you on, etc., and you don't know where you have "sinned". Is true of many people. And sin blinds you. BUT, IF God always provides a way of escape THEN we can never be in a place where it is impossible to know what to do in obedience to God. For if we were so ignorant of our ways and didn't know when we sinned at times, then we would truly be in a place that that scripture would not be true as you have assumed it is not in your theological antinomian position. How could there ALWAYS be a way of escape of we were not ABLE to see it at ALL TIMES if we really WANTED TO. The real problem is whether we care to examine our ways and WANT to be holy. Folks, if you have not had the heart of Psalm 119 then you're not serious. Then you have no love of God because you do not love His law and seek to not offend Him. Christianity is not about Love for God and His kingdom and Law, but rather a social benefit, hope of heaven, or some selfish advantage, etc.
So there is no argument there either. There is NEVER grounds to be uncertain of duty. When you don't know which way is better, you do what you can to find out which is. And then Paul says, if the willingness is there, it is accepted... Love, true agape unselfish love "fulfills the law." All the duty of man is summed up in that very comprehensive word. Says Jesus and Paul and others.
So on the one hand you make some statement saying yes we can live above sin from time to time, but then you take it all away saying we cannot know at times if we do in fact sin. Well these are no new arguments against holiness. One after another appears to be coming from you Eric. You will find all of them more fully responded to in the books I publish, and many more.
So we will sin at times. Period. Again, am I to accept that upon your word? Or believe the opposite in God's word? You NEVER have responded to that obvious fact. Why not? Then you back that up with we are ignorant of the sins we commit. Well I showed that was only true for the careless who are in a STATE of constant sin. It is not the outward action that is sin. It is the state of heart, the lack of love for God and man, the separation from Christ that results in sinful outward actions. When you repent, you don't repent of merely an outward action, you repent of the inward choices that lead to it. Sin in the mind is basically the same as performed externally as that great sermon showed on the mount...
And then your last argument is that we would not need Christ if we didn't sin from time to time. Indeed, you called me a blasphemer who thought I was Christ, because I mentioned a doctrine that they head of Charity even passed around as good material! That is a fairly strong charge which you do not care to take back, but still urge in milder ways.
So now, did Christ need to sin to grow in Grace? Do we then? We are to SPIRITUALLY (another word MORALLY) walk as Jesus did. IN THIS WORLD. IN THIS PRESENT AGE. Odd indeed to say we need to separate from Christ from time to time to have His grace! Sounds like the same sentiment as "did God really say that." It is no small matter to say we need to break fellowship with God from time to time to be humble, real and show our need for God, when in fact God demands and promises the opposit.
So you have no more arugements after this. That was it. But you go on to another subject. You say now we can't condem others. Well if you haven't visited Charity churches lately, you might just go and visit. They condemn many people, especially the Amish and Menonite groups and even our family. If we are all just a bunch of sinners, Eric, then why get upset with anyone? Why do they wonder that anyone should sin in the ways they do? It is just like the old fatalism which supposes no one has any real choice anyway. We are all just necessary robots, even God, they say. Then you go to drive away their car and they say, no you should not do that. They instinctively know it is not the case. As I aruged in my first book, in emergency moments the real ethics and morality is clearly known. Then all philosophies are put away and people are Realists.

So this idea you have is just the same. If we can't help sinning, then rightly we have nothing to say against another. Well my friend, go out into the real world and tell that to the judge when you have a ticket or commit a crime and face him. Tell him, sir, are you not a sinner too! Or just go to church and listen for the next time the preacher says that such and such action is wrong. 'Pardon me sir!' 'We're all sinners!' So what does he say back? "Well why are you telling me to never say never?" Why tell the preacher it is wrong to condemn others when you are condeming the preacher. It is the old relativism game so frequent in our day. You condemn absolutes absolutely. Never say never. The problem is you just did. You just abosulutely accerted there is no absolutes. You just condemned something as sin while saying no one should do that!! See what I mean?

Really, go back to the bible. Read that famous Matt 7 chapter. Don't stop with the first verses, read to at least verse 4 or 5. What does it say? Not to not judge period. But FIRST do what? Get yourself clean my friend. Live holy first. Then WHAT? 1. You will see clearly. You will be walking in the light. 2. reprove others of their sins. Because you are on the side of truth, whereas formerly you were darkness, blind, contradictory. Very clear, Eric. Not as confussed as you are making it all. Paul says the same thing several places as quoted above in 1 cor. 15, Ephes. 5, and elswhere. Be blameless and THEN be lights in the world. As such you will be compelled to expose darkness. Well this is why these leaders should not judge. If they have their sins they should stop first, then expose other people's. So naturally it is so very dangerous that they preach hard against some sins and still be in their own.
Now this is not the same as having once sinned. We can still condemn our former actions. God is judge. But He expects us to judge righteously the sins of others and our own sins. If you hold to that fatalism then you cannot believe the word of God in this respect. You see, you are to walk as stewards for God, not upon your own authority. But as Children of God, children of the Light, in a dark world you shine the truth of God. That upsets some people. They will call you bad names, judge your motives, assume you have the same heart as theirs, thus assume you do many things you don't, and assume you are motivated selfishly as they are. Thus they will call you a judge, will call you a sinless perfectionist, call you Pelegius, anything to give you a bad name. Anything to discredit you and make you stumble too. So that they can feel better about their sins, and convince themselves that no one can be holy anyway. And that God is a mere Santa Clause in the sky letting us basically do what we want...

We don't condemn any honestly seeking person in their sins. No sinner is honest. No former believer in sin is honest. Read James again, the last two verses. They have wondered from the truth and are in danger of death. Sure we need to approach people rightly. You don't take a bible and thump it over the head. Each situation is different. If you can win someone over quietly, that is what you must try and do. If you embarass someone, that may drive them away. Yet sometimes that needs to happen when you are foced to rebuke a sin in certain circumstances.
But you must see the great error in supposing someone in sin is honest or sincere. If you are sinning you are not walking in love, you are therefore the opposite, living selfishly, and covering up the truth. See Romans 1, 2 Thess. 2, etc. You either embrace all truth or you cover some and select other truth at such times. No most people do not think about such things as this when they sin. But nevertheless they do do this. The fact is that Jesus will meet us right where we are IF we are honest, totally honest. This is what is implied in total depravity: all our motivations are wrong, we are not honest at all. Either we are totally honest or not at all, no middle ground. The error of sincere sinners, honest rebels against God has clearly caused more confusion than most anything else. Paul says again in Gal. 6 what? If you find someone in a sin, what do you do? Act as Eric instructs? Reason that since we have sinned we should not judge, and if we are thus only sinners then neither should we either. So what does Paul say, just urge them onto a little better? A "deeper walk with Christ"? What? Hardly. You are not walking with Christ in a sense to go deeper. You need to stop your direction, change your motivations by receiving the Grace of Christ compelling your soul to turn around, and thus stop your sinful heart state, and follow God. There is no such supposition as Eric claims here. The "spiritual" one is to restore that person to a spritual state, the normal state! The state of Christians is holiness. Holiness is the rule, sin is the exception. When you met someone in sin, especially a professing Christian, you don't urge them to gradually get better, you don't identify with them in thier sins as being one of them to. And thus tell them to walk a little closer. You do what it takes to bring them into an OPPOSITE state, HOPEFULLY THE SAME STATE YOU ARE IN. 'Well well! Who do you think you are? Christ Himself?' 'So you think you are spiritual do you?' Well I'll show you you are just a sinner... No in fact, Paul exorts THOSE WHO ARE SPIRITUAL as those not in sin, to restore all who are not appropriately. And in such a way as to what? To not temp themselves. Oh what heresy! Paul must be so heavenly minded that he is no earthly good! What a proud man indeed! Well enough of that line of reasoning. You all clearly see these absurditities. You all know what Paul taught there and elswhere.

You better believe our sin is right if we can't help it, and even if we can't know if we sin or not. It is a fundamental right that we cannot avoid. We would be slaves with no needed redemption. Contrary to Romans 6.
It is not right in us or others and that is why it cannot be tolerated, and must be rejected and exposed. People OUGHT to be spiritual, and restored from sin. Not cuddled and given warm fuzzies in hopes that they will gradually give that up or have some confused relationship with God as they gradually give it up.

If they refuse to repent then they will slowly or eventually become in a lost state. Not exactly stated here in this last post, but clearly stated previously. Just WHEN, again, are people lost? Is God looking with a watch, and looking at mere externals? So long as probation exists He is giving considerations for us to repent. But when does one separate from Christ. When do you sin against a wife? When a few days after you have hatred in your heart against her? Is not the divorce at the instant you sin in your heart? Or does several days and multiple considerations bring you to a point of separation in spirit? With Christ, when you sin, you change your motivations, you are not in fellowship with God (pretty obvious, but it has to be said). This is no accident. This is a choice. You either love God or you don't. Love fulfills the law. It is perfect, not partial. Partial love is no love. Love treats the object according to its perceived value IN ITSELF. It doesn't use it for its own benefit... If you do not love God fully, you set up another god in place. You are always worshipping something.
We must restore the person found in sin because they are not "spiritual" and living as they should not live, and separated from Christ and fellowship, etc. James says, bring that person back to the truth and you will save their souls from death. Same with Jesus, Peter, John, Paul, and everyone else.
What does "deeper in our walk with God" mean? There is no substance to that. Ambiguity. No explinataion. Vagueness. No response to all the scriptures presented.

You are very sly Eric ? I said that if you had read my book you would have understood my position which you kept twisting to mean something that is clearly heresy and absurd. Natually others reading would wonder then if everything else I was saying was of that nature. This was your reasoning to some extent. If you read my book, my statements still apply, you didn't read it. If you read it you would have seen my position in these matters. They were very clearly shared. Only those skimming over it would not see them. In fact, several who have objected to the book and made railing accusations about it, have, after a patient responce to them, gone back and seen there error and appologized for not actually reading as they should have. As they would have others read them. The same goes for your not paying attention to the scriptures. You never bothered to deal with the scriptures but instead attack me with you silly statements. These are inflamatory statements, and not dealings with the Word of God. So no, you are closing your eyes from letting the Word of God speak to your soul and save you from sin. You don't believe you can be saved from sin. You call Him Lord Jesus, but you refuse to even discuss the stated meaning of His Name! Why? Then you go on to say say more ambiguous things about Christians can sin. Well CAN and MUST are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. You know what I am saying is all about the MUST statement. That is what you really believe. Thus you refuse to accept the truth of God you partly admit. Otherwise you would never charged me with blasphemy. You practically do not believe God's promises for you. And you also take them away from others. So I'm not talking about reading without paying honest attention, but reading honestly, carefully considering what you read so that you at least do not misunderstand it as you have.
So just what do you believe about John's teachings? You never comment about all those holiness passages. Because it amounts to us believing you are God. You do not believe we can keep the greatest promises and commands of God. God said it why not believe it? You won't go there because there is nothing to say against such obvious things. So just like Charity, it is ignored, hopefully it will not be brought up, or will be forgotten. But when pressed with such scriptures the answer will be "perhaps they are wrong." Yes I have known people that said that eventually about the bible, because they really didn't believe it after all. It all comes down to experience.
I don't expect people to see EVERYTHING the way I see it. So why say that? We ALL expect EVERYONE to see some things the way we do. RIGHT? When I see my books, I expect anyone in the world to see money the way I do. I expect them to see the laws of this country and state to be what they are, and not something else. Hardly anyone would argue against that and multitudes of things. But when it comes to absolutes in morals, we get these relativists arguing against moral obligation. You press them about the most obvious statments of God, and they argue that that is just your opinion and why do you expect everyone to agree with you. Well that is truly wonderful biblical reasoning, isn't it?
Then after all these fallacies and diversions and twisting, you go on to argue the agnostic position. Well maybe we are both wrong!! Maybe the bible and sinful human experience is wrong? Well, there is no alternative here. Either we are to be holy or not holy. I am taking the possition of God's word, and you of the experiences of many church-goers today and the world.
Well this is no "someday we will find out for sure" study. It is absolutely the most important subject.

Well if that is your best regards...? Your blessings are mere words, while you other words are name calling, ignoring, and preventable fallacy. I hope you can at least regard the scriptures.

I hope you will take the time read more carefully and not shoot from the hip. If you are so uncertain about your beliefs, and you do think you may be in sin (as you claim we can't always know if we are not) and thus blinded, then why not argue less forcefully and assuming. Why not instead of calling someone an outright blasphemer, why not gently ask. THIS is why I say you are playing games (at least)...

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

I change the subject, friend, because this discussion is obviously fruitless and I don't want to read another 5 page post.

Blessings,
Eric

[dutch (dutch)]

Regarding people leaving congregations, I have heard pastors of different denominations saying that they also have quite a flow of people through their congregations as well, so perhaps this is just part of our contemporary society? Most people change their residence (move) every couple of years. Perhaps our culture's dislike for commitments hinders it's ability to stay with a fellowship.

Eric

[davescousin (davescousin)]

The issue to me is not just the fact that many people leave but that so many leave in a worse spiritual and emotional condition than when they arrived.
If we as God's children have God's love in our hearts, could people not be blessed and bettered by their contact with us even if they leave, rather than leaving disappointed, hurt, disillusioned, and bitter as so many have that I personally know.

It can get confusing to debate all of the philosiphy and practices. But I would challenge you to simply look at the fruit of peoples lives, the fruit of the individual churches, and the fruit of the movement as a whole.

Blessings,
Paul

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

Well that certainly is a way to end things. Not one word.

As for people leaving, yes there certainly is a lot of church hopping, just as there is job hopping and remarriage, etc. But you do not find the same numbers in other churches as you do at Charity, I mean of churches that are plain like Mennonite. There are no doubt many abusive Mennonite churches too. But Charity seems to have numerous people pass through in short times. I addressed this in the book a little. We know a good number of such people from the earliest time, to long-time people who left, to people who have come and gone since we left. The reason why people make their pilgramige to the place, is because they call it "The Heartbeat of the Remnant." No joke, that is the name of their magazine! Of all the Remnant of God in the land today, this is the center of activity, the very heartbeat! No, that is not what the magazine actually says, but this is actually how many talk and act.
So people move in, large families in all, from out of state, very often, and then move away, frequently (I mean many people do this). Some fit in. Lots don't. Not all leave dissaproving. Some start other groups and spread the wave. Some go off to other 'Charity churches'. Many go away not wishing to judge. Most go away with the same beliefs, or lack of, in holiness. Most who reject this group do so because of abusive authority and cultic practices (most people do not like to use that word who leave. Perhaps because they don't like to admit to having gotten involved in such.), or because they just never get accepted, never fit in. Not everyone has the same bad experiences. Some don't really get that involved. And when I was there some people complained that in 6 months going there the ministry did not take time to talk with them beyond a hand shake. A frequent complaint. Little pastoral relationships. Some people though, are in the inner circles and get more attention. Some are the "blessed", some are ignored. Some are thought to be possed with demons for a long time.

But it is good to look at the big picture. My book does that a little. But much more could be presented much better than the book. And what is the fruit of the movement? As I say in the book. There is some good values promoted. But there is an awful lot of bad fruit coming out of it continually, as mentioned many times above. The only way people have tried to get around all the scandals and bad fruit is to compare that group with many other "worldly" groups and say they have nowhere better to go.

Jesus said a tree is either good or bad, you shall know it by its fruit. Then He tells us what to do with a bad tree. You're right Paul it is that simple.

Rick

[smurf (smurf)]

Hello Folks,
First post, and I have to say....WOW......there is a lot of "lofty verbiage" on here! LOL

Church of God/Christ, Pentecostal, Nazarene, Methodist, and the last one Baptist (too many), background here over the last 30 odd years.....

We like the tapes. We also like the basics of the beliefs of the Amish - Mennonite way of life. But we also base all decisions on the KJV Bible as the Final Authority.

I will not debate, argue, talk, or discuss any beliefs. We have went thru 10 years of that with people and this month have said "enough"! I have went looking for info on Charity since we deeply love the tapes, and ran across this post. God is good, is he not? I am going to take a look at the book mentioned now.

There is NO church in the Akron OH area that preaches the Word anymore. It is all P&amp;W, give me your money, God wants to make you happy "Big Smiley Face In The Sky" garbage. Thus tapes have been a great resource to listen to, no matter what has been going on in the background we did not know about.

Thanks everyone for the very informative posts, Smurfhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[dutch (dutch)]

smurf,

God bless you abundantly as you seek out His truth.

Eric

[smurf (smurf)]

Hello Folks,
I went and downloaded the pages for the book last nite and just finished it a little bit ago. Very interesting. Very long winded, and it almost had a built in apology feel all the way thru. You can tell that the authors heart has been hurt, but his heart also goes out to all the people involved. A very personal book.

As a user of the KJV I find some of passages quoted not to fit with what was being said, or uphold the point being made, but over all this is a must read book for anyone looking at this group I think. This group sounds like the 100's we have ran across or been involved in the last 10 years, but a lot more controlling. Thank you for writing it and placing it out there.

I just have a question for the author, where do you now have fellowship at? God Bless, Smurf

[smurf (smurf)]

"I just have a question for the author, where do you now have fellowship at?

????

[dutch (dutch)]

I don't think he'll bother answering you. I'm curious where he went to seminary &amp; what his degree is in?

Paul, I'm curious, what do you do with the many, many people who have been helped in Charity churches? What do you do with the growth in Charity churches? Charity Christian Fellowship just planted another daughter church. This suggests that people are being helped. You should not leave this out of the discussion to be fair, right? We are to consider that fruit?

[smurf (smurf)]

Hello dutch, I have been looking in every other day just to see if he would answer. Tho I can see where he is coming from, having been myself involved in some "churches" that didn't work out. Like I said about the book...

"Very long winded, and it almost had a built in apology feel all the way thru."

I will not judge a person, but my experience with people has shown me that the ones that are good with words and takes the long way to explain something is almost trying to convince them selves of what the are defending. Now I am NOT saying that this is what is happening in this situation, just the in general that is my experience.

Besides the tapes and the Remnant magazine I receive, I have also found a great tape series on Romans from the The Living Faith Christian Fellowship (www.thefaithoncedelivered.org (http://www.thefaithoncedelivered.org)) The seem to be Anabaptist in a majority of their belief's, but I can not say if they are related to the Charity church or not. All I know is I ran across the site and read their 8-Pamphlet Doctrine Study Series. After that I ordered their 16 tape Romans series, and I will say right here that it has been a great blessing.

Thanks for the reply dutch, and may God Bless you as you seek His will, not mans. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Smurf,

I have not ignored you, I just have been busy and did not visit this page as I don't have much time for chat. And I really have shared all I need to.

Eric has all the answers (sounds like a disinformationist) and always interprets my motives in the best of ways. I'm not going to bother answering you he says. He is also curious where I went to Seminary and what degree I got. Why does that matter how many PhDs I have? I don't have any. I went to bible college for only one course. I took biblical Greek and got 100% which was no big deal. I learned enough visiting such schools and doing so much research and talking with so many students that I would not want to remain in such an institution that was a whole system of prejudice. Yes, most schools today teach you to be prejudiced like some people here. Not talking about race things, but judging without making righteous judgment.

So no I never sensed a calling to go that way, but that has not prevented me from being around many bible students, teachers, and especially pastors. I am in contact with new pastors every week all over the country. I have friends who are students or professors in schools. I'm not anti-schools as we have our own school in the works. We are not anti-church either as we have fellowship. We fellowship with believers who have a wide range of opinions in many matters, all over the country. We could have drawn a lot of people here and built up a big group if we wanted that. But that was not the Lord's will for us. And we are content with His will.

This discussion is about a sect/cult called charity and associated churches. I keep getting reports about these scandals from totally independant persons. People coming, people going. Increasing numers is what many cults see too. And they love to use that as a sort of proof that they are of God. For some years as a new Christian out on the streets I would bump into many JWs and Mormons. After all the discussions and nowhere left to turn because they were obviously in error about their foundation and doctrine, they would pull the very same proofs that other cults do. See we are growing, or even, the fastest growing. In this case they would claim the world. In the other case they claim among 'conservative' peoples. Well there can be many types of revivals, good and bad, that spreed fast. Cancer spreads fast and is not good. Error often travels fast and deceives millions. Numbers mean nothing but numbers. Jesus and Paul and Moses spent many a season alone and misunderstood while the multitudes even wanted to make them something by brute force. Jesus even drove them away because that was not what he wanted. He is always calling a holy people.

You can get people half interested in holiness together over various issues you agree on, but that is only fellowship in issues. Been there done that. Real fellowship is walking the the light just as Jesus himself walked in the light. All those who walk JUST AS JESUS walks in the light are in holy fellowship. Every other form of fellowship is darkness, or as I taught in sunday school this morning to the adult class, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. "Drive out the unrighteous from among you."

Such a doctrine is not tolerated and is considered presumptuous. People rather have a church as Corinth was before Paul addressed them. Saying, I am of Charity, I am of such and such; we are boasting in our numbers; we have immoral persons in our fellowship that we allow to leaven the whole lump--yes for years at a time--we don't believe that a minister is worthy of his labor; we are fat--big belly ministers--without shame, etc., etc.

FRUIT? FELLOWSHIP? How are we to understand these words? Just how do we judge what is the good and right form of such? And don't think it is about the bible people. Everyone says they believe the bible in most church groups. No rather, most are pragmatics. They judge it as I showed in one chapter, by whether it works for them according to their desires. Thus the fruit is desireable things. But what if the desires are actually lusts like Eve's forbidden fruit? The desire even in that case was not even evil: Food, knowledge, wisdom, etc. Fellowship and fruit are not evil to desire. But IT'S ALL ABOUT CHARACTER people. The KIND of fellowship. Selfish or unholy people will find plenty of others of the same character to fall in with for at least a season. Even a whole multitude of religiously deceived person can unite for different reasons.

So Paul taught us the spiritual teachings found in the Old Testament that the bread is to be not one in opinions, but one in character and HOLY faith and love in our Lord Jesus. Eric, you don't believe in the bible if you say all that you do. No one believes the bible is the Word of God if they tolerate leaven in the camp and deceive there own selves. Christianity makes us Children of God and and reforming devils. We don't cover up sins or excuse them. All the saints expose the darkness in sincerity and truth. All the false systems and groups expose those who merely oppose or contradict them, and overlook those in their midst. Something binds them together. Sometimes it is a particular set of issues, beliefs, or practices. But mostly it is about people's characters. If you have not read the bible through yet, to read it with that question in mind. What kind of fellowship does God EXPECT?

All other questions must come after that one in this discussion. For if the actual church is just a dying hospital of sinful persons living in their sins. If it is like the modern medical system that patches people up with drugs--caring nothing for good health and prevention--so they can live on recklessly indulging in their fleshly lifestyles. So if it is like this, it makes you feel good while you live inconsistently before God. Just like Romans 1 you pat each other on the backs against the law of God. No you say, it isn't about morals or holiness because we don't have much, and don't expect to have any in this world. Well only in a few select issues where we judge those other sinners over there or outside our camp, pretty harshly. We all have our sins, but if you commit these select few you are in real trouble with US the chosen--or should I say the REMNANT! This is exactly how it is folks. Not just with this group either. This groups is just doubly bad because they are also very authoritarian and are playing around with many people's minds, lives, and money. Especially are they captivating young women as we just learned yet another story locally of one church actually sneaking in cell phones into homes and jointly buying a car and sneeking off daughts against their parent's wills! Well that may be ok because they are 18, but the point is that they prey upon certain types of people. This group is playing psychological games with very serious affects. That is why we are discussing it more than other groups.

But the fact is that any group that tolerates sin is opposed to the bible no matter how much it says contrary. I wrote the book with a dual purpose. I knew that so many people were opposed to Charity, and that the book would be passed around as it has in those circiles. So I try to address those people too. Thus you see it is not some gossip book as my critics assume. Whatever group you are in you are challenged. It is not about some issues or practices, or some pet doctrines. But about holiness of heart, the spirit of the law, the essential matters. I did what I could to focus on those matters as I always do.

Yes cultish authoritarianism is entirely opposed to holiness even if such people enforce some high standards. Even if they talk about getting "clear with God" or use such language that would seem to imply a believe in holiness. But any group that fosters or tolerates leaven IS A LEAVENED GROUP. It needs to repent of that. And naturally it will oppose those who call for that until it does. It will do that with all the fallacies and denials. There is no end to the tricks, distractions, manipulations, and even the deliberate attempts to trip people up so that they can prove them wrong.

So no, growth indicates nothing about people being helped.
Fellowship needs fundamental defining, and only holy fellowship is of God. You all know that unless you do what they did for that feast of unleavened bread--unless you sweep out ALL the leaven out of your homes--you are cut off from fellowship with God. You are walking in leaveness which is real darkness even though the truth is known in the head. And in order to begin walking in the light with God you MUST deal with your religious associations. You must drive out the unrighteous or leavened from your assembly if it is to be holy and God's temple.
This does not mean you close the doors and don't have meetings for visitors to hear the gospel. Or that you don't go out and preach the gospel, and relate to deceived religious persons. But when you have persons calling themselves brothers who are filthy, coveteous, slanderers, gossips, proud, etc., you cannot support that by ignoring such fat sins sticking out 2 feet wide.

Thus if you look at these matters from a biblical perspective you see that the whole structure of groups is wrong many times. There is no distinctive body to even distinguish from visitors. In the case of Charity, you had while I was there a very confused situation (as I hear time and time again all over). Here membership was important. We need to be committed. But there at another time it isn't. This guy is treated as in fellowship like a member and brother. But when he applies he is discouraged from that. And here is another who is fellowshipping for years and some think he has a demon. Here is another who eats like a pig and has a big belly, and will even joke about it. Watch out as he is a hard hitting preacher. All arbitrary lines here. Sins are merely culturally defined. Religion is hype and submission. The hype can sound really pius and quote a lot of KJV bible. But it is not thorough or consistent.

Answer these things Eric. You accuse me of not bothering to answer as if I was refusing to do so. But this is actually what you have done. You are looking for holes and trying to trip me up. Even if I was tripped up that would not mean God was wrong in these matters. Let God be true!

Rick

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Smurf, As you can see I was writing my last email before you posted yours. It has no relation to the timing of yours. I said above that I did not have time for this chit chat board this last month. And one computer crashed, etc.

Two things you have said above:

1. "I will not debate, argue, talk, or discuss any beliefs."
So why bother to foster such? This is like saying "never say never."
The idea of not discussing or talking about beliefs is certainly not what this board is about. So I guess there isn't much point in saying much more, is there?

But I will add one more for the sake of the other readers:
2. "Very long winded, and it almost had a built in apology feel all the way thru." "I will not judge a person, but my experience with people has shown me that the ones that are good with words and takes the long way to explain something is almost trying to convince them selves of what the are defending."
So you really don't have much of a problem and no real grounds to judge me other than a gross generality, and thus address one who has continuously shown forth the most obvious fallacies, in such a way!

What kind of reasoning is this? Now it must say something about the book if neither Eric or you can point out anything wrong with it but that it was long!

Now I happen to have dialogued with thousands of people of all walks and faiths over the years and always strive to be thorough and understood. And especially when dealing with sensitive matters and relating to people I thought were my friends! Each chapter dealt with a different matter. I could have wrote many more things in each chapter, or on many more subjects.
It was evident after the first edition that people flew over it and it was too chopy. So I enlarged it so people would not miss it. Repitition is good, especially for people who ignore the truth.

I find it just amazing that someone would make this kind of criticism. Sounds like I was trying to convince myself. How? By being long, in other words, being thorough. Was anything wrong in that? No, just long makes you suspect something must be wrong. Short can be easily poked at and twisted to mean something else. So critics tend to love short things they can so twist. But long works show a lot of energies went into it. And cannot be dismissed without really dealing with the matter. You can't please anyone Smurf whoever you are.

Look, we walked away from these people for 2.5 years. If you read the book you would have see our situation and not assumed these foolish things. If you are not in the position to judge and don't wish to discuss or talk, then why SPECULATE about stranger's motives without evidence? That is worse than flat out fighting. It is making evil suspicions in people's minds without any basis as you admit you have none but a gross generalization. Instead you should put yourself in other people's shoes first. If you have a small suspicion, keep it to yourself as you told us you would not talk about such beliefs you have. Keep it until it is established by PROOF, and also it becomes necessary to say.

And as you do not appreciate my words, I won't address you any further.

Rick

[davescousin (davescousin)]

In response to Dutch;

The fact that new churches are started really doesn't indicate any thing concerning whether they are right or wrong.

As far as some people being helped; as I said before some people seem to do okay and others don't.

On fruit inspection, you can see some fruit that appears good and you see some that is not good. I have seen too much bad fruit to be comfortable with the good. See James 3:12
I will also point out that my perspective is not one from outside looking in, but have been very involved including being a minister. I have since resigned and left the Charity circles.

I won't add a lot more as I would simply be repeating what has already been said.

Blessings,
Paul

[dutch (dutch)]

"As far as some people being helped; as I said before some people seem to do okay and others don't."

Sounds like the situation with most other churches and organizations out there.

God bless you, Paul as you seek His will.

[dutch (dutch)]

Rick, no one is commenting on the content of your book because nothing in your "book" has been established. The law requires 2 or 3 witnesses to establish every matter. Matthew 18:16 Therefore, each event/conversation/action you accuse wrongdoing in must be established by the testimony of 2 or 3 other witnesses. We have not heard that.

In addition, the scripture requires a party making an accusation to stand cross-examination. Proverbs 18:17 Also, we have not heard the other side of the story.

It is wrong to receive negative information about anyone without verification. Generalized opinion that some people don't do well in a given church is not verification.

In any church there are going to be problems that arise. Its the nature of imperfect man.

[dutch (dutch)]

Smurf,

Thank you for the link. I'm not familiar with that group. I will have to check it out some more.

EVERYONE, HAVE A BLESSED THANKSGIVING AND REMEMBER WHY AND TO WHOM WE ARE GIVING THANKS!

[davescousin (davescousin)]

I am not a witness to Ricks specific incidents. I do however agree with him on the issues of Revivalism and Authority, and have seen the fruit of those teachings.

I could certainly also relate specific things that I have seen such as Rick does. I don't see however that that would be profitable as anyone reading the book or the posts should have enough information to at least take a long hard look at the movement before jumping into it.

Two more issues that I think will contribute to their decline is:

1. Spiritual Pride; feeling that they are God's special people and live on a higher spiritual level than other Christians. Even though their everyday lives are not any better than anyone else.

2. Anti Mennoniteism; especially from those that come from a mennonite background.

Again, as far as some people doing okay in the movement. I believe that their are people in the movement that have a real heart for the Lord and a love for others, those people can help others in spite of the teachings of the church.

I have decided I would rather be in a church where people can be helped BY the church I'm in rather than IN SPITE of it.

My opinion is that there are many people that have a heart for the Lord and are doing the best they can, but some of the teachings and practices of the church are a drain on their life. Somewhat like having a wound that is bleeding and unattended it saps the energy and life from a person no matter what they do, they can never be truly healthy until that wound is stopped. And in the long term can and does have tragic consequences.

Blessings,
Paul}

[dutch (dutch)]

Paul,

With all due respect, then, perhaps you are posting in the wrong place? As Rick has said, this forum is regarding cults. His accusations are that the church is a cult, not just that it has problems.

This is an accusation of the highest kind against a church. Any church. It is akin to saying the church is the anti-christ since the anti-christ also keeps us from following the true God. Its not just saying there are problems in the church, that there are tendencies in the church that make it less than it could be. My point is that there are problems in every church. There may be spiritual pride in many congregations. There may be a sense that "our" church is the one on the right track in many congregations. I have met Baptists, Mennonites, Brethren, Catholics, Methodists, Independents, etc. who all hold this view. I don't think they are cults, although you're right - they may have problems with spiritual pride. I have a Baptist pastor friend who believes that Mennonites cannot be saved. I don't consider him to be a cult leader even though I disagree with him.

The question is not how people do in the church or how well a church is organized and operates. The question is not whether there are problems in a church. As I said previously, you'll find that in every organization where there is man. The question here is whether there is sufficient proof to show that this church is a cult. These accusations require absolutely the highest standard of review for each claim made, not just opinion testimony.

Take a look at the other postings on Factnet. Everyone calls everyone else a cult. Billy Graham, Mennonites, Baptists, Independents, Walmart, George W. Bush and yes, Charity are all called cults. I can say a lot of bad things about various churches and organizations I've been involved with. Yes, some where bad decisions were made that affected people. Yes, some serious sin in an organization that was not dealt with. Yes, unfortunately, poor organization where people were hindered, not helped. This doesn't make them cults. I did see some good things in them, too.

If you are going to accuse the church of being a cult, please do so with specific examples verified by witnesses. There are too many posts on Factnet and in general where people voice their opinion that everyone else is a cult with no verified facts.

Respectfully,
Eric

[davescousin (davescousin)]

I would not consider Charity a cult, but do not consider this discussion limited to that. I am responding to people that seemed to have genuine questions about Charity and am not really interested in debating with people that are not involved with it.

I have time constraints that prevent me from doing a lot of posting. But will try to respond to sincere questions. Also for myself, Charity is a closed chapter in my life I have moved on and don't have that much interest in it except if I can help someone that finds himself tangled up in it.

As far as Rick is concerned; this is not his forum neither am I responding to Rick or commenting about him personally the way some on this forum do. I don't know Rick at all; but generally agree with many of his observations about Charity.

Blessings;
Paul

[dutch (dutch)]

Paul,

Thanks for your clarification. Yes, those who are interested will need to do their own research, consider motivations &amp; test the spirits. As Summerwind said, the spirit of God brings peace, not confusion.

Blessings,
Eric

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Eric,

You are a disinformationist. Everything you have said has avoided or twisted what I have said. I never said this discussion is only about calling Charity a cult. I do not expect anyone to call Charity a cult without much research. I did not come to that conclusion very easy. Nor did very many people who left it.

I told you that Charity is just like every most other professing Christian churches in America in its understanding of holiness. You totally avoid that whole focus in my book as well as on this board. And you just mock it with saying there are problems everywhere. No dicussion because you don't believe in the scriptures. So agreed at least in this, as to the doctrine of holiness, Charity is just the same as most. And the people generally live the same way spiritually. Still generally slaves of sin as confessed. So it is rather prideful to consider yourself "The Heartbeat of the Remnant" if that is the case. Does that make a group a cult? No. I have covered this already, but you ignore it like everything else said.

I have already written many things to distinguish a group as a cult from other types of groups. Now I am not some person to get hung up on words. People have different definitions for the word cult. I worked in counter-cult ministry for a few years and saw all sorts of definitions. THAT is not what is important. However, the general discription people have of a cult, fits Charity according to my observations. You can take that or leave it. But don't twist it or act like you never read what I said, as you are doing.
A cult is a group that puts itself in the place of God in a way that makes them the mediators to God. Further, it does this with much pressure and manipulation. Further, it condemns those dissagreing with that idolatrous mediatorship as opposing God and lost or even wolves. Such leaders are not just slanderers but railers especially against legitimate forms of authority (as Peter warns about), and also espeically against those who oppose that form of oppression. This I spelled out in much detail in the book and in posts above. Further, a cultic leader in a cultic system, of which Charity is still such, will attempt to single out different persons while leaving others alone. They will attempt to Lord over their consciences, and without admitting in word, they will expect the person to obey them unquestioningly even if it goes against their conscience. I gave examples of them expecting me to break the law for helping their business. When I declined I was treated much worse and my motives were called into question. I saw this happen many times in different ways. My wife did too. And many others from numerous churches associated. Both in and having left. I have many numbers and keep in contact with people. Some people have needed more details and all testimony has been confirmed. Even negative testimony, which in a court establishes the highest credibility. That is, when someone still in the movement, and sympathetic to it, will admit that such and such event happened, and that goes against their belief or favor, then it shows they are not prejudiced against it.

As for doing things in biblical order. It is first of all very strange that you would bring up the bible when you don't even believe its teachings. Secondly, the very thing you accuse me of is the very opposite. In fact this is the very thing Charity did not do. They accused without a proper biblical dealing. I have testimony from one of the cell group leaders who is one of the longest standing members in the church, of what happened at that Brother's meeting where they judged and tried me without even telling me they were going to discuss things or given me a chance to listen or respond. No I had to hear about it later from one such pacifist friend. This is the kind of thing that cults do. They try people in judgment seat trials. They are authoritarians who do not believe in fair trials. No need for the accused to stand or even know he stands accused. Just condemn him because he does not obey arbitrary illigitimate authority. Remember, it was no my trial that woke me up to their error. I saw what they did to Mose Stolzfus's own son. Yes, it was Mose himself who so misrepresented his only son. Then I saw it again and again with others. Then I saw other charity churches do the same thing.

I told you to go to Luke Martin who started the church that is now called Charity C. F. in Leola PA. But no, you ignore that. You say I have no witnesses, when I gave you the very founder's name! We have given his number to all persons needing help in these matters. He has helped many people. His testimony obviously goes back to the very beginning before Denny even came to PA. But you don't care about testimony--either the testimony of God conserning this matter or holiness, or the testimony of credible persons. Everything is just diversions Eric.

Again, what makes this group stand out more than others is two things: 1. they appear to outwardly uphold good values so you are more inclined to trust they are sincere leaders; 2. they clearly teach a cultic form of authoritarianism or Lording over people's consciences. Not only teach it but enforce it selectively. So that combination makes them very dangerous to the truth and people's souls. Whenever a system is setup with such teaching on a practical level, then you have a cult. And yes, you still are in doctrinal error, as all the cults, on the person of Christ. They all substitute their own authority for that of Christ's. It is idolatry. And a characteristic of us in a group is when you challenge something you are made to believe you are challenging God. There is a mystical assumption that they are being lead of God in many matters, and just like the papacy, such leading often contradicts itself and shows itself to be not of God. Just ask Luke Martin about their prediction that the end would come most definitely before the year 2000. He asked them way back, what are you going to do when it doesn't happen? I asked many JWs just that question. So cults often resort to all sorts of fallacies and extra proofs to support their wild speculations and direction, and thefts of people's souls. So they often will stumble into false prophecy as these leaders have. Does such false prophecy prove they are a cult? No. Does it always exit in cults? Maybe not. But cults often use it to captivate their people at the time. And then brush it off later as nothing. Or as the watchtower now does, when they give it they carefully put in minor diclaimers so that when it doesn't happen as they made everyone FEEL would happen, they have an excuse. So what's your excuse Eric? What do you do with all the testimony? With God's testimony? With numerous persons testimony that you don't even care to look at or seek? With false prophesy? With trials without informing persons? With numerous business scandals? With numerous admissions of breaking the law in simple matters of inconvenience? Of thus having so much focus on husbands and church authority but none for civil authorities or other? Of not having any for God's authority either for the individual? Etc., etc. You can dismiss all this as mere problems that exist elsewhere, but God has told us what He thinks about such and what will happen as a result of such actions. You may justify it in comparison with worldly churches, but that just shows your worldiness of heart and being given over to popular opinion. This is your only appeal.

We have tested your spirit Eric. It is according to your own confession. All that you have presented here is fallacy. You reason just the same way as the leaders in that movement. Everyone has now an example as I warned against in the book. Here is one who is not accountable, refuses to respond. Diverts to other subjects when pressed. Accuses without substance. Ignores when convenient. Pretends to not have read when read. Upholds in word an authority and denies it in the next sentence. THIS IS CONFUSION!

Do read that book where it tells you to test the spirits. What does that book say? It is all about holiness. How can you quote that book when that statement is all about holiness and people like you who prentend to be believers in God, or His children, when you do not meet the discription. Thus John said in 1 John in the very same chapter and context, that those who belong to Jesus are righteous just as He is righteous, and so many other identical statements. TEST THE SPIRITS. For what? There are two types of Spirits. Eric and many others say there is only one actually. All are carnal and not spiritually in character children of God. You show me that that book talks about some other kind of father/child relationship that is not essentially a character matter. So two types of Spirits rather, not one. No, the world does not have the same spirit as the true church of God. These are not call "holy ones" "saints" by deception. God does not give us His perfect testimony as a lie, and say that we can and must walk JUST AS JESUS walked, as He is so are we in this world, etc. So we test the spirits to see if they are the one camp and kind or the heavenly. The two are opposed. They cannot agree naturally. The sinful camp wants to justify sin by excusing it and saying it is only normal, but will always deny doing it when caught in it. They hate those who expose sin and insist upon believing God's testimony. Thus the cross exists for those to follow Jesus. Test the spirits. If a theology assumes everyone's motivation is sinful anyway, there you have your motivation in those who say such.

With all this blessing talk, we need to read start reading Psalms. Start at chapter 1 and go no further till it is practiced.

Sincerely,

Rick

[dutch (dutch)]

Please see my post dated June 15, 2005 in this thread. I should add "disinformationist" to the list in number 3 . . .

In general, I disagree that church growth means nothing. I think we have to be careful about using it to infer something about a given church, but the fact remains that Christians are not blind, spiritually. We are not stupid. We do have the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Therefore, if a group of Christians (truly converted) is growing, it suggests that there is something good or beneficial in the group. With Charity, we are not talking about a group of a few hundred people, we are talking about a group of tens of thousands of people from all backgrounds - from Amish &amp; Mennonite to Catholic, Baptist, Charismatic or no church background at all.

I think that out of a church of tens of thousands if some people have not been helped it is not unusual. I think any sincere Christian wants all people to come into a relationship with the Lord.

Blessings,
Eric

[dutch (dutch)]

Rick,

As I have prayerfully considered your various posts and the hate and vitriol with which you post, I feel led to discontinue to post here. I don't think this thread, and perhaps this website is helpful to anyone. I don't think you will prayerfully consider what I have said here.

As I said previously, you need to prove your accusations. You are required under the law to prove your accusations. Once it is proved that those things you have accused the church of doing have happened, then and only then can we consider whether what you accuse the church of doing is serious or whether there is wrongdoing there. We have to keep in mind that perhaps you are simply overreacting, as you have to my posts here. Perhaps you treated the church as you have treated me, here.

I have not come here marketing my book or hyping my website. I have not asked anyone to contact me as some kind of spiritual leader or asked anyone to contact me as some kind of expert on Charity or any other church. I have strived to uphold the scriptures (yes, I know you disagree with me and most churches on the interpretation of them) and have sought to encourage the proper Biblical procedure for dealing with accusations.

As anyone who reads my posts can see, those things that you attribute to me have never been said or intimated. I think these posts have only damaged the witness of Christians.

I will say one final thing which I pray, pray, pray you will prayerfully consider. You admit that you disagree with most all other churches with their view of Christianity. Is it possible, just possible, that instead of 99% of all Christians being wrong that perhaps, just perhaps, you are in error? I'm sure the 1 sheep who went astray looked at the other 99 and said they were all going the wrong way.

Rick, may God lead you in His paths for His glory and may His name be proclaimed among the nations!

Blessings,
Eric

[davescousin (davescousin)]

I would like to point out to those that follow this thread that this thread is not about Rick. Nor are the concerns about Charity only coming from Rick as some try to make it appear.

You may not totally agree with all of Ricks beliefs as I don't.

I do think though that you should put more weight on people's insights that have actual experience with the movement; including being a part of the church life than of those people that have no experience with them besides possibly receiving tapes or attending a revival meeting.

Blessings,
Paul

[dutch (dutch)]

Rick has posted more content in his postings than anyone else which is why he is being addressed the most. As a couple of others have said they agree with what he is posting which tends to make him their spokesperson on these issues.

As I've said, this website is not really suitable for considering these things. There is a Biblical process for dealing with accusations which must be followed. This website does not really provide for that. Someone can make accusations of anything he or she wants and it is difficult, if not impossible to verify what has been said.

For every person who gives an account of a negative experience with any group there is at least an equal number who can relate a positive experience. If we just do that on this website then it will devolve into opinions flying back and forth. Someone says "I think the church is too authoritarian." Someone else says "No, it's not. I think it's too liberal." And back and forth it goes. You can't tell anything from that. Which is why the scriptures have procedures for dealing with these types of situations. Unfortunately, ultimately it is the reputation of Jesus that is damaged when scriptural processes are not followed.

Blessings,
Eric

[happywife (happywife)]

Eric,
I would ask you to consider if you are being unfair, with your own words >>As I have prayerfully considered your various posts and the hate and vitriol with which you post, I feel led to discontinue to post here.<<

You wrote: >>I have not come here marketing my book or hyping my website.<<>>Which is why the scriptures have procedures for dealing with these types of situations. Unfortunately, ultimately it is the reputation of Jesus that is damaged when scriptural processes are not followed.<<>>I change the subject, friend, because this discussion is obviously fruitless and I don't want to read another 5 page post.<<

Your posts have been littered with rude commentary about what you assume is Rick's motivation. And I call you to reconsider your part in this damaging of the reputation of Jesus. You have been nasty and unkind and baiting the other person, and then standing back in a haughty way and point fingers at the other person. This kind of antagonism has been ugly to witness, and I am glad that you have prayerfully reconsidered posting to this thread.
In Christian charity,
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/sad.gifRebecca

[dutch (dutch)]

Rebecca,

Thank you for your post. If people have been offended by my zealousness in some of my responses to Rick, I apologize and ask forgiveness for that. I specifically apologize to you, Rebecca.

I don't completely agree with what you have written, though, and here is why:

If someone posted on a website that you were evil, a sorceress, into witchcraft or engaged in other sins and the person said they knew you and were close to you which makes it sound like they have an insider’s view, would you not want others who saw the posting to question what was being said? Would you not want motives to be questioned? That’s the right thing to do, whether you are a Christian or not. We see so much of this in the media where people are accused of all kinds of things and it turns out later that none of it was true. Yet the damage is done. They have been murdered in reputation. Christians should (and do) have a much higher standard of truth than the world.

Rick (and a couple of others) have raised some nasty and unkind accusations against a church. You can’t disagree with that. Sorting through those types of accusations is not going to be pleasant, either. Scripture requires that we verify, question and test those who make accusations against the church. I have done it officially in a number of cases in various denominations and believe me, it is not pleasant. Yet, God requires it.

I don't respond to some of his postings and changed the subject of his post on Christian perfection because the discussions do not go anywhere. Regarding Christian perfection, I will not change his mind, he will not change mine. If you re-read the posts on Christian perfection, Rick has attacked my view that we always need the grace of God to cover our sins, known and unknown. He was particularly critical of the concept of Christ covering the unknown sin. The classic example of this (taught in most seminaries I am aware of) is if you buy something at the store and the cashier gives you too much change back. You don’t look at the change and don’t realize they gave too much back, but put it into your pocket. You have unknowingly sinned by doing this – taking something that does not belong to you – which is stealing. Christ’s blood must cover this unknown sin. Without it, there is no forgiveness of the sin and death remains.

But if you look at Rick’s response, you will note he has not said that he disagrees with me on this subject. If he misunderstood what I said, he did not ask for clarification of what I meant. Please re-read his response. Please. Who said who rejects the scriptures? Who said who doesn’t follow God? Who has said who rejects John’s teachings?

My responses to him have not been meant to “bait” him. It is difficult to carry on a discussion with him because of the way he responds. I have tried to not respond to him in the same way. If you take that to be “standing back in a haughty way" which makes it seem like I am "point(ing) fingers at the other person” it is not accurate.

If I engage with him in discussion on the particular accusations he has made, it will sound as if those accusations are proven as true. They are not. I have resisted doing this on purpose. I do have questions on some of these things – for instance, he says the church is too authoritative because they give input into peoples’ lives but then says the church is not authoritative enough and allows people who sin to remain in the church. He says that the church is sinning because it allows overweight people in the church and particularly, in the leadership. These issues have a whole range of discussion, but if we just start discussing these things, it’s like we have already accepted them as true. We can’t do that until they are proven true. The scripture has a process for that. I agree it may not be pleasant, but God requires it.

As I have said a couple of times now, this website is not really conducive to a proper Biblical review of accusations against a church. Thank you for your post, Rebecca. I will continue to consider what you have said. I pray that you will consider these things as well.

Blessings,
Eric

[davescousin (davescousin)]

Thank you for your post Rebecca!!

You will notice that Eric does not attempt to address any of the issues that are raised about Charity but tries to change the subject and attack the messengers.

Eric doesn't seem to have any knowledge of the subject at hand, or possibly does have knowledge and can't defend it, so he resorts to attacking the messengers, in so doing he destroys any credibility he might have had.

Whatever his motivations are; he certainly hasn't contributed anything worthwhile. If he could either confirm or deny the issues that are raised about Charity instead of just changing the subject he would be a worthwhile contributor.

God Bless,
Paul

[smurf (smurf)]

Hello Folks,
Life got busy, so it has been a few since I have been here. Wow, I did not mean to upset anyone, but when you post on a public forum people will say things you don't like. Everyone seemed to be posting what they thought about the Charity group, and so did I. And I stand by what I said.

I went back and re-read the entire post, and the book. The entire thread is one sided between a few people bashing each other, and the book still has an apologetic feel to it, even if you skip the repeating points. It is wrote by someone who is passionate about his beliefs, just like everyone is who has passion about what they believe. My experience is STILL this....if you can not say what you need to without writing a book everytime, or repeating yourself over &amp; over, you are trying to convince yourself of something. And this is not just aimed at aletheainheart, it seems like this whole site is like this.

A few aded thoughts after re-re-reading this thread......

henry (henry)
Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:05 am:

Henry said...

Rick, where are you attending now? What type of church is it? What type of people make up the church? What are the practical expressions of your doctrinal beliefs?

Rick Answered.....
As for our fellowship, doctrine, etc., that is too much to say here. As we are no longer planning to move back to your country and mine, we are focusing more and more locally. There is nothing impressive here, but we are not pretending it is.

Hiding Something here? He never does give a straight answer to this simple question. And this line from the same post.....

"Yet we are not prejudiced against such people and have even had some people in the movement do work for us."

Planting Spies? Humm.........I think someone has an agenda. And IF the things he says are true about Charity, it looks to me like he has taken a few of there "sins" along with him to make his point.......

Rick
Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 8:57 pm:
"When I corrected your mistakes..........It is apparent you are not a man of scripture and belief in it, but a man of experience of man."
"I have quoted many sciptures that clearly demonstrate what you call junk." I,I,I,I,I.....no self-serving, vengeful attitudes here........And Rick was singled out because 1/3 to 1/2 of this thread is his "mini-novels".

And, again, we NEVER get an answer on his church home, or what THEIR beliefs and rules are, just that he "associates" with lots of people. I am sorry, but THAT sounds like a red flag to me.


I can see that this thread will go no where, so I will not post anymore here. But I will pray for everyone who has posted here, and for those in the Charity Church, leaders included. I hope that this is OK to do with everyone, and don't upset anyone that I might pray for people instead of writing a thesis. Come let us reason together means just that, reason, not lecture. The choice of the NASB is also a red flag to me.............maybe, Rick, you should drop the bitterness for the past and check out that perversion that you use....do some studing on the written word your using..............

May God open all our eyes......

(Message edited by Smurf on December 21, 2005)

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

After not checking this board for a month I see more comments here are in order:

I talked a long time last night with Luke Martin again, which I do every few months or so. Word has come back to him that someone said he founded Charity. Evidently it has come from this board and that a lot of people are reading it. I gather this from what he has shared and from the response people have given me privately.

Let me clarify if I didn't before. Luke did not start Charity Christian fellowship as it exists today. The word Charity was not used as a name of that group until after Denny and Mose took the leadership. I don't remember the details of when that name was first used. But I will say again, Luke Martin gathered the group together and they existed as a fellowship for some 2 years prior to Denny and Mose becoming leaders. My point of bring that up was at least twofold: 1. I wanted to stress that the way Charity leadership talks and writes about their history is misleading in reference to its origin. This also relates to how they take over fellowships around the country as well as Canada. That is another subject... 2. I also wanted to give people another very important testimony that goes right back to before the beginning. Here is an older man of good standing in his community with 11 children who are decent and useful people. He was the one that formed the group that later called itself Charity Christian fellowship. His testimony about that time before, during and after the use of the name Charity in that group is very significant. His testimony not only relates to the foundations but also continues to these times where he continues to deal with people and leaders involved in the movement.

Eric and Smurf have totally neglected this testimony. You folks talk about suspicions and accuse of not dealing with things biblically and etc. But you have never even attempted to consider this man's testimony. Only a few persons have asked me for Luke's phone number. I gave it to them, and he has taken the time to help many people over the years. I told you where he lives and anyone can get the number from the Perishville NY directory under his name. He tells me that one contacted him recently about these matters where the leadership at the headquarters spoke evil of him about these matters pertaining to the origin of Charity. This person decided to call him up themselves to verify this evil report and his testimony in the matters pertaining. And he tells me in so many words that the person did not find him according to the prejudices given them. He had told me several stories like this before where strangers hated him in regards to the testimony of others. And as a gentleman and a pacifist he reasoned with them until they could find no other reason to be offended with him other than that others thought such and such of him. This I have found the case with myself as well. One thing I do, as Luke does, is take the time to be thorough and get to the bottom of things. You may mock my lengthy posts because you cannot respond to them, but you know they show thoroughness, especially my book. Call that trying to convince myself if you will, you know before God that it was a sincere attempt to clarify my position. Those who object to that kind of lengthy presentation and thus suspect the motives of the work for that reason thus prove what I suspected, and that was the very reason for making it as long as it was. These very people do not care to read carefully and skip over large sections. I see this because I can track the IP addresses of those who visit my pages, and I notice often people jump around from one chapter to a later one and don't come back to read the book in the right order. Then I see their testimony the next day saying the just read through the book for the first time. Here they spend a few hours reading a few chapters and have figured it all out righteously! Several very strong critics have later admitted doing this to their own misunderstanding.

Well you get me on the phone and I rarely have found someone to be finally upset with me as a person or with what I believe. As far as I see Luke is the same way. We take the time to help if we can do that. If problems exist we wish to deal with them till they are resolved.

And I repeat here Eric, no leader in this movement, though formerly several of them were personal friends, has EVER contacted me about this book or the matters pertaining to it since Feb 2000. The book was 2.5 years later after we left the church so no leader has contacted us about it. The only thing that happened was the oddest thing. Tape Mose, who is not a leader but long member and founder of the famous tape ministry, and who was a friend, simply wrote that I needed to repent for writing the book. No reasoning, and I don't think he had read the book yet. Then the odd thing was that a few days later he asked me if I would evaluate a certain health product he was interested in! The main leaders wrote a bad letter to my wife some months after Feb 2000 after we sent out our wedding invitations. No other communications pertaining to me or the judgment given against me has been had with any of those leaders. So it is not us who have closed the door in these matters. I have shared all the necessary details in these matters in the book's introductory letter to those people and in above posts on this board. My point is that these leaders refuse to act like leaders in every way, and also as Christians in matters of offenses, reconciliation, and related matters. Everything is cover-up, sweep under the carpet, etc.

You cannot ask for more testimony when you do not look into the primary testimony I have given. I only learned of Luke Martin long after I wrote the book. My beliefs about these matters were not based on his testimony but numerous facts and numerous other testimony. But if you ignore that testimony then why bother giving more.

As for the following Smurf quote:
""Yet we are not prejudiced against such people and have even had some people in the movement do work for us."

Planting Spies? Humm.........I think someone has an agenda. And IF the things he says are true about Charity, it looks to me like he has taken a few of there "sins" along with him to make his point....... "

This is a very sinful construction of my language. Why define "do work for us" as spying work? This was physical labor!! We have no problem hiring someone that is in the Charity movement. We are not prejudiced against them so as to no use their services. So here such an obvious and innocent statement is taken by an evil suspector to be some ridiculous confession of planting spies! This kind of reasoning, or lack of, rather prejudice and evil surmising, is what we have been dealing with all these years with these people. They take the littlest thing and attack your motives in whatever way comes to mind. Case in point.

Rebecca and Paul, I appreciate your statements. Yes Eric has not added one important thing to this discussion. There is no evidence that he has anything beneficial to add. He is either avoiding the facts he knows or is not familiar with this group. Every single thing is but a distraction, diverting fallacy or contradictory accusation. Not one response has been given. When a subject like Christian Perfection is brought up, the focus is on what is not said, or twisting what was said in a way that has nothing to do with the subject matter shared. He is fishing for what he thinks is the weakest part of the testimony while ignoring the fundamental points. This is not a mere accidental kind of prideful behavior that refused to consider a testimony or fact. We have here sophistry of the worst kind. Here we see a subject that was ignored when it was so clearly presented. Then some months later a passing argument is made while saying both side's minds are closed on the issue. Well that is not the case for me. I have much to learn about Christian perfection, and I am not afraid to discuss it with those who disbelieve it in order to learn more about the truth. Those who know me know that I am not close minded about truth and evidence. This is the philosophy of education I have and will teach to my children and wife and students. You don't attack those who differ with you but you consider all the facts of the matter and the credible testimony. Often those who oppose a cherished belief will reveal some beneficial perspective. Well maybe I am writing too much on that and trying to convince myself ;) .. I have written much on this very matter. But Eric uses all the tricks in the book as I have shown. He mocks us and God in saying he has prayerfully considered what I have said while ignoring 90% of it and taking out of context the 10%. You all can clearly see this now.

I have not come here marketing my book. My book is freely posted on my website. I take a loss in selling the printed edition for only $5. I did not come here to advertise my book but you folks were discussing it first and I saw people coming from this board to my page, and that is why I first came here. Again, more sinful assumptions about motivations.

I have established my testimony as best I could in my circumstances. I have provided credible testimony, and have given those involved opportunity to respond. They have never responded. But hundreds have responded in agreement, or partial agreement. The only ones opposing who have communicated privately or publicly are a few disconnected from the movement and/or those who do not support their statements with fundamental facts. Of those have done that, at least half have withdrawn their statement and admitted that they were hasty and should have not said what they have. In fact, people so frequently leave that movement that some of those who opposed us for the book and the similar matters have now left the movement for the same kinds of reasons! This is so well known Eric that we are not dealing with imaginary testimony here. My wife just retold me that she looked through her old church directory book from 1996 and so many people had left the church by the time that she finally left 4 years later. And then we learn that the same amount of numbers have come and gone since we left. The majority for similar reasons. Again, when an abundance of testimony exists of the same nature, it supports evidence. That does not amount to proof, but evidence needs to be considered and not dismissed as these two or more people have clearly done. Add to that a greater form of evidence, which is when a party admits something that partially discredits itself, then that testimony is all the more believable. I mean, I shared in the beginning of the book that most of the things shared in the book are admitted in one way or another by many leaders and influential people in the movement over the years of its existence. I have numerous tapes that back this up. So my testimony is not original, and even though Luke Martin's testimony goes back from the beginning it is not as though only the numerous people who have left the group have given a similar testimony but that many still within the movement, or who were in it in fundamental leadership positions shared pieces of those negative attributes, so that practically the whole book is established by positive and negative testimony. And as the book is not filled with names and specific incidents on every page, but rather, instead of a gossipy book that it easily could have been, and people assume it would be, and I took pains to avoid doing that, it is instead filled with scriptural principles and general stories that protect families from needless embarrassments. So that only those who knew the incidents would know who they specifically applied to, in the general tenor of the book. I was urged to give more specifics by my critics to establish that I really was involved as I claimed. So in the second and third editions I gave some more specifics and a few names a few times. The book is not some exhaustive analysis about these people or my dealings with them. But it was believed to be sufficient enough to give warning to those that may become entangled to consider what Charity has said about itself, and former Charity people have said about it. It was also written to those inside the group, but very few care to hear anything other than their own position.

Eric says it is difficult to respond because of the way I write. This is because it is the truth. I don't have all the truth, but I sincerely present what I see as true, and that is hard to respond to when you try and bait people and twist what they say. I am reluctantly glad that Eric has displayed himself this way. I am sad that he has acted so sinfully in this way, but he has tripped himself up and shown himself according to his own character, as Smurf has in viscous prejudice. Not that these people have represented Charity, but it does show the kind of reasoning used by those involved. At least I testify as having experienced the exact same kind of things with the leaders and aggressive members in that group.

I'll take up another argument presented. If I admit that 99% of churches are wrong, that would not be any different than Charity or numerous other churches. They have a distinction between "Remnant" people and non-remnant people. That consists of less than 1% of church going persons. The Catholic and Orthodox churches and numerous cults amount to a very large percentage of churches out there. Churches that allow for certain sexual behavior that is forbidden in scripture accounts for another huge portion of the churches out there. Other churches that stress certain modes of baptism as fundamental or other doctrinal particulars that separate themselves on account of such particulars from the body of Christ, make up another huge percentage. Still other government churches or war crazed churches account for another percentage. It is not hard to see that a very large majority is fundamentally off from the clear scriptural life that should be lived. At least that is what a majority of perfessing Christians believe--beyond what Charity believes in this. This is not unique to history. If Eric knew or respected the bible he would see that the very group of people God called had in very large percentages totally turned away from him for centuries at a time. We look at the Wilderness 40 years as I was teaching in Sunday school to the adults yesterday. Eric, would you be on Mose's side or say he must be statistically wrong? We are living in dark times again where the multitude is rushing headlong into sin and self-destruction. The Charity people tell us this Eric. They say this about 99% of the churches. They cannot fellowship with them. They have come out of those groups. So these kinds of statements show in your gross contradiction or fundamental ignorance of this group.

Another statement to respond to for clarification:

"I have resisted doing this on purpose. I do have questions on some of these things – for instance, he says the church is too authoritative because they give input into peoples' lives but then says the church is not authoritative enough and allows people who sin to remain in the church. He says that the church is sinning because it allows overweight people in the church and particularly, in the leadership." Says Eric.

I included the first sentence because he certainly has resisted response because he is holding the truth in unrighteousness and is more than merely prejudiced.
I never said that the church was too authoritative because they give input into people's lives. This is a strawman argument. Every preacher and minister gives input into people's lives. This is quite a misrepresentation to what I said. I said they not only came against the authority of the father or mother in families but also played manipulation games in merely giving advice at times which later they accuse persons of resisting authority for refusing to follow that advice. Advice is later switched or assumed to be command. Frequent games. Even worse, pressuring persons to go against their consciences and church authority is more important than following God and conscience. And all the while hypocritically disobeying the laws of the land in mere matters of inconvenience claiming that such and such goes against God, and we must obey God rather than man. It is all selective authority and the authoritarians are above the very law they subject the women and children and various men they go after to.
As for what I said about this selective authoritarianism being in contradiction to allowing people in gross and obvious sin to influence and contaminate the rest of the fellowship. When anyone tells you that they really should not do such and such, then they are sinning according all of our bibles. Read James Eric. They know it is sin to be a glutton or over eat, especially as a lifestyle. One of the first times I heard Denny speak at the men's prayer advance in Feb 1997 he called a few hundred men sinners if they had big bellies. You should have seen the faces of the men with large bellies! He said they had years of sinning revealed in their bellies. It was a very strong and powerful statement. Many within the movement admitted it was sinful to so over indulge, especially on unhealthy non-foods. So my point in this was, why single out certain types of sins as scandalous when others are tolerated. And I'll say again here that Denny did not preach this at home in the same way, so this sin he tolerated as they still do. This is a contradiction Eric, that is why you don't understand it. And it appears that maybe you do not have much contact with these people to know this or see many of them. It is a serious health problem for this country. It is greed and idolatry to consume so much more than you need, and also subject yourself to needless harm in unhealthy goods. That is robbing the temple of God, and many know it. But it is tolerated like many other ADMITTED sins. So why stress this in object to what I say. This is a fatal contradiction where the bible says the group is leavened in such unrighteousness. This is true with this obvious sin or other sins in 99% of the churches out there. And that is going BY THEIR OWN TESTIMONY. They will tell you in one way or another by their doctrine or life that it is acceptable to sin in certain ways. These certain ways are sociably acceptable in their particular cultures. So you folks are not letting the scripture and your own consciences evaluate your chosen culture and lifestyle. You may not be personally doing such and such things, but if you are not against it you are an accomplice to it and support it. You may not agree with that but if you willingly sign a paper like a confession then you stand by that. In the same way scripture shows us that if you allow darkness and sin in the camp or fellowship you become leavened and thus guilty. This you cannot respond to because you know it is true but since it contradicts your life's choices you resist responding on purpose.

One last statement to Smurf about bible versions. I am open to all the discussions on that matter. I have done a great deal of research and see serious errors in both the KJV and NASB. I have approached my research from an objective perspective and at first as a matter of studying Christian apologetics. I lived in the city of Toronto and witnessed to all the cults, religions of this world frequently. I debated with Muslims and JW's and many others like Atheists about bible texts and it caused me to research the reason for the hope that I have in me. I am not impressed with modern scholarship in all its training of students to be partial and prejudiced. I do not agree with many translations of the NASB or the people who were behind either of those translations. I am aware of the scandals with regards to the KJV, NASB, NIV and so many other translators. I am not committed to any version. You, however, believe as I do and do recognize that the NASB has correctly translated a large majority of verses. I have the ability to translate from the original and have done so at times. I am not partial to any translation but I like Tyndal's which the KJV copied in many respects. But the language is dated and people misunderstand it. There are many within the Charity group that feel the exact same way as I do and are using NASB at home without rebuke. So if I'm a red flag then so is the whole Charity movement. Yes there are some strong KJV-only persons in it.

Well God has opened our eyes to see the truth. See Romans chapter 1. The problem is with sinfully turning away from the truth Smurf and Eric. You both are showing everyone on this board examples of that. All is evil surmising to try and crush the other side. No talk or demonstration of fair handling of the word of God or "sound reasoning" as the scriptures exhort us to do. Calling reasoning, lecturing and opposing the one word for the other is mere games that the scripture also condemns about wrangling about words. What has been given is a testimony. That testimony has been spoken against without any serious justification. More testimony has been given for clarification and response to these sophistry responses. More is offered from others and you are closed to it. You argue against length because you have nothing to back up your short statements. Who cares about opinions, and this is what statements are that cannot be supported or expounded upon. And the more you two go on the more everyone, including yourselves, see it as it is. Maybe this is why it has to be short!

Sincerely,

Rick

[happywife (happywife)]

Regarding my testimony of the local church here in Canada... What we see is people sincerely wanting to follow after Jesus, in truth, some more so than others. But a great weakness in the people is that they sort of "bounce off of each other" they can rely on certain "stronger" members of the group to know what is good or right. And unfortunately this has contributed to an "evolution" of the thought of the group. We began getting involved with them approximately 4 years ago, more off than on... At that time, people had great respect for others to be able to follow Christ in freedom according to Holy Spirit given convictions, at least that was our impression at that time. But that has also "evolved" into a sort of group pressure, everything is a test of your true Christianity, there is use of the word "liberal" in reference to others who don't believe as they do now. And it is assumed that if you don't believe exactly as they do, that "you aren't there yet", but it is also assumed that you will come along, if you are truly right with God.

This also contributes to the idea that if you question or disagree that you must have secret or hidden sin in your life. So others will not answer if you question, they just look at you blankly, or do not respond to your email. And they write you off and figure that you are maybe not "born again" at worst, or struggling with sin and thus cannot see the truth, at best. But you will never get a real answer to a question, nor to a criticism.

There was recently a decision that the local brothers were trying to make, all the brethren seemed in agreement, although it was never stated why, they just all agreed. So my husband asked what their reasons were, they all grew silent, and one brother later said that was because nobody knew why. There is a fear of stepping out, a fear of being seen as less holy, and little freedom of thought or action as a result. I am disturbed to see such a sense of group consciousness, and no reasons why, just that is what they agree on.

The spiritual pride is definitely there, they treat others as less than they, other Christians are "not there yet" because of worldliness or "liberality". And the sisters anyway are at a place where they are dangerously unable to relate to "worldly people". They feel that their clothing/headcovering is enough "light" to be a testimony that they follow Christ, but that they don't have a responsibility to witness in word or deed. It seems that they feel that the Great Commission really doesn't apply to them. They consider themselves shy, meek ladies and don't feel that they need to be otherwise, they rest on verses about being keepers at home, and being meek and quiet.

Many people are attracted to this movement because of being introduced to the "Quiverfull" movement, or the "homeschooling" movement, and hope to find like-minded fellowship. This group is not a Quiverfull group. Many, many families plan their families, and yes sometimes that does mean that they plan many children, but this is not a Quiverfull church group. Too often people believe this, probably that is the impression left in their minds from Denny's tapes on the home, but it is never clarified. Myron and Rachel Weaver came to the local church here a couple of years ago to teach couples about Natural Family Planning, and said that they are unapologetic that they plan to have no further children. People have argued this with me, they so deeply believe that Charity is their answer to the desire for a Quiverfull church. I don't care what side of this movement you are on, this is hopelessly unclear to people coming in, and many are attracted to Charity because of this issue.

This is also not a "Homeschooling" only group... In fact because of the strain of having a large family more and more women are feeling very stretched and drained (not to mention the relatively poor education of many) and are looking for ways to privately school their children. In this case the idealism of the group, is something that people struggle to temporally live out.

I think that the attraction for many is that this movement is so traditional regarding the family, homeschooling, etc... And yet it also boasts the benefit of "hot religion". It is both "hot" and "old fashioned" and maybe fills a need that some are looking for, in this society which seems to be quickly shedding it's Judeo-Christian roots.

I don't know if it is fair to share all of this, these are the observations of a woman, a mother, and a wife.. I could share so much more, there are few people who will speak up in courage, it takes courage to say something is wrong and face so much personal opposition, and questions regarding your personal integrity.

We personally know Henry who posted on this thread. Unfortunately he says that he agrees with Rick's book and is concerned about the criticisms. But he has not communicated that here, so unfornately perhaps others feel he is in opposition to what Rick has had to say. I don't think that is true. I hope that in charity, he will consider remedying this.

In Christian love,
Rebecca

[spiritnword (spiritnword)]

Whew...That's a ALOT of reading.
Ok so i thought i would attempt (at quite possibly my own risk of being "shot") to bring some sort of consensus and unity to this by addressing some things we agree on and perhaps help Eric and aletheainheart see that they may be missing each others points entirely even after all those words...
Things we seem to agree on:

1.Charity Gospel's popular teaching (The Godly Home Series) is a blessing. If lived out it would produce much needed change in the lives of those who heeds it’s message.

2. A Christian ought to set his will mind and emotions to line up with the Word of God, and we can only do this by the power of the Holy Spirit. Gods grace has provided everything we need that pertains to life and Godliness and where we fail it is always in a lack of Trust of His power to either deliver us from temptation or enable us to overcome it. The fault never rests with God nor excused in the Christian, but rather where there is failure in this regard to do so, the Christian as soon as aware of his sin ought to repent and make the repentance as broad as the offense. Ie. If it was public, repent publicly etc.
So if we sin, it is our fault, we repent get washed in the blood and get up and by the Grace of God “press on towards the mark of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

3.To claim to walk in a measure of Truth and hold others too it while not demonstrating a heartfelt effort to walk in that truth is Hypocrisy. No one asserts that in order to proclaim a truth one has to perfectly walk in it, but the statement ought to be made with sincerity “Not that I have attained but I press on”. If it is demonstrated (via. Experience and witnesses) that the person merely gives lip service to God but the heart is far away or as the Scripture puts it:
They are “Handling the word of God deceitfully” and preaching “Christ out of selfish ambition” in fact even though they are “Ministers of Righteousness” in that they proclaim a righteous and Godly message, they themselves are mere “angels of light” and “satans ministers”. In this instance (accurate message corrupt messenger) Christ told us to “Do as they say but not as they do for they say and do not do.” The message may very well save you but the messenger be damned. We are called to discern these things.
So we distinguish between Hypocrisy (willful sin coupled with the refusal to repent when clearly confronted and exposed) and “Working out our salvation with fear and trembling”, the constant process of going from glory to glory and faith to faith. The constant revelation of our own sinfulness and Gods Holiness, which continually breaks us down and shows us our need for the Savior. The Christian life is best likened to the experience of the prophet Isaiah who though he knew God, cried out at the further revelation of God “Woe unto me I am undone for I am a man of unclean lips among a people of unclean lips” To the Spiritual mind the difference between the two is as plain as Judas and Peter. In one the Spirit was willing and the flesh was weak in the other the Spirit was not willing and the flesh was. Without contradiction, Judas was damned and Peter was not. False minister v.s. true minister.
So Eric and aletheainheart, can we agree that the point is not to claim perfection but to attain perfection? And we are not to excuse or deny sin but rather repent of it when we see it?





Ok so…with that said…and hopefully agreed upon,
The question then boils down to this:
Is Charity a movement with faults and shortcoming which they are genuinely working through or are they Hypocrites with no real intention to work though anything.
Are they Peter (genuine but faulty) or are they Judas ( a devil, both deceived and deceiving). Peter can be restored, Judas is beyond help.
So here is the evidence as we have it:
Due to the overwhelming testimony of many people who were intimately involved with Charity Gospel ( which cannot fairly be ignored) the evidence seems to point towards that for the most part the message is wonderful but practically speaking the leaders have demonstrated an unwillingness to live their stated convictions on a consistent basis while forcing perverted and extreme versions of it upon other and when confronted they furthermore refuse to acknowledge or repent on the level that is required for an elder that has sinned in such an open and public way. The evidence seems to point that these sins (which I believe are already catalogued) have been acknowledged to a degree but with apparent lip service not really with an intention to follow though and deal with the issues.
The movement sees the issues but the people (who see the issues) are cowards that will not take a stand for what they believe in, which according to Rev. 21 is a damming sin. So a hardening of heart and searing of conscience has taken place because they refuse to deal with the issues. They look the other way and fiddle as Rome burns as it were.
The degree of the hardening is believed to be to the point of apostasy.
I believe that I would be accurate to say that IF this is the case, that they have entered into an unrepentant state and continue to sin by ignoring the testimony of the body that has been hurt and by refusing to address the issues but rather dismiss those that speak out and threaten those who would speak out then they have indeed departed from they Spirit of Christ. The movement has become lip service. Unacceptable Worship. See the OT to see how God feels about Hypocritical sacrifices and offerings! IF this is the case they have put their reputation and image above Worshiping in Spirit and in Truth. They have become Idolaters. To say the least it is a bad Idea to partner with an Idolater if you are looking to fight in the Army of the Lord. But you decide.

4. Regardless of what you decide as to the level of error they are in, what do we do with the good things they have produced?
If they have done this evil things then when we are confronted with the good things that they teach we must say with Christ “Do what they say but not as they do, for they say and do not do” And where we feel their doctrine contradicts the word of God but we agree with much of it then we “Test all things and hold fast to what is good”
Or as it has been wisely said:
In essentials: unity, in non-essentials: liberty in all things :Charity. (no pun intended)

It is my opinion that unless one is willing to dismiss so much personal witness regarding the problems at Charity and their unwillingness to deal with it (which would be at the least irresponsible at the worst arrogant.) It would be a massive understatement to say that though we may all agree with and be blessed by the Godly Home Series one ought to take a healthy dose of caution before entering into daily life with a Charity fellowship. It is a very serious and sober decision that I hope one would put much prayer and research into. I hope my summary will be helpful in making that decision.
May the Grace of the Lord Jesus be with us all,
Stephan

[aletheainheart (aletheainheart)]

Dear Stephan,

I appreciate the detail in your post. More detail helps people to more correctly understand your meaning. I am not going to shoot you down. I agree and disagree with what you say. And that is in respects to the general and specifics:

I am not missing any of Eric's points. He has clearly evaded the truth in all these matters. It may be true that he is missing my points in some respects because he is willfully ignoring them. And the truth does not fall in between two extremes or between our opposite positions as is obvious.

1. Further, the "godly home series" is not a total blessing or truth. I agree that there is much truth in it, and the errors in it are not as serious necessarily as what is practiced in that denomination. And yes, those and like tapes are more like propaganda to draw people into sympathy with them as they naturally create a picture of their group which is untrue. This I have stressed many times.

2. Ought implies possibility. And a fault is never unavoidable. Sin is not an accident but a choice. Non-moral sins, like mistakes or ignorances are not what we are talking about. If there is something that we "ought" to repent of then that was avoidable. Otherwise we are victims of an abusive and arbitrary system as some in fact suppose we are. For every temptation there is a way of escape, because God is faithfull..."

3. You say "No one asserts that in order to proclaim a truth one has to perfectly walk in it, but the statement ought to be made with sincerity "Not that I have attained but I press on"."
That depends on what you mean. In reference to the resurrection from the dead, yes we can desire to attain to that and urge people to do the same even though we have not yet experienced that. Does this sound strange for me to say this? It is because you have taken that passage of scripture out of context. The word used here for perfect is not in the moral sense of behavior as most people in churches assume. It was the same word that Jesus used in reference to his mission when He said on the third day He would be "perfect", or translated in that verse in our bibles as, reach my goal. Why translators do this is what all of you should ask yourselves. They don't want you to think of Jesus as imperfect, and they want you to think that Paul was imperfect--that is in the moral sense of the word. But actually the word has nothing to do with moral character but of reaching a goal. Just look at the context of either passage and you can see clearly. In fact, just a few verses later Paul uses the very word "perfect" to describe himself and others, and that was in the moral sense of the English word. This is the irony of people using this phrase to explain away moral perfection in this life. The actual Greek words in the original have nothing to do with morals or behavoir, holiness or sin, but to do with dying and getting a glorified body, etc. While a few verses later the positive testimony to moral perfection is given including Paul, and beyond this, it says if you think differently, God will show you. I guess you have to be open to that... I'm sure this will cause some response, and people will want to know what passages I am referring to.

Anyway, a preacher should not preach that which he has not experienced in regards to victory over sin. If he is a servant of any sin, he has no business preaching against any other sin. And this is a big important point in all this. You cannot select which things are rebukeable sins and which ones are tolerated. You ought not to call a sister a worldly girl because her head veiling is a little shorter or different than the other girls, while at the same time you allow for cases of gluttony and over-indulgenses. Or you can't call disobedience to one form of authority a sin while you encourage disobedience to other forms of authority: as in the head of the movement expecting me to violate the laws of immigration and work for them in their business--and suspecting my motives when I refused. Arbitrary authority and arbitrary sins, rebukes, and standards are not right. Those who are not lawful in all respects to God and man are not fit to tell others what they ought to do. Christianity is not about giving up a little sin now and then and getting less and less sinful. You either are living for the truth through the Holy Spirit of God, or your are living the big lie no matter how religious you may be. Those who preach about gradually given up sin are fundamentally mistaken. If we ought not to sin, then it is as simple as that. Grace is either there or it isn't. No half-ways in this. God's salvation is PERFECT. Man's salvation is imperfect. If you find yourself sinful then you have not found God's salvation. Not that someone cannot fall from God's salvation into sin. But that God gives us the command and promise to save us from all sin. Those presently in any sin ought not to preach. They are not "blameless" but blameable and self-condemned. They have erred from the truth and need to be brought back. They are not fit to lead others to the truth as they presently do not correspond with the Truth. Simply because you cannot be for and against the government and cause of God. You are either fully with Christ or against it. So all matters of morals are in this way: you ought not to preach above your experience. In other matters it is different. In testimonies about various experiences that is different. In matters of hope of the resurrection, as in what Jesus and Paul were saying. They were not thus perfect until death.

Yes it often happens that people preach much truth but do not live it themselves. And we thus do what is said but not what is done.

Going from glory to glory is not from less sin to lesser. Even Jesus grew in grace and the fear of God. He went from glory to glory. No sin is implied in any of those terms. And in other similar language we often only have the reference to PAST SINS and not present sin. There is also a difference between an immature Christian who has not been wholly sanctified and occasionally sins: where holiness is the rule and sin is the exception; and one who is wholly sanctified as in 1 Thess. 5:23 and numerous other places. One is immature, the other is mature (which is used in place of perfect in some translations). With the case of Isaiah there is no way of showing that he was in some presently sinful state at the time of that passage, or expected to continue in any sinful state. It clearly can be understood in the sense of an immature experience which has sometimes sinned and never always remained perfect throughout the whole experience. This is the experience we all have if brought before God, as all have fallen and come short. When one sees the law of God blaze into our hearts and lives it reveals any contradictory choices. But this does NOT mean we are left to grovel in that mire and continue as rebels and failures. We are offered the grace of God to overcome ALL sin. We do not seek to merely stop all sin for the SAKE of not sinning so as to have some prideful record. NO, we seek to do God's will for His sake alone, and feel as Joseph, "how can I sin against God!" This is when we really see His salvation and know this loving God.
The immature believers may stumble from time to time and keep getting up. They may wonder if they can or ever will be wholly sanctified. But the promise is for all who believe, is a matter of faith.
So no, that is not the picture of the Christian in the sense of his present experience. Interpreted as many churches do, it would be the experience of lost persons not saved and on their way to heaven. As interpreted correctly, as in Isaiah's real state, it would be the case of believers before being entirely sanctified (which I'm not claiming to be a state where it is impossible to sin, and not none can or ever lapse from).

The difference between Peter and Judas was not all Christians (Peter) and unbelievers (Judas), as preachers, but immature Christians (Peter) and false believers (Judas). It is not certain when Peter experienced entire sanctification, but by the time he wrote his epistes we can presume he experienced that fullness. Notice the opening statements of the one letter, verse 4. What does it say folks. I don't need to repeat it if you are not familiar with your bible, then you need to go look. Read every word carefully.
But yes, there is a difference between a young believer who sometimes stumbles and sins and a deciever with no heart after God who merely pretends. It may be hard to tell for a season the difference, but time will bring to light the misdeeds of such persons as we all know. I have lived enough years to watch this enough to fairly accurately see where people are headed who resist the truth in these ways. They "wax worse and worse".

I don't fully understand your next point about trying to agree about not claiming perfection but attaining it? It appears in so many words that you do not believe it is possible, but by your words about turning from all sin you imply that it is. If God said it I don't care what lesser testimony deny's God's words. God not only promised that we could be holy because He is holy, and that we could be perfect, but commanded us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect. To argue that away is to argue away every other command and promise of God. To urge anyone to give up any sin is to expect that one can give it up forever. And implies the ability under God to give up all. If salvation exists for one and any, it exists for all forms of sin. There is no selection or limitation in the bible. If you study the words justification and sanctification in the bible in the original or English you will see that it is by the same faith and is of God. Few suppose justification is imperfect, so why suppose sanctification is not?
Yes it is not about what anyone claims but what they attain. And attainment is not what we are basing the truth on but upon God's testimony. Shallow sinful attainments should not be the standard of acceptable piety as it is with most churches in this country. But God's testimony and expectations. And no holy attainment should be considered self-righteous as if done apart from Christ. Every time I hear the foolish argument that, "If we were perfect then we would not need Christ", I always respond that that is a self-righteous way of looking a salvation. Such a person supposes salvation from sin is of man. And the fact ALWAYS is the case that such persons have never found that salvation from God, and are still arguing for remaining in sins, because they are striving after the flesh to be saved from sin. If they found the real "Jesus" according to the angelic meaning for the name given, they would have His PERFECT salvation. This is the grace of God, not the vain efforts of man.

Next you say:
"The question then boils down to this:
Is Charity a movement with faults and shortcoming which they are genuinely working through or are they Hypocrites with no real intention to work though anything."

This is a very common question, and is what many of you are trying to figure out. And that cannot be decided fairly, very easily. Those who prejudge the matter are guilty of prejudice. I do not expect anyone to be prejudice. I simply am giving a testimony. And I am dealing with people who prejudice themselves one way or the other. Some people see the first sign of faults and totally dismiss the whole group in short order. This is not right. And others defend it against a multitude of facts, which is also not right. I have no personal motivations either way, but walk objectively in this.
And specifically, you must follow what I have said in this respect. There is a big difference between the leadership and the laity (people). I have made these distinctions if you read my book. Much of the thrust of my book is about the leaders. And as the people come and go so frequently in a few years, they are not the same people, and often do not understand what is going on, as it takes a while to see it. Some of the people may be Peter's stumbling around in a false religion and not understanding where they are for a season. We have known some of these people, and actually were such people. But the leadership consists of those who have swallowed the sinful policies of the movement, and who push that cause. When we left we were of the opinion that leaders in sister churches were less guilty in the matters we have mentioned. And since then we realized that it is much more of a network than we then thought. In fact we saw that many big decisions were bounced around different leaders, so that the guilt in the various scandals was shared among many leaders. We thought we had friends among some of those leaders, but never got one response from any of them. Then we learned more facts from so many independent testimony, and that accidentally. So we do see it as not only a self-righteous network, but also a deceitful one, and one that is not only unlawful to God but to civil governments. When these men choose to work through things, it is merely selective. Some people get the hammer, while others get no rebuke. When they are guilty of sin there is rarely a confession or a consequence. O they may confess themselves to be generally sinful as if that is a good and humble thing to confess.
But don't look for many specifics. Because absolute power or authoritarianism will not be open to correction or limitation. The lust of power is the hardest to give up once you have it. And the whole network thrives on keeping people ignorant and obedient to the group consciousness "brotherhood" that is carefully conditioned. Clearly 2 Peter 2.

You say further:
"The movement sees the issues but the people (who see the issues) are cowards that will not take a stand for what they believe in, which according to Rev. 21 is a damming sin."
This is not totally the case. Many have done just that and found themselves with the boot. So many people have come and gone. Many do not find out how bad things are because they never fit in because they refuse to submit their consciences to group consciousness and rather search the scriptures openly. People often call me and ask why they never fit in. And I say it is either you have employment they do not agree with, doctrine they do not tolerate, or you are one of those independant thinkers (which is usually the case) who does not just accept whatever is said from the pulpit or leader as gospel truth. So what happens many times is that these such persons will begin to question some particular or a few things. Then they get the cold shoulder or even accused themselves for something. Things can go various ways from there and the persons can find themselves in front of the sanhedren under trial. Or they may leave. But many have rebuked in this way. Some continue to stay and are more passive. They hope to reform the system. Yes we know such persons. No they are not spies for us. But they or a little more open in sharing about the system than others who are just "yes-men". These people are under the impression that they should be there to help encourage people in the right way. But they don't realize the power of the influence they are under.
It isn't always to see the whole picture until you have been there for a while. And even many people who are in there for years, may be on the sides or don't pay attention to much. But the movement generally is more of a community so that it is hard to not get wrapped up in the whole thing and thus not see what is going on. So I am afraid to say that there is indeed a lot of compromise among the people. But they have been manipulated in very sophisticated ways. This they could not believe is happening to them because the leaders are mostly unlearned persons. But it is like boiling a frog where you put them in nice cool water and slowly turn up the heat. The frog, like those breathing carbon monoxide, never suspects what is happening. They get dull to it, and there is so much dynamics in the whole thing. There are many core philosophies behind the manipulation tactics. I once thought it was just some prideful leaders were not blameless, but then noticed the patterns that are the same used by .... (which I will not say).

One more word about the last paragraphs. I would agree that most of the problems relate more to the activities of this group, and the spoken standards and expectations, than the tapes which is what they are most known by. However, if you attentively listen to the tapes you will find these false doctrines and practices promoted from time to time. You must not ignore things or assume definitions are as you suppose. Everything has a context, and the tapes were all preached to a certain people. What you understand by them may be different than what they were intended to mean to those given. I do not mean every part, but some terms from time to time. I still have hundreds of tapes. I do not pretend to listen to them from week to week. And as for what to do about the good things. Do not despise good practices or ideas because they may be marred by people.

Hope this helps. So while I mostly agree, I wanted to clarify a bit more, especially about biblical perfection.

Rick

[smurf]

Unreal..............STILL correcting people...........

[trjra]

Something is very wrong with this website.
Rick--it seems to me that you are making it your life to tear these people apart rather than to build the Church of Jesus Christ.
Everyone else--before you pass judgement on this Charity group from what you are reading here, you need to get to know what kind of people Rick is hanging out with, you need to spend some time in your closet with the Lord, You need to find out what these people are like really. The Lord Jesus was also spit on and spoken evil of and mocked and falsly accused. It looks to me like this web site is not of God but is of the devil.

[trjra]

Something is very wrong with this website.
Rick--it seems to me that you are making it your life to tear these people apart rather than to build the Church of Jesus Christ.
Everyone else--before you pass judgement on this Charity group from what you are reading here, you need to get to know what kind of people Rick is hanging out with, you need to spend some time in your closet with the Lord, You need to find out what these people are like really. The Lord Jesus was also spit on and spoken evil of and mocked and falsly accused. It looks to me like this web site is not of God but is of the devil.

[aletheainheart]

At least I am open enough to say who I am. When you don't have any facts or evidence you just mumble on avoiding the truth.
Look, I have not made this my life at all. We walked away from that group for several years before we were compelled by others within and without the movement to give a testimony and reason for why we were not longer in it. It was rather complex, our circumstances. Yes, we walked away from it. You don't know what you are talking about. People always ask us in our ministry if we know of the Charity group or what we think of it. We have mostly avoided talking about it. We had hundreds of friends in the movement and most of them we did not share about what we went through for years! If you actually read the book you can see a little of how it came about instead of speculating.
We wrote the book so we would not have to repeat things over and over again. Over 12000 people have looked at the book and the vast majority who contact us in any way are glad for the book and are encouraged in the Lord by it. I have hundreds of emails from such people, and yes I don't have time for it as I am busy in other matters. But a lot of people have been helped.

Continued

[aletheainheart]

In fact I said this very thing on the phone yesterday, that it will do no good merely to attack any particular group, only the gospel will change the church and the world. This has always been my primary focus in all my ministry. The book shows that if you care to read it people. Notice that it is written to all people and not just directed at Charity. I was well aware of how those who hate Charity would wish to read it and use it. That is why I avoided anything gossipy, slanderous, and made it a stinning rebuke against all forms of sin in any church. I was fully aware that Baptists, Evangelicals and so many other groups would read it, and it is more of a holiness book than some kind of a making-it-my-life-to-tear-these-people-apart kind of thing. Such inflamatory words--really!
The statement about being spoken against falsely does not prove anything as why not say that about the thousands of people these folks have spoken falsely about?? These very few people that make these anonymous statements always assume in their statements that Charity is not in the habbit of reviling, slandering, and accusing numerous people. It appears that such people have very little knowledge about it and perhaps have only visited some meetings and know nothing of the history and happenings.

Continued

[aletheainheart]

I have only given a testimony and biblical teaching on several important areas. My testimony is supported by numerous facts, which include people still in that movement, people who have left, numerous family members of many of the leaders, and others. But I don't expect people to have that knowledge or attempt to try and aquire it. I just give my caution. It is like what you would expect from someone who has left the Watchtower, as I know several who have done that.
And I have given teaching. The message of holiness is not widely believed today, and thus mockers will scoff because they have nothing else to do. You preach holiness to them, and what do they do? They say you should instead spend some time in your closet! Evidently they did not bother to read those very statements along the same lines. People, God is not interested in mere devotions for duty's sake, and being spiritual is not in ignoring truth and just being cheery and going around blessing people who just use the blessing word all the time. It is quality over quantity, purity over pragmatism, etc. You cannot build up the church of Christ by building a false church, supporting a false Christian movement, supporting sin, excusing it, while condeming others doing the same sins who see other things differently. The ONLY way you can build up the church of Christ is to do what Christ said and that is to be holy and pure and godly, and to not be a slave of sin, but a son of God. If you are arguing for a levened church, than that is not the church of Jesus Christ. The Church is to be holy, and Charity C. F. is not holy, you just ask them. Ask any of their ministers if they are "blameless". They will say no, but will in other ways act like they are. Yet the bible tells us that ministers are to be blameless. So we are talking about a different authority here people. Just like the Rome church who goes by tradition over the words of Christ and the scriptures. You preach the words of Christ and they tell you you are tearing down the the church of Christ. No, rather it convicts the nominal church who want the best of both worlds. And they argue just like Rome for their traditional experiences of unrighteous living. A life filled with devotional exercises mixed with sin. Dare to contradict that as Jesus did and you can be sure they will mock you and falsly accuse you. Peace peace when there is no godly peace in the heart. They want social peace within a certain prejudiced cultural environment; emotional peace, "blessings, blessings, many blessings"; group consciousness, submission to their authority (when they have none) but not to other authority.
A wise man welcomes rebuke and is better for it. And reading Proverbs teaches you something about the folly of fools who scoff at the truth, righteousness, justice, equity, with self-pious empty statements that are nothing but sophestry that end up reversing right for wrong, good for bad. It's all the same in so many forms. Never anything with any substance, just diversions and ignoring.

Rick

[peter]

Hello Rick.
I have a hard copy of your book "The Remnant Seeking Fellowship in Plain Clothes". I admit that I have not read the entire book yet. From what I have read it did become clear to me that I would have to know more about this movement in order to fully understand the book. I came across your web site some time ago as I was trying to find more information about Charity. That is where I ordered the book. I would be very interested in finding more information about Luke Martin and how the group he started later became Charity. Is there by any chance resources I can find or do I need to contact Luke personally? If so, how do I get in touch with him? Reading some of the posts above I noticed a conversation with "Henry". You were wondering if you had met him in a Charity church in Aylmer Ontario. Are you refering to the Church at Vienna in Vienna Ontario? It is a small town near Aylmer and is the only church I am aware of in that area that is involved with Charity Ministries.

[aletheainheart]

Peter,

The book was primary written for those involved or who know people involved or who were formerly involved. So any details about personalities (which are rare in the book even though people assume the opposite before reading it) will not be entirely understood.

However, I wrote it with the understanding that many who oppose Charity or who have a very different belief system would also be challenged by the holiness message in their own settings. The book is therefore very useful for any Christian to read and apply to their own lives in their own circumstances. I was well aware that Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites and other Anabaptists would read this book so I was careful to not single out Charity as being the only group or people having any problems. I have no interest in taking sides with any persons or groups over a commonly viewed erroneous group. Some groups can be just as bad in different ways. On the other hand, I have made some good contacts with people within all three of those above mentioned anabaptist groups, who do agree with the fundamental teachings in the book.

I had the same intentions in regards to Baptists and Evangelicals reading the book. I realized that these would read the book more than any other. So I tried to also write in a way that they would benefit in some way. Thus the complexity of the book is in light of the many different kinds of readers. Overall I am satisfied with the response from those who have read it. I have hundreds of letters from people who fear God--educated or uneducated--from all walks who tell me they have taken the time to read it carefully and who appreciate it.

You can see that it is not actually written in the way people assume it would be. It is not some book about gossipy details but rather the majority is about general teaching that applies to every Christian. It therefore can be read without knowing anything about this movement. And I have always said that I do not expect people to just accept my testimony in order to believe what I have said about these people. It is impossible to do that and be fair and objective. The testimony is for those who know these things for themselves and is also a warning to be careful to those who do not. But the focus of the book is the teaching on the several important areas. Anyone can take any chapter and examine their own lives and churches in light of the scriptural principles. [Continued]

[aletheainheart]

Peter,

As for Luke Martin, several people have contacted me from this forum and have asked to speak with Luke. I have given his number to them. He lives in Parishville NY near Potsdam near the Canadian boarder (people can look up his phone number in the directory or contact me through email or phone http://truthinheart.com ) He has a large family and welcomes people to visit. The boys have a growing paper called the Boys Bugle for young men.

Luke and I have discussed putting some information together and started to do that some time back. I don't know if there is a need to mention every detail in documents. I could make the book into many volumes if every detail was necessary. But the point was to just discuss some major points.

I have corresponded very positively with Henry. The Vienna church is not the only one in Ontario in any affiliation with Charity. While I was living in Ontario I mostly visited the Moorefield group under Jonathan Janzi (who is married to a daughter of Elder David Lapp here in Michigan--the leader of the Charity church here) and Darren Cook, and was under the Charity leadership of Melvin Kaufman (also related to the Lapps) of NY. Several of them did come to our wedding. I was visiting these people in the Kitchener area at their foundation some 10 years ago. They were not fully embraced by Charity and Mose for a few years because of their problems and doctrinal differences and more apparent freedom to think for themselves. I did notice more of a freedom to have a conscience before God in these several Canadian groups. So I always hoped for the best.

Besides the Aylmer group there is also one near Windsor. I believe there are two Henry's with the same name at either church, and that may have confused someone.

I visited the Aylmer church at the beginning of its organization when Denny had his first meetings there. They were nice young people with lots of potential. I had some contact with some of them in the years that followed. I noticed that they did not just simply swallow what Denny and Mose taught and expressed the right to be independent and free before God. As far as I know, they have seen some of the same problems I have pointed out and have concerns. But they can speak for themselves. [Continued]

[aletheainheart]

Peter,

I think many churches in Canada and the US are not aware of the serious problems, or are only aware of a few things. And they then have a more distant relationship with Charity for this reason. They don't want to dig too deeply and choose to rather have the benefits of being partially connected. Such as being able to connect up with many people locally and afar by connecting into their big network and system. This network is branching out now to other groups than anabaptists into the Evangelical and Baptist world and beyond. Thus these loosely affiliated churches will benefit in being able to connect up with many people of like mind, and thus have various levels of support, and feel like they can be not so alone but part of a movement--"The HEARTBEAT of the REMNANT" in fact!

So what happens is the system is setup in this way to benefit both parties. Therefore some churches do not then fall under the denominational relationship that others do. These more distant churches are tolerated with Charity leader's hope that they will come fully around some day and give up their differences. Some of these will therefore have some different practices as I stressed in my book, such as even allowing children to go to higher education schools or have occupations that would not be allowed or tolerated at Charity and Ephrata.

Thus a few people have accused me of making false claims in my book because they did not read it when I said the bad things happen more or less in all the churches depending on the relationship. What is another serious evil in the leaders is the fact that they give two opposite teachings in the course of this more distant relationship. For example, the teaching at home can be very strong about a particular point (examples in the book), and it is categorically stated that such and such is sin universally. But then other people are warmly received in these distant churches as "Remnant people" who love the Lord, etc. They are all greeted with a physical kiss (many times on the lips!) and the people go away feeling that they are approved of. A relationship develops where eventually the church gets tagged a "Charity church". Some then get direct oversight in the sense of a denomination by the various leaders of Charity, Ephrata, the Kaufman family (the three brothers are pillar ministers in this movement) and several other leaders of pillar churches. But others only interact by receiving tapes, going to occasional meetings, or having some leaders come up there from time to time.

So, often such groups do not have very much contact with the Charity church or movement itself and thus do not become aware of the serious problems, at least right away. The presentation of the Charity system is very ideal for many of these people who just assume everything is just as presented on tape and in sermons. The reception is warm and inviting. So, many groups walk away blessing them and attaching themselves to them and become more or less a "Charity church". But the level is always complex and changing. These groups come and go and people move around. Eventually many people see the problems and leave. Others fall into the slavery deeper and deeper. Others just keep a distant relationship while benefiting from the connection.
[Continued]

[aletheainheart]

The evil is in speaking opposite out of both sides of the mouth. Tolerating one person and group on one side of the country while condemning others elsewhere for doing the same thing. The way this is done is sometimes sophisticated. It takes investigation in listening to what is said in different places to see this. As one who was very zealous for the movement I did travel around to various meetings and noticed this. Many others have confirmed this contradictory teaching.

As these churches, like Vienna, are forced into situations where they have to deal with these contradictions and numerous scandals they then are forced to decide what they will do. They can then no longer not bother to consider the claims against these Charity leaders. But so long as the system is arranged that it looks polished at the seasonal meetings and the relationship with these sympathetic churches is removed enough, many will not realize what is happening. And when something is seen by someone, then there are all sorts of measures used to squash investigation and accountability. So unfortunately, just like in the healthy living lifestyle, it usually takes a serious abuse or problem against someone individually before people begin to question things (as it takes someone to get very sick before they see to change their unhealthy ways). But so long as "blessings, blessings, blessings" are continually said and song everyone is lulled and magnetized and mesmerized.

Hope this helps.

Rick

[peter]

Thank you Rick.
I will try to commit myself to finish reading the book completely. I happen to be a member of a conservative Mennonite church. I know you do have some issues with the Mennonite church and you may or may not have a few comments about that as well and I am open to listen, but I also believe that I am a born again Christian and there are many more of the same in my church as I'm sure there are in the Charity churches. I pray that the Lord will guide me and convict me where neccessary and give me the strength and wisdom to make the right choices. I have a brother and a sister whom I love dearly that have recently joined the church in Vienna. I am very concerned. I don't want to generalize but I have some convictions against the Charity movement. This may be unfair as I really don't know a lot about their teachings but some of the things I have seen and heard really do bother me. I get the impression that they strongly believe, and it has been said openly by at least one member of that church, that ALL of us in our particular Mennonite church are going to hell unless we get out. I don't know the details of the conversation where this was said but I did hear later that this person was sorry for the comment but there has been no apology to the group of people that it was said to. If I am wrong I will hopefully be corrected. Where I am going with this is that there seems to be a common theme among them that they are extremely quick to judge people outside of their group, while they feel so highly of themselves. They are really quick to say things that are out of line but rarely will they repent openly. I have spent some time with a couple members of this particular church and have observed how they spend time looking at people in my church and other churches outside of Charity and continually make comments about how there is so much work to do, so many are lost, this person needs Jesus, that person needs Jesus, etc. just by looking at them. People they do not know personally. I have witnessed one of them looking at a large group of people in a public place and saying something along the lines of "those poor people are all lost, they don't know where they are going". I asked if it was fair to say that about every single person there (hundreds of people) just by looking at them? He said yes he could tell just by looking at them. Whether or not any of those people in that large group were saved or not I don't know, but I don't believe we should be so quick to judge. Oh I hope I am not out of line with this, I am trying to choose my words wisely. I know it only takes a couple of people to give a whole church or denomination a bad name. I have seen this many times in my church, so I do realize that there is a chance the same thing is happening in this particular church. The only reason I felt the need to join in with these postings is because of the similar concerns that yourself and others have shared. I could get into more specifics but again, I don't know if they all believe the same way, especially in Vienna. If I am wrong I need to be rebuked. Maybe I just need to open up to someone? When interacting with some of these people it is very difficult to say anything about anything without being corrected. I quickly get tired of hearing Denny Kenaston said this, Denny Kenaston said that. We are living in a dangerous age. It is unfortunate that we as Christians must have so many problems with other Christians. Almost every church is agains every other church. Speaking of churches, Rick I was wondering what church you go to. I tried finding that information on your website but I may have missed it. Just out of curiosity. If you have reason not to say, that is fine as well. Anyway, God bless you Rick and the same to the rest of you brothers and sisters in Christ.
Peter

[aletheainheart]

Peter,

We get numerous emails and phone calls from people saying the exact same things.

I have a few more comments.

First off, we have many friends that are Mennonite, local and far away, including Bishops, missionaries, etc., from many different flavors of Mennonite groups. We appreciate people from many different churches who belong to God's kingdom. We would not belong to a church called Mennonite for the simple reason of 1 Cor. 1:13 and context. We should not be followers of men or assume that any man had the sum total of truth as our standard but Christ Jesus. I think all can agree with this.

As for the mentality you are speaking of, I am well aware of that not only with this group but many others probably mentioned in this forum. Some of the reasons that people feel they are the only way to the Way are the following: They are isolated very much from any outside influence while the group they are in occupies all their time. So what they know about outside groups is very little firsthand knowledge. The group itself becomes an idol that is worshiped and lifted up beyond what it should be. It is THE focus most of the time. Much of the program and happenings and teaching are geared to preserve the system as it is and to foster this mentality. "Behold, ye are the men and wisdom will die with you." The people believe this is the Heartbeat of the Remnant of God and therefore God is very carefully directing them THROUGH this organization as in the case of the Watchtower. Prophesies are carefully made that convince the people that God must be confirming the teaching, spirit, and progress of the movement. The system is dynamic and has something to do for everyone who wants to do God's will. I could list hundreds of more things. All of which would foster and preserve this perception and feeling that the present group is the way to the Way. Naturally a resulting feeling is that apart from IT you can do nothing good. Outside of the heartbeat of the Remnant you are just outside and blind from the heart of God. And if you reject it or dare to oppose it then you must be insincere. Liberal, lost, and even hopeless as viewed by many who are really under the spell.

Now this does not mean every single person feels and acts this way, or that those who do act this way always act consistently. In the study of theology or such matters it is always important to realize that most people live in contradictions with their own theories and practices (which is not good). For example, while this is the case with many zealots within that movement, several notable individuals stand out in my mind, it is not the case with a lot of others. There are in fact different kinds of personalities that make up this and other like groups. To many, it is not about whether this is the only way to the Way but purely a matter of them thinking God led them there and they must submit their hearts and minds to the direction and teaching given by the authorities who claim to be over them. Apart from that they may be very kindly to outside groups and in many ways give others the impression that they are part of the kingdom of God.

[aletheainheart]

Furthermore, the fact is that this movement does invite a few other teachers into the movement who believe differently. Such men draw others into the movement with the meetings and tapes; and their sermons lead others to be more committed to the Movement as they were challenged to total commitment. One head leader told me when I discussed one view Keith Daniel had about a matter that they were working on him and he had come a long way already. When such men are allowed to teach it may have stirred people up (in a way that promotes the objectives of this movement) but it also resulted in a lot of confusion amongst the people when such men taught things in total contradiction to the regular teaching. For example, I will not forget when Keith Daniel taught in the Fall of 1999 in front of all the main leaders and again mentioned how Calvin and/or Luther were godly men. I watched as the leaders shook their heads in agreement to my amazement. Later I found some confusion about that among the people. And one key member told me the leaders often agree with such things under that kind of passionate preaching but don't actually agree in the end....

The movement also interacts with other groups at different times in different ways that would seem to contradict this we're the only way to God mentality. It would also depend on the particular church as to how much this would happen. But it appeared that much of the purpose of that was to create that openness perspective, engage the youth in mission activity, and mostly to draw people into the system. A very familiar strategy with everyone is the idea of giving and taking in order to ultimately gain more in the end. Thus people will sacrifice the lesser to gain the more important prize. If it takes lying to gain the advantage sought after many people in the world will feel perfectly at ease in lying as I show in my chapter about pragmatism. The ends justify the means. So if everything is about drawing SPECIFIC types of people that will be yes-men into the movement (in any cult group) then they will do whatever it takes to draw such people in. Even if it violates other teachings (thus the contradiction I mentioned). For example, using people for a season and treating them personally as if they are 'Remnant people' or born again of God, but all the while conversing with others in the inner circle about them as 'not of us' and not in the way to the Way. It is hard to put that mentality in words.

So this mentality can be very complex when looked at across the board. But yes, there are definitely those who feel and manifest very much that you are lost outside of the movement. And it is simply because you are not 'under authority' in the sense I have abundantly described.

You mention the strong judgments against others in contradiction of all the evils in their own group. This is typical of cult groups. The group is so highly lifted up as some ideal while other group's problems are amplified that you will often find this sort of statement happen from time to time. But most who feel that way do not let it slip out as in this case in that way.

The point to look at is the contradiction. The fact is all the corruption they point out in these other groups are found throughout their movement and history. All one has to do is go to their prayer meetings and hear them make general confessions of sin and not measuring up and then present that to such people when they point the finger as Jesus said in Matt 7:1-5. They have admittedly NOT YET taken the logs out of their own eyes. Jesus said to do that first, and expected people to thoroughly do that as it is our duty to rebuke people. The twisting of that passage as so many Evangelicals do who only quote the first part, is unbelief in the command of Jesus to be free from logs and specks.

[aletheainheart]

Yes, and this idea of being able to just look at someone and tell if they are lost or unsaved is really telling. I quoted Denny's article about the Remnant people and focused on this very point in the opposite way. He said he could just look at people and tell if they were "remnant" people. Whether PRE-judice positively or negatively commonsense and virtue demands that we be not so judgmental. See the following old searching sermon on Prejudice:
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Alethea/Prejudice.htm
But here is what it comes down to, a claim of divine discernment into the hearts of people. A special connection with God that gives such a person a superspiritual perceptibility. Yet the bible tells us to not make such hasty judgment while Jesus said to "make righteous judgment." You know someone by their fruit. And in most situations fruit takes TIME to manifest. Multitudes of circumstances can put people into situations where it is very difficult to judge the motivations of another person's heart (especially just looking at their clothing). In this case we are dealing with people who look at a particular kind of dress as well as a particular kind of action in the family that reveals whether these are remnant or not (and to make such a sweeping statement means that you could not even have looked at all their clothing individually). And remnant sometimes means all saved people and other times in total contradiction merely those who are sympathetic to this movement and certain values and practices. But if one person is wearing a particular kind of veiling they may be judged as deceived or 'liberal'. Or if a woman wears a certain kind of clothing like a skirt she may be considered worldly.

You have to understand that any person who believes they are in a group that is The way to the Way will most likely act this way to some degree. They believe they are on the side of truth, represent it, and are the access to it (the Mediator between God and man, see 1 Tim 2:5), and all others are needing their help to find it. They cannot find the truth without coming through their system, because their system and community is the Way. Thus you hear the frequent expression: "He is going in a different direction" and the like when someone leaves. If there can only be one group that is God's kingdom, and that is inspired by God, then this mentality will manifest more or less. I said this before, last time we visited Charity at a wedding a year after we left, a former close friend who is now a leader, David Cooper forced my friend and then myself into a conversation in front of everyone at the reception about the subject of authority. He stated the doctrine as clear as could be. When it finally came down to it I asked him in front of several people: So are you saying that when Denny Kenaston speaks from the pulpit when he is very excited in his sermons, that his words are equal to the New Testament? He said yes and that we would all be bound to obey such teaching. So what more could I say or do? Especially if his words contradict the scriptures and the truth, or his other teachings. This is the same argument against the Popes and all the cults. Not everyone in the movement would agree with what David Cooper claimed, but it is evident that this idea is fairly developed with many people in regards to Denny and other leaders. They are even guilty of false prophesy in predicting Jesus coming back by the year 2000.

[aletheainheart]

Related to these ideas is what is called Restorationism. With many of these groups they believe there was a great apostasy early in the church in which true Christianity died out. Then some great man or people group came along centuries later to restore "Biblical Christianity" or "New Testament Christianity." This is somewhat how Denny and Mose are looked upon by these people when they quote Denny so much. He is essentially equal to Paul. The great Apostle to America and a few other countries. So the system needs to be looked at as a religion itself. The cause is based on these individuals and the goal is to make others come under these men's authority in one way or another. The intensity or degree of this will vary with the people. Some relatively new or removed will have no idea of such things. And others may be very extreme in these beliefs. So it depends on who you meet with. Ultimately what I have focused on is the cause of such beliefs and practices which is the leaders and their philosophy. We are dealing with something that cannot be reasoned with because the fundamental assumption is that God is leading it no matter what happens. Some individuals can be talked to; but as you see some are very hard to converse with because they assume you have to be wrong and they have to be right. The proofs of their religion come down to the same found in every cult. There are so many "blessings" that the system provides that it is very impressive. It is dynamic and moving forward, APPEARING progressive. It is restorationist, and devotional. It meets SOME needs that are generally neglected. It is authoritative in its dogmatism in a day when men are cowards. But is it really New Testament Christianity? Is Denny and his system really what Muslims consider Mohammed and Islam to be? The fulfillment and replacement of New Testament Christianity? You shall know them by their fruits.

Rick

[peter]

Thank you Rick for your wonderful insight.

We will have to talk some more. Perhaps I will email you personally one of these days. Take care and God bless you brother.

Peter

[wifeinchrist]

Hi there,
I wanted to post after reading this thread because I am a woman in a "Charity" curch. We are basically in name only because other than covering we have some distinct differences. Our pastor and elder guide the church but the husbands are the heads and make the final descion for their families without pressure, guilt or being placed lower on the totem pole.
Also the ladies here do not dress in homemade clothes but wear skirts and shirts, jumpers, mostly all bought. We believe in dressing in our culutre and age applying biblical principles of modesty and moderation. We feel that todress palin, wether your personal opinion or church function attracts more curiosity than "light" and most people who visit the churches come to stare at the " weird" dress and practices, such as men kissing, which gives the apperence of evil, and the men dressing like farmers, no music, no Sunday school etc.
Our church has music, a guitar and hopefully piano before very long. We desire to reach out to the surrounding community and prisons, to reach everyday people, which I refuse to call "wordly" as if they were a a species of animal that needsa defintion seperate from ourselves. They are just people, converted or not.
The reason I am posting is because ther are virtually no women posting here. Most of the rules in these churches are concerning women and are very oppressive. Those who desire freedom in Christ are labeled as wanting to be as"wordly" as possible and not desiring holiness and godliness. Although we are very happy in the church we are in, be warned that 99% of this movement are very different.

Blessings,
wifeinchrist

[peter]

Dear wifeinchrist,

Thank you for your post. You're right, there have been virtually no women posting here and it is nice to hear from a woman joining in with this topic. It sounds to me like you have a strong faith and a strong church. I know Rick has mentioned a few times that not all churches that are associated with "Charity" in one way or another practice the same teachings. It is my prayer that your church keeps its eyes open and guards itself against some of the negative characteristics that have been witnessed and experienced in some Charity churches by some of the people that have been posting in this thread. The women in my church also honour the headship veiling and men and women dress plainly, similar to what you described. Some are homemade and others are bought. Yes, people do stop and stare on occasion but hopefully some of them will be humbled. As for the men kissing, my church does not practice it but as far as I understand from scripture, it is biblical. All the best to you and your fellowship with your desire for reaching out to your community and prison. <font color="ff0000">And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Mathew 25:40</font>


Anyway, nice to hear from you wifeinchrist.

Peter

[leftin1991]

Although I am not currently attending one, I have visited with Charity churches in PA, MO, MI, OK, &amp; NC, and can honestly say that I have seen nothing but good fruit! "The Godly Home Series" is a real revolution for mainstream Christians, and the homeschooling movement is the vehicle making that possible. May their tribe increase!

Yes some of them may be a bit legalistic at times, but they can be forgiven for that. It is best to try to overlook that, as it is a foible common amongst many groups and is by no means unique to Charity. Many of them have come a long way, exiting Mennonite and Amish groups and facing ecclesiastical, social, and family pressure for the same.

In my experience, groups which reject the perpetuity of the Fourth Commandment, as 99% of churches do, tend to implement their own distinctive set of man-made laws in order to compensate for their lack in that area. You always have to be on guard for that. Just glean the good <u>from</u> all, and don't accept the bad <u>at</u> all. Chew up the meat but spit out the bones. There is much good to be gleaned from the Christian fellowship of the Charity group of churches. They have a free tape catalog available, and they do not charge for the gospel: (800) 227-7902. tracts@juno.com

[aletheainheart]

Dear Wife in Christ,

Thank you for your posting. Like Peter said, not all churches who are associated with Charity will act the same way in everything. Some of the relationships are complex. We get many phone calls from small groups of believers and churches who take a liking to Charity just as we did at first. Many of these folks sound just the same as your group. Usually what happens is either the group doesn't get very involved with Charity and so the two groups keep each other in good standing (rarer) or the group gets closer; and as they get closer the picture I have shared gradually emerges as scandals are witnessed and pressure is applied in several ways. Then a few or the whole will begin to question or right out oppose such things. At that point you usually find a split as two go their separate ways--those who embrace the system as The Heartbeat of the Remnant, and those who do not think it is the heartbeat of God today.

I am certain that many more women from these groups are reading this forum than men as this is usually the case. The women do not wish to be identified because their husbands and leaders could come down on them. But just to let you know, when you post a message your IP address is given and usually shows your general location and even though you do not mention who you are anyone can find out that information approximately. For example, 66.82.9.58 is Germantown MD near DC.

I wish you all the best in seeking to live a godly life in Christ.

Rick

[aletheainheart]

Dear leftin1991,

When I first visited Charity churches I felt the same way and said the same things. The people are very nice to strangers and newcomers. They have a very comprehensive hospitality lifestyle as I mention in one chapter. It is very appealing especially to city folks with little family values. Also there are many other wonderful practices that we have mentioned. But the same is true with most cults. Asa Mahan once wrote: Naked error is powerless to deceive, and borrows all of its effectiveness from mere fragments of the truth with which it is associated. The same is true here, the corruption is mostly hidden from visitors. I don't expect anyone to understand these things unless they are part of the movement long enough or do some investigation. The cultic activity is only experienced by certain outsiders and those inside all those churches whose philosophy of authority, etc., are similar to Charity/Ephrata.

All that and everything else said, I agree, appreciate the good and reject the bad. Just remember to be careful and receive the teaching of God: "Do not be slaves of men." And do not let yourselves be leavened or compromised. As for the 4 commandment I was just teaching on that subject the last two weeks in bible class. I believe I understand where you're coming from.

Rick

[wifeinchrist]

Hi again,
Thanks to all of who answered my post. I appreciate your comments and concerns. My family came out of a weak Baptist background and were hungry for a "real" Christian life. When you are low spiritually and emotionally it is easier to be sucked in by legalism and rhetoric. Many people, especially women find a certain security in rules and regulations, especially if their husbands are not of the same convictions as a Charity fellowship.
There is a danger of the women, who are usually more easily influenced to begin feel that they are the more godly ones and begin to pratice Charity belifes and attitude without the blessing of their christian husbands.
My family is still at a very weak charity church and are convinced for the most part that they are fine and a "remnant" and the church is growing more godly. Because of the subtle brainwashing that goes on, may of the good chritian people live in what I call the "charity bubble" and don't really live in the normal world. They can't see, or won't see until they have left or stepped back.
In consequence we have been under scrutiny and much judgment for our freedom, studying of the word and decsions that are seperate from generally held charity doctrine.
Although I wear a small extra covering to church , at the request of elder, I do not wear an extra covering at home or anywhere else. I have worn an extra covering from the age of 15 until about 2 years ago. My husband does not feel that it is biblical or neccesary, even though his family grew up with it and practices it. Yes, we have listened to all of the charity tapes, and read all of the related material. I just wanted to clarify this so

I don't give a false immpression of our beliefs and practices. Our church leaders don't agree with us but they are not worried about our relationship with the Lord, nor are we "frozen" out of certain circles.
I hope this fact does not cause those who want to walk with God to dismiss me, my experience,or my walk with God, but I understand as this is the reaction of most people after they find this out.

In any case God Bless and instruct all of you in truth.
wifeinchrist

[happywife]

Dear Leftin1991,
you wrote:
>>Yes some of them may be a bit legalistic at times, but they can be forgiven for that. It is best to try to overlook that, as it is a foible common amongst many groups and is by no means unique to Charity. Many of them have come a long way, exiting Mennonite and Amish groups and facing ecclesiastical, social, and family pressure for the same.<<

John 8:36
"If the Son therefore shall make you free,ye shall be free indeed."

>>In my experience, groups which reject the perpetuity of the Fourth Commandment, as 99% of churches do, tend to implement their own distinctive set of man-made laws in order to compensate for their lack in that area. You always have to be on guard for that. Just glean the good from all, and don't accept the bad at all. Chew up the meat but spit out the bones. There is much good to be gleaned from the Christian fellowship of the Charity group of churches. <<

Many who chew up the meat find that they choke on the bones. There are so many precious people who are being directed to listen to the "Godly Home" series who are drawn in... That's how it starts you think "wow, incredible, radical, REAL Christians!", then you order more tapes, and start making more and more "changes" which they call "convictions" but these are actually formed and dictated by the group... And less and less, do you think for yourself, and do you ask Christ what He would have for you to do. And more and more, others don't express what they are thinking because they are not sure how the group will feel about it, or what the others might say or think.


Dear Wifeinchrist,
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gifSo glad that there is a church out there that is not so strongly influenced by the movement. I hope it remains that way.

As a woman who was in this movement, I can certainly see the reluctance a woman would have in this discussion, as I just didn't have a voice, unless my husband spoke for me. So often while fellowshiping with other families, I sure knew how to stop a conversation among the brothers, by saying something to contribute. Many times the other sisters would just sit quietly, and only speak if we left the room to go and talk in the kitchen.

Personally, a weakness that I saw, was that there are strong ideals set forth, and like many women, I wanted to have a good family, great kids and be a testimony to Christ in my community. I found that I was attempting to manipulate my husband to fit in with the ideals that I had heard on a tape.(there is so much lip service given to convictions given by the Holy Ghost, which amount to not much more than preaching set forth on a tape) I was pushing and manipulating my children and I felt a tremendous amount of pressure to live up to a perfect ideal, for which I was woefully inadequate. Then I discovered that I didn't need to be all of that, I just need to follow after Jesus. I just couldn't do that in a group who looked to each other all of the time for every little thing. I realised/recognised that disdain for "worldly people" that had developed in my heart, and that I was seeing in the others. I simply did not want that for my children, I want them to be able to obey Christ's call to go into all the world, and not just into the bubbles they are comfortable in.

Peace of Christ,
Rebecca

[wifeinchrist]

I just spoke with a sister yesterday from Ohio who does not come from a plain background and had so many questions that she cannot have adequetly answered by the church. She was plainly told to wear a extra covering in obediance "to God"rather than obey her husband. She does not wear one other than church which is OK with him.
She is SO confused between the good teachings and the actions and attitudes of the people. They are even seeing these superior attitudes starting to show in the older children of these families.
She knows that because of their background and slowness in accepting the practices of the church that they are not seen as being as "spiritual". People don't look at them with downcast eyes and generally avoid them other than to encourage them to obey "plain" principles.
I feel so sad for her and other women who are made to feel that they must choose between "God"
amd their godly husbands.
Women who are made to feel that their femininty is being stripped from them as they are told that ,"this is too wordly, too bright, too bought, too...whatever, and that something is wrong with them, that their free feminine spirit built in by God is something to be squelched and ignored and disregarded.
I hope that someone near her can be an encouragement. Please pray for her and me as I counsel her. I want to be a blessing without "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[henry]

Hello everyone,

I haven't posted for a while but I really do think that there needs to be a balance of your own personal experiences, failures, sins and your own shortcomings posted here... not to divert any attention from the movement that is at hand, but at times, this attitude of superiority that is seen in many "Charity Churches", is felt very strong right here in this forum, and truthfully, reveals nothing more but of the same spirit and attitude with just a different practical application. I begin to doubt a more godly one, I begin to doubt a more holy one...

I might ask... how many of the people in here that are posting here have read Ricks book?

With an open heart and not just trying to squeeze out some more mud about Charity to justify your own lack of holiness, or your worldly agendas, your own rebellious attitudes to proper authorities?

What I am getting at is this... you who agree with the condeming of this group, because of its "idolatrous" authority issues, (not practiced in every local Church, nor commanded that they should from PA) what issues would disqualify you from posting here if all could know who you are? You see, you can be just as "legalistic" and bent on your own agenda and carnal ungodly ways and be posting here and it contributes nothing of a positive discerning voice in regards to this movement.

This place was to expose the "cultic" activities (over eccessive authority and manipulation) and applications that this movement and help people on to see this and not get tangled up in these things. But one must ask, in seeing and reading some of the posts, are we any more free from pushing our own doctrines and views that also are contrary to Gods Word.

continued...

[henry]

It would be interesting to know, how many here that are posting as if to agree with Ricks view and stand against the movement, really agree with the content of his book against their own lives...

How often do you justify what you do, though you know that you are breaking principles in Gods Word, because no apparent judgement is coming upon you, and it does seem to get the wanted result that you are looking for?

How many of us are indeed sinners within the church that we go to. You know, going against those things in our heart that we know we ought not, or going with those things that we know we ought not? Are we in the habit of confessing the same sins weekly? Or have we grown weary of that and have just quit confessing our anger, our lust, our worldly desires...?
It may be that you are an evangelical at heart, and it is your desire to win souls and witness for christ, but to what will you convert them, your own carnal experience? How can you point them to Christ while you are someone who is still groping around and resisting light to your dark areas?

Remember, I am not trying to divert the attention or focus, but trying to see, how many of us are living like the movement that we are discussing here. Could it be, that some of us that have posted here, are guilty of far more perpetual sin than many that are within the movement?

You see friends, Rick is not against God given authority... he is against idolatrous and cultic authority. If you are a man or a woman who can mostly submit yourself at work, on the road, in the realms of civil or governmental authority or in your home, only when it suits you, you are a rebel and will buck to no end, any time that any church will give input into your life.

What type of church do you go to?
Or what type of church are you looking for?
Is a church to exercise any authority and to what extent?
How about personal convictions that violate Bible principles that you do not see yet or understand, should every church that you attend change for your ideas, your theologies, your views... come on, what are we looking for? Our own little "fellowship", just the way we like it? And what, have our own little band of followers that believe what we tell them to believe, do what we tell them to do...?

Jesus said to judge righteous judgement... that includes or starts with yourself. Never expect more of others than you are expecting of yourself.

Enough for now, I will post in a day or so again...

Peace and blessings to all who are genuinely seeking the Truth.

Henry

[aletheainheart]

Henry,

Thank you for that very pointed posting. This is so very important. We must live each moment before the throne of God. If any have been truly born of God then they know how absolutely deeply searching God is and has been with them when He showed them ALL of their sins. Yes beyond mere theoretical confession of total depravity. Good old John Bunyan fear and trembling before the Almighty when He searches you Out and reveals from on High that ALL your actions have been sin and rebellion. Not just certain outward actions and attitudes. But from the moment you first sinned till the moment you found the grace of God you have lived the darkest lie and been blinded by disguised selfishness and a fundamental lack of total consecration to God. Everyone knows deep down whether they are all sold out to God and truth. If that is the case you will go through many fires and know more than a mere emotional change in your relationship with God. You will NEVER forget how corrupt ALL your life was, every moment, before the Grace of God appeared to your soul and the love of God won you over from the dominion of darkness. You will not need future sins to grieve your soul of how much you turned from Him and the truth. Forever you could never forget if you have ever come to that true place of repentance.

If any have repented then they have made a total turn. I'm not saying it is impossible to sin. But if you have repented then you have turned from ALL sin unto ALL holiness and the great Source. And there will never be any pointing fingers at greater sins while lesser sins are permitted...

[aletheainheart]

Continued.

When we really see sin for what it is we call it unrighteousness and evil as the bible does. It is only those living by popular opinion who condemn certain forms of sin while excusing others. And it is easy to gain sympathy from other popular opinion by pointing out the obvious or extreme examples of abuse and corruption. And I must quote Luther here: "If I Profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God, except percisely that very point which the devil and the world are at that moment attacking, I am not Confessing Christ no matter how boldly I am Professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proven, and to be stedy on all the battlefront besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." (from memory but that was the substance of the quote.)

As I said to Henry, and you can see in the book, I wrote it with the full knowledge that those who have grievances against the Charity movement would be challenged in their own souls by the presentation. You are not going to find a gossipy book as some want. Yes we get people from time to time deep in their own sins calling us up wishing to complain about these people and justify themselves. Well we may agree about some things, but we do not take sides against a common enemy as the devil would have it. The answer these people are really needing who have been wounded is much deeper.

The book was intended to draw everyone to Christ, in a way that forces you to think for yourself about your own setting as you ponder this one group that claims to be the very heartbeat of the remnant of God. The book is not advertized to the public, so all who come across it are looking to know about this group. They either agree with it or are against it or know not much about it. We know the Charity movement is fundamentally wrong. If they are promoting idolatry then all can agree this is fundamentally wrong. But what is the answer? I have worked in counter-cult ministry for many years. The answer is not in confronting wrong doctrine and trying to information change people as most of those ministries focus on. It is about going to the heart of the matter. That is doing what it takes to get people to come face to face with the Living God. To be searched through and through. To examine everything, not just in the mind, but deep into the heart and life. To come to that place where Total Depravity is not just theoretically talked about as in Seminaries, but that you Know just how thoroughly sinful you have been (CONTINUALLY).

[aletheainheart]

THEN you may be prepared to hear what God says about Full salvation, "perfect holiness in the fear of God." This was my motivation. I was trying to draw anyone who was interested in these matters to deeply ponder their own souls before God in whatever fellowship they are in. This is no game as some do play with words and lies and sophestry. This is no seeking revenge. Any who have read the book will see the purpose.

So now, where do you stand? What will you do? When you bow your head the next days alone or with others, what will come before your mind? You know, at those times where you cannot distract your mind from the deepest things. Or will you stop long enough to deeply reflect as if these were your very last moments? What is God pointing at? No it is not merely some one item here or there is it? It is the whole heart isn't it? It is either all or nothing.

My wife and I talked today about some people we once conversed with about such matters. I said to her, it always comes down to what people are willing to think about those around them. Those who refuse to repent fully usually cannot do so because they cannot suppose those around them could be really fundamentally mistaken with God--and in a constant state of sin. They suppose they are only sinning from time to time and are basically good people. The pressure from such popular opinion is very great. And it constantly pressures its world to believe that it is really from and blessed of God. Those under its influence then are placed between The Rock and a hard place. The Narrow road and the Wide path to Hell. No we sould not judge others if we have logs in our own eyes. But can we ever find the courage to call sin what it is in all places? As a young rebellious youth, I knew before God that if I had stolen something and had not returned it that I was still stealing it every moment. Inattention to the theft of a life against God's full authority does not change the reality that every moment you are steeling from God and will give an account. Without that thorough courage to oppose all sin there is no real repentance. You either embrace all truth and shun all sin or prejudicially select to tolerate sins sanctioned by popular opinion and receive the fleeting praises of men. So we hoped and prayed that these folks would find that courage to not compartmentalize sins and obedience selectively, and would stand with God whatever may come. And by God's grace that WILL happen!

Rick

[henry]

Hello everyone,

Sorry about that... I said that I would post in a day or two but I had no time last week. We actually had a weekend of meetings with the two other churches in Ontario and some from a new church in Indiana came up.

Anyway, I know that there are many more people that are reading this thread that do not post. Some read because they themselves are wondering about the movement. Some read out of good reasons and some out of revenge or carnal pursuits. I also believe that some leaders read here as they know that there are or will be things on the internet shared by people in the movement and they are "keeping tabs" on what is going on in the hearts.

Friends... I don't know what to say hardly. One has much to say, but how much should one say? My heart aches, as I think about the lack of seriousness and holiness that is expected in our churches. I mean any churches, not just "remnant" fellowships. For any that have read Ricks book, you will understand what I will be saying in what follows.

In the earlier years of my christian life, God was beginning to teach me and show me many things out of His Word that were going on in fellowship churches. Some things were these:

gluttony at fellowship meals,

preaching in the flesh and mistaking it for the Spirit or claiming it was Gods message

the misuse of the word of God - out of context teaching, experience interpreted preaching and teaching

true and false attitudes and actions of non-resistance

We came into the movement as a new church. Me and my wife had thouroughly repented of the mennonite religion and were seeking to obey Christ as we were taught out of the Bible. It was assumed and generally thought of that we were all in the same frame of mind, but we were not.

I will not go into great detail regarding some of the past, because we have grown as a church in our understanding of many of these things. Some things we have had to lay down, some things we hold on to and have waited to see how they would play out.

It is true, that there are things that we have strong feelings about but many do not feel the same... and we all know it. These are not secret things that we have not openly shared. We have openly shared, and have been disagreed with. That is OK, for there will always be differences in the body. We have our differences. Every church does.

I will say this, that if most of the members were transparent and honest with their lives, struggles, homes, ... just willing to let people know what was going on for real in their hearts and lives, much of the problems in these and other churches would take care of themselves.

I am one that reacts against those that have been harboring sins or scandals or that have been trying to uphold a certain reputation. Terrible for church life! You know, when they act like things are alright, but they're not... you just can't fellowship with them, you can't trust them, and yet because they are in the body, it is all supposed to work... HOW?!

I'm not just talking about ones that are in the movement, for we have had those in our midst that have left where it was the same way with them. You just know tha they are not real with you or God.

Time is up.

Get real friends, and if you are, God Bless You!

Henry

[searching_soul]

Just found a new Yahoo group Charity Ministries related:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CharityGospelChurchMinistriesRemnantMovement/

[conscience]

Hello,

I think I have a friend that might get into trouble with a CHARITY affiliate. What can I do?

Long thread but very needful today. Problem is few will find it before they have been hurt. Someone wanted multiple witnesses of a real situation as PROOF. (SEE LINK WITHIN) Rick has already mentioned about young daughters being removed (willingly leaving) their parents home against their parents wishes. This has been nicknamed, “HOLY KIDNAPPING” and there has been a site up for several years about it. A certified letter was mailed from which NO RESPONSE ever came… Hence the site. Parties directly involved prior to the site did use Matthew 18 to completion, now here to the CHURCH at-large. I.e. the homeschooling Christian community.

Many people will judge this site as judgmental. Even some people that it has saved from having a HOLY KIDNAPPING in their family have said that. We shouldn’t say things like this in the public venue, because it will bring discredit to Christ. Well.! then HOW are people to be WARNED? And then Paul shouldn’t have mentioned names in the NT. The point being HOLY KIDNAPPING is a CULTISH activity, worthy of the death penalty under God’s law. HOLY KIDNAPPING is an EVIL thing to do, regardless what your name is or what your church leadership position is. There is NO excuse. Besides for CHARITY, it is being done in MANY Anabaptist denominations including CHARITY and SOME of her affiliates. I’m not saying every CHARITY affiliate is doing this… But I do believe they have a tendency towards it if they are directly LINKED to CHARITY proper.

However people that are NOT totally NONE resistant and those NOT totally under the CONTROL of church authority are much less likely for this to happen. But it still can, if they THINK they can get away with HOLY KIDNAPPING.

This incident involves CHARITY proper. A fifth witness is Luke Martin who Rick has already named that is aware that this does go on. Likewise CHARITIES own magazine has been their own witness that many Hutterite young people MOVED OUT from their parents and families via the encouragement of Mose S. This is not something that has been done in a corner. HOLY KIDNAPPING is a regular occurrence and very hurtful to families and their entire future.

CHARITY leadership will come in-between even husband and wife besides for parents and children, if they feel they can 1)grow the church better than way 2) if they can get away with it.

FOLLOW THIS LINK TO HOLY KIDNAPPING unmasked.

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledre ssescustomsewing.com/Stop%20Holy%20Kidnapping.htm

WARNING: This is not for the babe, bashful, or sensitive. It’s not wrote as an apologist, but as John the Baptist called Herod to repentance. Or as Christ rebuked Peter, get ye behind me Satan. If you can’t handle that, don’t go there.

CONSCIENCE is what all CONTROLLING GROUPS come to steal from their followers. You must agree with “THE GROUP” or you are punished, shunned or excluded. Once the prey has lost their personal conscience and given to the complete judgment of “THE GROUP’S LEADERSHIP” they are ready to be physically hood-winked, lead away from God given family authority, even willingly by suggestion into HOLY KIDNAPPING.


--- continued ---

[conscience]

--- continued ---

Then Anabaptist LOVE to move their people around, to start new churches. It’s like being a missionary in your own back yard with all the comforts of home. It is exciting. It’s exciting to move to a new area, meet new people, make new friends, get a new job. But WHO is really pulling the strings? Is it manipulation? If people want to do it and enjoy doing it and are blessed spiritually – then go for it. But what happened to your FAMILY members that you owe the first witness of Christ to? Can you or do you have the liberty to make friends from OUTSIDE of THE GROUP? How about different churches? Until America can get over their denominational walls and SERVE CHRIST alone… We are in serious trouble and truly not really growing, just getting FAT. Likewise doctrine is important, can it be discussed if “they” don’t agree with “you”? NOT at charity, not in depth. Well, I’m off the topic but that is the more MELLOW side of the problem.

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

I’ll end with a quote above from the STUDENT OF THE CULTS Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 3:13 pm::

The reasons I would classify this group as a cult are as follows:

1. Pyramidal power structure.

2. Rabid demonization of people who oppose their oddball teachings.

3. Overly controlling, extra-scriptural, legalistic approach to member lifestyles, i.e. "Sisters will not cut their hair." "The Bible forbids gold and pearls." Male members are "strongly discouraged" (ahem) from wearing ties.

4. Teaching that if people do not abide by these lists of commands, some of which are extrascriptural, they will became worldly or gray Christians and drift into an unsaved state.

5. Refusing to go "on record" as to what they believe - when it comes right down to it, what the leader says (some of it by supposed direct revelation!!) is IT.

Be very careful if you come into contact with these people! If anyone is interested, I know of at least one Christian support group for recovering members.
------------------------

FOLLOW THIS LINK TO HOLY KIDNAPPING unmasked.

http://www.modestapparelchristianclothinglydiaofpurpledre ssescustomsewing.com/Stop%20Holy%20Kidnapping.htm

WARNING: This is not for the babe, bashful, or sensitive. It’s not wrote as an apologist, but as John the Baptist called Herod to repentance. Or as Christ rebuked Peter, get ye behind me Satan. If you can’t handle that, don’t go there.

CONSCIENCE is what all CONTROLLING GROUPS come to steal from their followers. You must agree with “THE GROUP” or you are punished, shunned or excluded. Once the prey has lost their personal conscience and given to the complete judgment of “THE GROUP’S LEADERSHIP” they are ready to be physically hood-winked, lead away from God given family authority, even willingly by suggestion into HOLY KIDNAPPING.

[aletheainheart]

I want to make one clarification in regards to the second last post above by this Conscience person in reference to not being allowed to come back to Charity churches.

I said that when I had one of my last talks with Denny that he said I would have to talk with Rick Libee to determine if I would be allowed to visit any of the Charity churches. I won't repeat all that followed as I have posted in my book and in posts above.

However, as I also said, I did receive an invitation to a wedding a year later from the Weaver family who were close friends and Myron is one of the cell group leaders and longtime member of high regard at Charity/Ephrata.

Further, maybe a month ago I got another invitation to a Charity wedding by Mose Stolzfus' son who was also a good friend (Tape Mose, not Preacher Mose). We have received invitations to every major Charity/Ephrata meeting (bible school, missions, etc.) even after we moved and did not forward any address. I have them all saved.

So they do invite people like me to come back to visit for whatever reason. However, I have shared what can and does happen when one goes back.

I am not a fanatic or a disruptor as all know who have met me. So maybe that is why people invite me to come even though we are at least partially under the ban (which means excommunicated). I'm not going to get up and yell out grievances to everyone. We are peaceful people and take the time to respectfully converse with anyone.

Anyway, I did actually inform Ruben Stolzfus that it would probably be best that we not come to his wedding as others would probably again make a sceen. I wanted to share this because people within the movement still consider us friends. There is a veriety of poeople within that movement indeed. Why they stay or come and go is for many different reasons.

Rick

[aletheainheart]

Henry,

Thanks for your two latest posts. I wish you and your family and friends all the best and God's direction.

Rick

[aletheainheart]

SOME ATTRIBUTES OF A CULT

I may have made mention of the following little tract before:

"Do Not Become Slaves of Men!" Five Ways to Identify a Cult.
http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Alethea/Cult.html

It is at the bottom of my pages of my online book about the Charity Remnant movement. As mentioned before, I was for some years involved in counter-cult ministry in Toronto. The group was formerly a CRI group that left them for various reasons and was headed by a former Jehovah's Witness elder David Aspinal (who owns North America's largest counter-cult library I believe). He was the original author of this little tract but which I modified (as it was originally geared towards JWs).

While I was involved with these people over 10 years ago we reached out to all kinds of cults (and Toronto had every flavour you can imagine). We even dealt with Muslims and the Toronto Vineyard (now TACF) as you can see in my other article:
http://truthinheart.com/Vineyard.html

I personally dealt with people vary high up in the Mormon, JW, and other cults. I have met hundres of ex-cultists from these two groups alone; and we made it our practice to knock on the doors of the people in these cults. They all have a story to tell if you can get passed the masques and showy religion they display on the front. I realized over time the best approach was to be one on one where people would not have the pressure to have everything together and would be more honest. We found there are thousands of cults in all places in North America. And yet, even though I was very informed about these things, some years later, I still did not pay attention to the red flags I saw within this Charity movement soon enough. So I don't expect others to see it all at once either.

The following are 5 ways outlined in the tract of how to identify a cult:

CULT CHARACTERISTIC No. 1 to 5:
1. Pyramid Power Structure.
2. Mind Control by Men, not the Spirit.
3. Isolating the Sheep.
4. Christ is the Way; but We're The Way to the Way (and you cannot go directly)
5. Slandering Opposition Unmercifully.

This is certainly not exhaustive and only general, but is helpful as most poeple within such a movement will internally admit to themselves that they see at least some of these things going on.

Again, I found over the years that you need to address people's consciences and not ever worry about their surface expressions. "The carnal mind is hostile to God" and His laws, etc., and when cornered by the truth will manifest all sorts of ugliness and deceit. No need to be worried as this is perfectly predictable. Instead of fighting back with the same spirit you turn the vital matter on itself or down to its lowest common denominator and then prob the conscience deeply. When you address the true needs of the hour by the Spirit of God then it cuts like a knife even if the person outwardly appears unmoved. Sometimes you may get the admission of the real effect years later as we have seen.

If you approach a member of a cult such as in the Charity movement in a way that brands them as a cult, then you will get them always laughing at you as crazy. It usually does little good to use that term or come at someone impersonally with a list of grievances. This is why we have always taken the time to share our lives and attempt to understand people as individuals. It is not about issues, opinions, etc., but real lives with intrinsic value and the heart of the matter. No one is going to be debated into the kingdom of God and become a lover of the truth without knowing the love of God.

Rick

[aletheainheart]

Holy Kidnapping

I could have added another chapter on this subject (but could have done that with many other subjects of equal importance). In regards to this issue I see the following to be the case generally speaking. The position is frequently believed amoung those of authoritarian belief that a son or daughter is bound to obey everything their parents say until either they get married or the parents die. This is believed to be based on the passages in Ephesians and Colossians.

Now what is generally believed in Charity churches is either one or the other position and sometimes neither of these. What some of the critics of this movement have objected to is the gross inconsistency with the leaders of this movement in making very strong and frequent statements about children submitting to their parents or fathers even if they are unbelievers and even if they expect them to live contrary to their personal beliefs. But then in many other cases young men and women are told to leave their parents to move in and be under the authority of a Charity church 'Remnant' family. How can these two apparently contradictory positions be practiced these critics wonder.

If the teaching over the pulpit is for all children to submit to their fathers then how is it that certain leaders can sneek teenage girls a cell phone and even buy a car with one of these girls (in a way that the local police have called fraud in using the parents money contrary to their knowledge) and wisk them off away from their parents and then forbid such girls to say one word to their parents? Whatever the state of the parents is perceived to be spiritually, my question is, is it true then that children should obey their parents until they are married? In light of the above scandal happening right here in Michigan there is some discussion of this subject in this movement. So what is the official position?

Almost all people will tell you when asked pointedly if we are to obey God rather than man, that we are to obey God over any human authority. But when you put this question in a less direct way and even evaluate the PRACTICE of the people in this movement, you can clearly see that the opposite is believed in many cases. We have discussed this in the chapter on authority, but the question remains, should a son or daughter obey everything their parents say and wish? If the parent asks the child to blaspheme God then what should the child do of any age? Shall a ten year old child obey their parents when such a request is made? How about a twenty year old? All of you will agree with the answer: No. So we see that there is a condition to obeying one's parents or authorities. But that was an extreme example to get everyone on the same page. What about lying? Should a child or even a wife or even a fellow leader under the head leader lie because they are asked to do so by higher up 'authority'? This the Charity people are divided on. Most would probably say no. But if you don't call it a lie (yet the situation implies that it is) a lot more would say they would be bound to do so, especially if it involved lying to civil government officers (like in the case of the frequent violation of immigration laws). What about matters where an individual believes their conscience forbids them to do such and such action? A large number would expect that such conscience would have to be submitted to the church or parental authority as both my wife and I experienced with these leaders. Except they again did not value our parent's authority which contradicted their views and direction.

Continued

[aletheainheart]

So the question comes down, is sin permissible, justified, or even overridden because some top general expects you to do such actions contrary to what you believe is right? My wife was told that she was under the "unbrella of authority" and did not need to worry about the direction of such authority because the authority was accountable to God even if she believed it went against her conscience and the law of God! This of course is debasing idolatry. The supposed authorities then can do ANY magnitude of evil to such persons who must merely submit. But the question comes down to this: Who is a real authority? And if this kind of authority is really the right way, then how does one know whether their parents are such an authority or some distant or local leaders are to be followed? The example in this movement is absolutely contradictory. But so is the idea of authoirty eqaully false.

Again, we dig deeper to the lowest common denominator: What is authority based upon with human relationships? Like all the laws of God, every law is based upon the nature and relations and circumstances of the individuals relating to each other. The law of God is never arbitrary as is believed by authoritarians. Things are not right and wrong in themselves. And authority is no exception. In fact authority is based on a relationship of dependance. One who is truly and RIGHTLY dependant upon another is bound to be under their authority ONLY in relation to that particular matter they are dependant upon. Thus the civil authorities are no authorities in spiritual matters as there is no dependancies upon civil government for spiritual leadership. The same is true for those we call the boss in the workplace. What about parents? Does not every parent progressively allow a child to make more and more descions for themsleves? The parent is not monitoring and directing their every movement and action are they? Or should a child before they are married constantly ask father or mother about every single decision in life? It is actually impossible to do that. So then what is the principle that regulates us in these matters? It is simply as said above. Authority only exists when real dependancy exists. I say real because there are many lazy people who wish people to make all of their deciscions, or others who love to place themselves over others to tell them what to do. Lust for power is the most powerful lust of all.

We see in fact authority will change with changing circumstances. A man who once had authority over his child may later need to come under the authority of that child in older years or if something happened to their mental or physical person. Thus we see that even a child gradually becomes an adult--not a marriage where they suddenly make all of their decisions by themselves--by slowly becoming mature or independant. They learn to be self-sufficient or independant. And as that is perceived the parent does not need to make such decisions for them and allows them to make their own decisions in such matters. But sadly there are many who do not believe this and the children just remain mental and physical slaves (because the parents fear they may end up believing something different if they don't enforce such practices). The child never grows up, or if they do get married and are then expected to be a ruler, then often they either cannot know how to make decisions now or they become the same tyrant their parents were over them.

Continued

[aletheainheart]

Holykidnapping is considered by those who use the term to mean that teenagers are lured away from their parents and expected to serve another family in supposed need. Those parents whose children are drawn away often feel very cheated because such families end up taking away money, possetions and labor that such parents feel belong within the family. Again, these families see a contradictory teaching in children are told to obey their parents, but when they see the leaders desire a helping hand suddenly the rule changes and children are told they can leave father or mother for the kingdom of God--similarly to what Jesus rebuked as was called Korban. Whatever service was owed to you as parents is null and void because of my monkish dedication to the kingdom of God.

Now I am not taking sides here in regards to spicific controversies among parents. It is obvious that when parents contradict the law of God that all must disobey them. And Jesus did say that we must let the dead bury their own dead. It is lawful to leave your parents when the law of God demands it. But it is our obligation to honor our parents and help them in their time of need as they once helped us. And it very well may be our obligation to leave and find fellowship with the people of God as a young person, and at the same time help out others in need at such locations. If it is not our absolute duty to always to everything a parent asks at all times, and further, if it sometimes becomes necessary to leave, then it is not wrong in itself to help out another family.

But what is wrong in the situation here is contradictory teaching that children should obey everything a parent says, but other children are told not to do that. How can you have it both ways. Either there is an exception or not. But if parents object to their children leaving merely because they believe their children must always obey everything, then there position is fatally false as we have seen (as recorded in Acts in what Peter said). It is not 'holy kidnapping' merely because children leave to go elsewhere. But what is evil is taking children away by flattery and luring them under the teaching that such families are holier than their parents when in reality if you ask these leaders they will tell you they are sinners every day and do not expect ever to be holy in this life. The young girls are lead to think the oppoiste. They see their parents often as sinful or having doctrinal error, and they are lead to believe the grass is greener on the other side of the fense. That this is "The Heartbeat of the Remnant" God's holy people where they can get busy in the kingdom of God in serving. And they will be busy until they are married away against their parents wishes. And there is no time to stop and evaluate things young lady! Don't you dare reason in your little servant's head that we are also sinful people like your parents. Their sins are a whole lot worse than ours. And our doctrine is more nerely perfect to! Besides, we are dynamic and moving ahead--just look at all the progress...

Again, my question is: what is the rule of action with regards to whom a person is to obey? Also, how can such leaders act as Pope and Judge over people's lives in these matters of parental authority even when they claim not to be blameless or holy, but actually sinners as they claim. How can they show that they sin less seriously or less frequently than the parents of such young girls they lure away? What is the basis for such decisions in telling a multitude that they must obey their parents in everything but to others they must not even talk to them (and to hang up on them if their parents merely say "We love you"!)? "Do not be slaves of men."

Rick

[searching_soul]

Hello brothers and sisters!

I would like to disgust the Submissive Wives topic.

I noticed that there is much more emphasis on wives submission in Charity Churches than in any other churches. It sounds Biblical. Women need it at present time.

When I observe families-it doesn’t look right. I see harsh men who give orders to theirs wives. I see women unhappy, burdened. What you can get from most messages on marriage is, if woman be submissive, (without even asking any questions), than her marriage will be good one and her children will grow up in love and turn out OK. More I listen-more it feels like something wrong with this doctrine. Is it truly all up to a woman? Verse on “love your wife as Christ loved the Church” is mentioned but not elaborated nearly us much as “wives, submit to your own husbands”. Thing is that most women are quite submissive just because of their Amish or Mennonite upbringing. Most of them were never exposed to feminists point of view on marriage relationships.

Is it Biblical for husband to lord over his wife? To treat her like she is one of his daughers?

Have any of you noticed same thing in Charity Church?

Listen to this messages and please tell me if you ever heard anything like that at Charity Church.
http://www.bbnradio.org/wcm/english/Programsandlinks/tabid/177/ItemID/389/Default.aspx , click Thursday, Friday.

[smurf]

Tho there are points made here, and I have read the book, it seems to be a thread of A-hearts ranting still.

If there is such a thing as holy kidnapping, then get the cops involved. If they are over 18, there is nothing you can do but pray.

So much bickering, and none of you are doing anything. I can't wait for this hate spreading board to go the way of the coo-coo. Strange that everyone loves it, and treats it as gospel, but when they need money to keep up and running, everyone just disappears....hypocrites.....

I will check back in a few months to see how everyone is ranting then in A-hearts world.....and by all means, lets let everyone know that you can tell where I am at by my IP address...the cyber Charity control way, fear......

[aletheainheart]

I'm not sure what "A-hearts" means.

I don't know why you say no one is doing anything. I am doing a lot of work to help people find faith in God after they have been so manipulated. I know others who are doing good as well who have posted.

I think this last smurf post is what most people would consider a rant.

In regards to the post above that, yes you have made an important point. There is indeed much more focus on wives submitting than husbands loving. I have also pointed out that there is also a great lack in these leaders submitting to their civil authorities. They have encouraged me and numberous others to break the law, and have even encouraged such things in brothers meetings! So the authority is arbitrary.

To be honest the subject you bring up is not always easy. I was just teaching about this in sunday school class yesterday. Every situatation is different. It is oversimplistic to just say a wife just needs to shut up and submit. For in many cases the husband will push her to lie and violate the laws of the land as I saw at Charity. But I don't want to belittle the power of a holy woman who honors her hypocrite husband and what that can do as the bible mentions. God often has us go through severe trials to prove His glory. But this does not mean that the children will not be influenced for bad by a bad dad. The advice I gave recently was to make sure that you seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Save your own soul first, then attempt to live a godly life and save others out of that. The will of God is our sanctification that we be holy the bible says. That will be a powerful rebuke. So it is not some magic formula without real holiness this submission thing...

[aletheainheart]

Update on Charity Movement.

Same things are still going on throughout this movement. Not saying every ascociated church is the same, as some are much different (and better) and cannot believe such things even happen elsewhere.

Aparently things are falling apart perhaps a little faster these days. And some of the children of important people are defecting from the system in stages. Train up a child in the right way and when they are old they shall not depart. So what does this mean when the children reject the movement after they are married and old enough to not be under the control?

I have always said that you will see the fruit over time. It takes 5 or 10 years to see cultists true colors come out for some people. We have watched this group now for over 10 years, and have witnesses who confirm the observations now from every time period of its existence (from the founder to the present). And over the last 5 years since the book we have learned that many have been cycled through the system in the way we have warned.

Several people in the last few months have testified that they asked Denny and/or Mose if they have read my book. They claimed they have not read it and refused to talk about it. I told them that I have other testimony that says they had read it. But I put to them the following question: What is worse, to lie about saying you did not read it when you did, or to refuse to read the only book about your movement when over 13,000 people have read it, numberous people are wondering about it, and when the authors were once friends who were both baptized by these two 'claimed' founders of the movement? I challenge any of you to ask this question to these men as to why they skirt their Christian duty to examine the claims made against them. See whether they tell you if they have read it or not. And why not if they have not? But I warn you, and this is perhaps why many do not ask such questions, if you ask this sincerely, you may very well be put on the black list. You must be prepared to go through great trials with these people.

We still are contacted every weak by people still in this movement. My warning is to be very careful in your exiting. If you are at all different or concerned about the things you see happening, then please realize that there are files kept on you so to speak. Once you bring up any concern, you may be in for a judgment against you. If you plan on leaving the movement, be very careful. You may not think it will go as bad as it does many times. Just make sure you are holy and brace yourself for any possible trials.

I have had a good number of calls from people who discovered some very serious corruption, including fraud and sexual abuse. I tell people to report things to the police and some have done that. My advice at times when it is very very serious is to just get up and leave, and usually such people are planning on moving away too. So sometimes it is best to not let them know until you are already moved away so that they will be left alone. Not everyone is able to take a severe judgment against them based on pulling things out of thin air. You may think that people visiting are just nice people wanting to help. But many times people are gathering information about you to later use against you if you defect from the system or challenge it. I would not say this but for hundreds of testimonies that are just this. So be careful.

[roye]

As I said, I know some of the inner workings of their leaders better than the vast majority of even those who attend. What I have seen, with a few exceptions perhaps, is leaders who truly "fear God, and eschew evil." Leaders who love the Lord and are doing their utmost to honor him, even at the price of their own reputations. I have seen a leader sit down in a private meeting and listen, with scarcely a comment or a defense, to hours of slander and false accusations, then turn and do his best to protect the one who spoke thus to him. Most of their youth are outstandingly zealous in the work of the Lord.
Yes, they are blind to some faults and even sins in their midst. That is perhaps their biggest fault. In some cases they major on the minor and minor on the major. That does not make them untrustworthy. I have seen them weep and labor, sacrificing their own time, health, money, and even risking their lives to spread the Gospel throughout the world- for the sake of Jesus- all with little recognition.
I have also seen abuse of power. I have seen people turning away with hurting hearts that could so well have been prevented (by both parties). I have heard baseless accusations leveled against those who disagreed with them. I have seen people leaving them in bitterness, ruing the day they ever trusted them.
In short, what I have seen is what is the case with most sincere Christians. Walking in all the light they have, being used of God mightily, highly useful in some areas while at the same time being ferociously attacked by the devil and falling short in other areas.
Rick has done a wonderful job of thoughtfully exposing some of their errors (with a bit of exaggeration), and I do not resent that. I also am not a part of them, and have no stakes in defending them. My concern is that those who are earnestly seeking will be turned away from a great blessing by those who do their best to expose Charity's faults, without offering an alternative. All of the nay Sayers have not yet been able to point to an example of a group who does not have equally serious faults. Even Rick admits that his church (if he attends one) is nothing to boast about. That does not redeem Charity, but it puts some perspective to the accusations.
It takes very little insight or spirituality to point out the faults in a church. Nor is it a sign of godliness to paint a beautiful theoretical picture of what a church should be. The real test of discernment is the concrete, practical advice you give those who are seeking God’s will. At this point I will not be guilty of causing divisions in what I consider a godly congregation unless I have a better option to offer.

[roye]

SORRY, THIS SECTION WAS SUPPOSED TO COME FIRST

I am not part of a “Charity Church”, but I was at one time. I have attended their events, such as Bible School, Leadership Seminar, and Missions Conference for the past ten years. I gave years of my life working very closely with them in their mission outreaches. I am personally acquainted with many of the pastors and leaders in this movement. Working in their mission, I have seen the innermost doings of the leaders. I have seen the way dissenters are dealt with, and have sat in on the discussions after the dissenters left. Here are some of my views.
This "holy kidnappings" accusation is baseless. To my knowledge, Charity has never in any circumstances whatsoever held somebody against his/her will. They have also never encouraged one to leave home secretly unless (a) the person was of legal age and wanting to receive spiritual help and (b) their authorities were physically restraining them or threatening violence against them should they attempt to seek that help. As you may imagine, it is a very rare event. They highly respect the authority structure within the family.
The accusation of secret spies being sent out to members to collect data for their files is equally baseless. If this was ever done, it was an isolated incident perpetuated without the blessing of the ministry.
I take serious issue with those who claim sexual abuse is rampant. That is purest slander. I do not know of a single leader in their midst who would discourage one from going the law with such reports. Has such abuse ever happened? Perhaps, but if so it was an act, by an evil individual, without any connection to the church. In America today this is one of the most common accusations thrown at churches or groups, and it is effective only because it is so hard to disprove. Anyone making those claims had better have hard evidence and be willing to take it to court.
I read Rick's book "Blinded by Plain Clothes" as it was then titled shortly after he wrote it. I enjoyed the book and agreed with much of what was written. I wish more people in Charity would read it, because it might open some eyes to faults within them. However, in my opinion, some of the opinions in the book were not totally Biblical, and neither did it honestly portray the condition of the Charity movement as a whole. (continued)

[aletheainheart]

Roye,

I appreciate much more objectivity in your testimony. This was basically what my view was for much of the time I was in it. I can well understand why you would make just about all the statements you make. I did share much of what you share in my book; and it can be seen that it is not some slander against these people who were so dear to us. We noted the great zeal many have, and the many tears and sacrifices. Also the minor faults found in many other groups. In the book we mentioned the difficulty in stereotyping the whole movement as having all identical beliefs, practices and evils. We denied that. In fact careful mention was made that there were general tendencies and some things did not pertain to every church or group. The movement is fluid and people are coming and going. But also, when you have a cult group or organized crime in a big business, what happens is that there are two groups of people.

Take for example the Mormon church today. It is well-known with counter-cultists that they are making themselves look more evangelical in doctrine and word in order to draw more converts and not appear to be so offensive to people. This they do in removing such words from publications that state finite godism as their creed. Thus many of their missionaries do not even know what the church actually believes on that subject. All the new converts I talked with do not know they believe in more than one God, but most who have parents in the system will eventually admit the doctrine. What I am getting at is that there are different levels of involvement in cults and deceitful enterprizes. Such groups have their PR people and in most cases the majority of the group is believing differently than the leadership or those using the system to fraud others.

We did not expect to find this with this movement, and it was more confirmed after the writing of "Blinded by Plain Clothes". Indeed, we found many people in the movement opposed many of the things we mention on this board. The reason we first wrote was to bring some things to mind to our friends. We expected some feedback at least. Instead we were very shocked at what it opened up.

What we later learned is that there is a core leadership that uses this whole system for selfish gain. It selects verious persons from the flock to become authoritarians who push people against their consciences. Many they leave alone unless they challenge others; these they push away different ways.

Before I go on, I would advise people to go to many Mennonite churches across the land rather than Charity. I'm not saying that I support sectarianism or the use of following a man in name like Meno. But certainly there are hundreds of such churches all over that are much better, and don't have the serious evils this group has.

[aletheainheart]

Before I go on about my first point, I want to again say that we do not welcome slander and have in fact rebuked many people who merely want to side with someone who opposes Charity. I'll say again, we see that most leave this group in bitterness. Many dive right off the deep end. Also, most jump into it as some hospital and are full of their own sins. No doubt many of these people bring on much of their own trouble. Anyone who knew me or my wife, knows that we frankly rebuked people of this nature, and we defended the group just as Roye does above (when we were in it). I was good friends with the late Vernon Martin and would often talk with him about many things. He showed me old and new letters from opponents of the group, and he didn't just ignore them baseless. I had some good friends in the movement who had a conscience and who would speak up from time to time. So the main body of objections did not originate with me by any means.

As for testimony, Roye, go contact Luke Martin in Parishville NY about what happened with sexual abuse even early on with one of the associated ministers. Recent independant testimony claims that it is still going on in the area. What you have to understand is this. Whenever you have authoritarianism, which means you are lording over people in an idolatrous way, especially where women are kept ignorant, and domestically overloaded, you have a very easy step to sexual abuse, as we see in modern history with so many authoritarian groups. If a women cannot have a conscience before God, then in some cases it is easy to take over her body as well. And when women have been put very low under men's feet then even when they are abused they will rarely admit it. I have found this to be the case in much research of many groups. They feel it just brings trouble to the family and other people to bring it out. But I have said that sexual abuse is much LESS serious than spirital abuse as one pertains to this momentary life and the other to eternal life! There is no way to claim such things are baseless unless someone takes the time to do a very thorough and scientific investigation. While I have not sought for that or have the ability to do that, what testimony has come has shown that these things do happen. And what my point is is that it is the fruit of authoritarian teaching to some degree.

As for holykidnapping. We have discussed with all or most who use the term their situations. Several or all of these people believe that their children should not be free to make all of their own descisions until they are married. Some may even believe that this is so until death. We do not believe that as shown in the book. And I would agree with Charity in encouraging people to get fellowship when they are of age even if that means going against parents. Certainly that is the teaching of Christ. However, does that mean we commit fraud in stealing funds from parents in assisting daughters to take money out of accounts? And slipping them cell phones secretely and buying cares with stolen money? Or illegally employing hutterites in such situations that are Canadians? Or having minors leave their parents? Or the host of other illigal and questionable practices this Charity group practices?

[aletheainheart]

Many times the parents have driven their children away. I don't take sides against Charity for that. However, there is a serious contradiction in this matter: You cannot say to some children that they must absolutely obey their parents even when they are in sin (the parents) and then tell others that they must forsake their parents. Which is it? What is the nature of authority. I have their tapes on the subject. I have their history. The book gives the answers. Authority is based on a state of real dependance. Our objective as parents is to create a state of independance and maturity. Not a spirit of individualism, but maturity and accountability towards God. Where all have one mediator between God and man. All else is idolatry people.

A general aquaintance with the movement will show the general things outlined in the book. But a deeper look into the whole history of the key leaders will show the true nature of the authoritarian manipulation program existing. Yes, besides that, I agree Roye with what you say about their biggest problem in using the word blindspots and not dealing with them. But we would have never written the book if we were not forced into seeing more serious things. We thought like you, that it was individual evils in persons here and there. But when we learned the WHOLE history, which we have unbroken chain from before it started, and saw the real network and programs, then we were compelled to do something to stop all the abuse. And this God has given grace to do.
So we see that there is a 2 Peter 2 network at the core. This is what controls things even though there are many people who think much differently and who do many wonderful things for the system and hopefully to God. And I tell you there is much fear to discover that and that is why people DON'T ask questions or care to deal with all these people that constantly go astray. Just ignore them, trust the leadership. Be as yesman. I know Luke Martin hated the idea of being a yesman and that is why he left this group which he had started. Fear controls many people in ignoring so many who have left. But why can they endure all the evils spoken against so many other groups without doing an impartial investigation? I know why as it deceived me for a season too. It is a powerful system and unfortunatuely I don't expect many to see through it before they are abused by it eventually. I stressed this in the book: if you listen to an evil report about someone, you better check all sides of controversy honestly. Again, we heard them say many evil things against so many people. Sometimes they were right or partly right. But now I know the other side of many of these one-sided stories. Also remember that the devil has many ministers of light looking very holy and zealous. By their fruits you know them Jesus said. James said if the tree has bad fruit, all of it is bad. You can't have good and bad fruit. The idolatry and spiritual abuse voids all the aparent good fruit unless the Mormon church is true???

As for the church, it is holy and not mixed as all these denominations have become (including Charity). There are believers all over the world and the US and Canada. They may not be in big numbers as in the past. The bible commands us in Ephesians 5 to expose the darkness, especially in professing christian groups that abuse others. It is one thing to see a big log in your own eye and feel hypocritical to accuse others of wrong doing, but quite another to take it out and warn your neighbor and not suffer sin upon yourselves. At one time in my life I wanted to get right with God and could not until I repented of my unholy fellowship. I didn't want to judge another soul but just wanted to get right myself. But God said to me that I must repent of what I partook in. The fellowship was unholy, the sins were committed together. The group was leavened.

[roye]

Unless I know all the details of the situations you are accusing Charity of, I cannot give an unqualified denial. It does seem strange that I was intimately acquainted with dozens of Hutterites that left their colonies and never heard of a single case in which those things happened. Most, if not all of them, left with little more than the clothes they were wearing.

I know that within the Mennonites countless cases of immorality, fornication, abuse, lying, and other gross sins have happened. Yet, like you said, there are many individuals and churches that carry the name Mennonite that I respect. I could give a seeker my blessing to attend these congregations. I do not feel that the abuses of others who share their name contaminates their own holiness.

In the same way, I cannot dismiss the many churches who are known as "Charity Churches". For the most part, they have little connection to Charity and are not under their leadership. The fact that some, especially outsiders, may give them the Charity label does not make them similar.

Again, I know that any church or individual who gives Satan cause to fear will be attacked. For this reason, I simply cannot accept the fact that there is a spirit of immorality even within Charity itself. I doubt many of the accusations, but it would be stupidity for me to pretend that I absolutely can prove them innocent. I simply have seen too many godly men or congregations endure withering assault because of their good deeds. In any court of law, the burden of proof lies with the accuser.

I do not expect to convince you of my viewpoint. I simply wish for others who are seeking to know that there are those who are deeply acquainted with Charity who do not share your belief that "the group (is) leavened." That includes those who probably know them better than you do.

There is one case of gross abuse of power among the ministry that has soured the name of Charity. That individual is not currently from Charity,yet his former connection with them has done a lot of damage to their reputation.

I merely beg those sincere seekers who may desire to fellowship with Charity or one of the affiliated churches not to take these rumors at face value. Even Jesus endured false testimony from His accusers. Paul was accused, and others even confirmed it, of teaching that sin was acceptable. Search it out for yourself. See with your own eyes if these things are true. At this point I have still found it profitable to maintain a line of fellowship with them and learn from some of their leaders. Rick says he has not found it so. Check the truth for yourselves.

Go to charityministries.com

Attend their mission conference in February to see.

Talk to the rank and file members.

Pray about it earnestly

[aletheainheart]

I can agree with some of this from Roye. However, what I have written is not rumors. I have given my address and phone number as well as the person who started the movement in 1980 for 2 years before Deny came along. The fact that you are taking this kind of approach without contacting me first suggests several things. Many people have contacted us privately, and if it was necessary we have shared details, some of which pertains to informing law enforcement. Only someone superficially connected to the movement, who maybe visits their website or goes to a few meetings and talks to a few leaders would respond in this way. Because anyone with any time to see it as it really is will no the numerous scandals over the years. Yes it is true that many keep their heads in the sand. Yes even I did too. But if people are honest they know that many of the things shared are not rumors but fact.
An impartial judge will only listen to one side. I have always advised people to examine things honestly and thoroughly before passing judgment.
Yes it is true, as I wrote in the book, that there are a lot of different people somehow connected to the charity denomination, and that can be rather complex. Many people have no idea of cultic activity and don't see it manifest. So as I said in the book, the more serious comments do not apply to such people.

Rick

[roye]

Rick, one thing needs some explaining. You are now saying that you saw all kinds of gross sins in their midst and realized that "the group was leavened." You would indicate that seeing all these instances of sexual abuse and "kidnapping" was what persuaded you to leave in order to not be leavened with the group. Yet I carefully read the book you first wrote after leaving. You had many things against Charity. They tolerated overweight people; they ate at MacDonalds; they believed in nonresistance; they discouraged higher education in most cases; they taught simple dress to the point of excluding more important matters; some of them did not wear seatbelts and joked about it.

Never in any part of the book did you mention sexual abuse or kidnapping or any of these other gross sins as reasons for leaving. You wrote respectfully, and I appreciated that. I thought the book was largely a good thing, albeit maybe stretched a little.

However, over the last few years your "reasons for leaving" have changed. The more time that goes on, the worse are the sins which you "originally" saw in their midst, according to your writings.

Were you not honest in your first book, lacking the courage to expose those evils? Or are you going the way of many who are bitter, and grasp at ever worsening stories that will damage Charity's testimony? Was your lack of success in undermining them through your original book the motivating factor to come up with more damaging stories?

If all these stories are true, why do they only emerge from you years after your leaving? You never accused them of these things in your original book- either because you hadn't heard the stories or you didn't believe them. Yet now you repeat the stories as fact and indicate that you knew them when you left. In fact, they were your real reason for leaving!

Any time one leaves a group or church and cannot let them in peace, but rather circulates worse and ever worsening stories, he damages his own credibility.

I do not mean to sound demeaning or argumentative. The discussion so far has been respectful, and I do not wish to destroy that. This issue begs an answer.

In short, if these were your actual reasons for leaving, why did you not state them from the beginning?

[roye]

Rick, one thing needs some explaining. You are now saying that you saw all kinds of gross sins in their midst and realized that "the group was leavened." You would indicate that seeing all these instances of sexual abuse and "kidnapping" was what persuaded you to leave in order to not be leavened with the group. Yet I carefully read the book you first wrote after leaving. You had many things against Charity. They tolerated overweight people; they ate at MacDonalds; they believed in nonresistance; they discouraged higher education in most cases; they taught simple dress to the point of excluding more important matters; some of them did not wear seatbelts and joked about it.

Never in any part of the book did you mention sexual abuse or kidnapping or any of these other gross sins as reasons for leaving. You wrote respectfully, and I appreciated that. I thought the book was largely a good thing, albeit maybe stretched a little.

However, over the last few years your "reasons for leaving" have changed. The more time that goes on, the worse are the sins which you "originally" saw in their midst, according to your writings.

Were you not honest in your first book, lacking the courage to expose those evils? Or are you going the way of many who are bitter, and grasp at ever worsening stories that will damage Charity's testimony? Was your lack of success in undermining them through your original book the motivating factor to come up with more damaging stories?

If all these stories are true, why do they only emerge from you years after your leaving? You never accused them of these things in your original book- either because you hadn't heard the stories or you didn't believe them. Yet now you repeat the stories as fact and indicate that you knew them when you left. In fact, they were your real reason for leaving!

Any time one leaves a group or church and cannot let them in peace, but rather circulates worse and ever worsening stories, he damages his own credibility.

I do not mean to sound demeaning or argumentative. The discussion so far has been respectful, and I do not wish to destroy that. This issue begs an answer.

In short, if these were your actual reasons for leaving, why did you not state them from the beginning?

[roye]

Please, a little clarification. It is true that you did not directly state that these serious moral offences were the reason for leaving. I said you INDICATED that. The post I just wrote may be interpreted a little more strongly by some than I would like it to be. Correct me if I am wrong, but in your post #52 (and previous) you referred to a number of gross sins and in that context said that you could no longer fellowship with them because the group was leavened.

Read my previous post as an honest question, not slander. Sorry for any misunderstanding caused by my coming across strongly.

[aletheainheart]

Dear Roye,

You have posted the same thing in two posts, you should delete one. To answer your question, you are wrong. You have not read what I have written correctly. First of all, we did not write exhaustively in the book. That would have been impossible and pointless. This is what we put in the book. And while people are so believing of the group the more negative things we wrote about it the less people would believe us. So there was a decision to focus on issues and sins that were fairly evident and admitted.

Secondly, this has been an ongoing investigation. We have learned of the more serious things after we left (more serious in the sense of number and in relation to as what people consider more serious--see below). I have never said these were the reasons we left. You have said that for no reason. Sin is the only reason we break fellowship. But again, we did not mention everything we knew in the book. I did not mention all the specific criminal activity I knew of when I wrote the book, but did make a few general statements you may have overlooked. But it is true that I did not realize how bad things were (as I now see) at the time we left or at the time we later wrote the book. This has nothing to do with bitterness or lack of courage to report. Just the opposite. It took enourmous courage to not only confront these people and write the book, but to eventually do so publically and spend a lot of time seeking to help numerous people. Further, we had hoped for better responses and did not realize how widespread the more serious sin was in the camp. So, over time, we learned of the more serious sins happening in other congregations here and there and realized how networked the scandals were. And also how many years back (right from the beginning years) these things have happened. No, I was not willing to accept criticism (especially really serious charges) against the leaders for the most part while I attended. I never tolerate gossip, but ended up compromising in my fellowship with such people by not being honest about all that I saw and knew. But it was much more complex than that. And that is hard to explain. Those who have been involved can know what it is like to be under a delusion in such a dynamic group.

This post contains nothing new in what I have written above. This is just for Roye's sake as he has not read what I have posted here carefully. Again, the reason for mentioning some of the really serious things, and I have not mentioned everything I know, is because they pertain to real dangers that many people have been abused by. And they continue to happen. Yet here is another twist in answer to your question. I do not think sexual abuse or criminal activity is worse than spirtual abuse. Such statements, like really serious sins, are merely in relation to how most people view things. Think about it. What is worse, abusing people physically, and harming their bodies or abusing them spiritually and so potentially destroying their souls? Most people do not look at things this way. Roye, your above statements miss the seriousness of my book in this respect. Your mentioning of the points is but an arbitrary selection at best. At worst you are pointing out things I mention that make me sound like I was nitpicking on minor points. Why don't you mention all the points I make? What about the whole deal about abusive authority?

Further, I did not treat the belief in non-resistance as a sin point, but merely as a question. We have many friends who are non-resistant in philosophy. My wife was non-resistant in theory when we married.

Now read the chapter over again about authority. Tell me if there is anything more serious than to lord over someones' conscience to the destruction of their soul? Remember how John end's his epistle. 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

[aletheainheart]

For those who pray, please consider Luke Martin's family at this time. Luke was the man that started the fellowship that later was called Charity Christian Fellowship. Luke and family now live in Parishville NY near Canada. Their youngest, a boy, was killed on Friday by a very drunk driver on the road near their home. The funeral is on Wednesday. They have recieved a good deal of support over the last few days.

Rick

[machinenate777]

Dear Charity,This is Nathan here.You remember me don't you?You people took me and my sisters out of foster care then discarded me when I wasn't conveniently Brainwashed by your hogwash.I was 9 years old and I was expected to be perfect.You people have forever destroyed a young boy's life and my expierience with your kind is one I wish I could forget.You people have taken away my dear sisters and won't let me speak to them.You lie to them about me and the rest of my family.Truly though it may take some time you will all face the harsh justice of our judicial system.I will forever dedicate myself to warning the naive public about your deception and how you hide behind your plain dress and fair speech.Behind closed doors it is a different story with you people.You know how you all believe that in the last days their will be the mark of the beast and you will all be hunted and persecuted.I know where a large majority of you live and I will be happy to give the authorities your addresses.Fare thee well F---ers.

[brenda765]

This is Machinenate777's mother and he told me of this discussion board. They are a CULT who messes with peoples lifes and minds. Nathan left the church afew years ago and came back to Tucson. he is doing well. But he has many problem associated with what the church put him through. The things the church and members of the church do to children is ABUSE !! and they get away with it !!!
My two girls are in the home of Robert and Jean Benna in Bedford PA My two girls are not allowed contact with myself, there half sister or there brother ! Once excuse given was...it's because of the path Nathan has chosen. what path is that ??? a path not filled with cult beliefs ???? he is doing very well. Doesn't drink or do drugs and works everyday.
BUT...he has some mental health issues as the result of the church !
and how many times does one person need to be baptized ???? He was baptized 6 or 7 times !!! He was beat with hoses, boards, paper towel rings. If the kids don't abide by rules they beat them. My sons finger was broke by a beating he got !
The church members abuse and get away with it. People like social services see the outward apperance and see only goodness. The truth is...they use there way of dress and there cult beliefs to decieve others. They go against what god teaches.
I know my one daughter does not want to be there. But if she were to speake up I can assure you she would face reprocussions.
When she told her half sister a year ago that she can no longer talk to her, she was breaking down in tears. If we try and call we get hung up on.
I trusted the members of the church with my children and all they have done is HURT them !!

[brenda765]

By the way Rick....I believe it is you who said you will defend yourself against slander ?? Slander is when unspoken truths are said.
you all appear so god fearing and good to those looking in. But behind closed doors, as Nathan said...it's quite a different story.
Your church HURTS people !!

[aletheainheart]

Brenda,

Please do not associate me with Charity. If you read my book and posts then you can see I have long left that group and have exposed it.

Not sure what you mean about me saying I defend myself against slander.

As for Nathan, that is very sad. We have seen many people get abused by this cult and turn out cursing. We do not side with anyone because we agree against Charity though. Not sure what you mean by doing well when we can read the last line.

Rick

[roye]

1. Neither Nathan nor his sisters were ever cared for by a family from Charity. The family where Nathan lived is now part of a church that has little connection with Charity and opposes various points of their policies.

2. No one expected him to be perfect, though they may have asked him to be respectful, tell the truth, and keep himself pure.

3. Yes, most Christian families in America discipline (or beat, as you call it) disobedient children. I do question the story of the broken finger. Obviously there is more to the story if there is even a story at all.

4. I highly doubt that he was baptized six or seven times. I was acquainted with the family where he stayed, and never heard this to be the case. Also, his church only baptized upon the request of the individual and did not like repeated baptisms.

5. Any adoptive/foster parents have the right to monitor communications if relatives are threatening their lives (this happened!)or trying to turn the hearts of the children against God or their guardians. What else do you expect? "Yes, you may listen as your brother rails over us as he pledges to align himself with the Beast"?

6. Blaming all his problems on the church? Perhaps unwise decisions were made in certain cases. But happy, secure children from loving homes usually do not end up in foster care to start with. There are more factors to consider than just the last foster home in which he stayed.

I am deeply sorry that the situation turned out this way. But these words are long on accusations and short on credibility. Only those who have already trashed Charity in their minds will blindly swallow those posts.

I do not know this situation in all detail, but at the time I personally knew him, his sisters, and their host families enough to now recognize when someone is trying to speak strict truth or not. Whether one is for this movement or against it, he is compelled by honor and God's Word to try to separate fact from fiction.

You speak of what is done behind closed doors. Please, I have no ulterior motive for defending them. I was not personally involved. But they are certainly NOT secretive concerning their beliefs. Sit in their church on Sunday morning and hear for yourself. Yes, Sunday mornings are not totally representative of a person's life. But I do not see a pattern of deliberate deception or putting up great facades, and I know many of those families very, very well.

(Message edited by roye on July 13, 2007)

[brenda765]

I will reply to this soon. But I want to give some thought before I reply. }

[wifeinchrist]

I haven't posted in ages but I had a few things to say.
Firstly I am concerned about the attitudes expressed by Rick in some of thngs he says. I feel there is a air of superiority and perhaps exaggeration as well. He obviously has had many experiences with Charity fellowships and while I disagree with many views that this denomination holds I do get a little tired of reading soooo many insistent negative remarks followed by weak disclaimers of true love and concern. I hold no ill will against Rick in any way, I don't even know him, this is simply an observation based on my reading.

Secondly, and totally independent of the first section is a firm affirmation of the suppression and manipulation of women in many of the churches. Our own church is one of the best at encouraging and supporting women and men with equality and yet holding firmly to the stand of the man as the head of the household. I thank God for this.
Also, I had mentioned in an earlier post that my and my husbands family are members of the same church in OH. We made changes from Charity lifestyle to being Christians withing our OWN culture, and explaining why we did not agree with the exclusive "bubble" existence and teachings.
In one confrontation between our brother-in-law (a minister) and my husbands' actual brother, the minister suggested to me, right in front of my husband that since he did not attend college that I should explain to him why he was wrong!!!!
I attended collge and was not speaking during the conversation due to the widespread idea that a women may not speak on her own convictions or belifs, except to other women.
I could feel my face growing red and hot and I had to physically bite my tounge to keep from lashing out. Since this man has gone to college and is very articulate he can easily dismay and confuse our families with a sweet silver tounge.
I on the other hand am not afraid nor blind and I would've been able to tear down his arguments easily and perhaps should have rebuked him for saying such a thing.
But this church is getting more and more ridiculous as time goes on. 2 weeks ago my sisiter told me that the main message on Sunday was on modesty, the main 2 issues were ,how many pleats a man should have in his khaki pants.WHAT!!!?
Also the sisters were instructed on wether their dresses should have a defined waist of any kind rather then a very loose jumper/dress. His wife (different minister) dresses like this and looks like a walking rectangle.
My sisters and mother wear skirts, blouses, jumpers etc. and this made them very embarassed. My own brother , 24, was made to feel uncomfortable as to their dress.
These stupid kinds of things are addressed while gossip and insults are rampant. I understand so many of the blindnesses that go on and hope that some day our family isssues will be resolved in love. Till then all we can do is pray. I do not mean to lash out at this church, I am merely stating the obvious, these issues are so silly and an abuse of the pulpit,we get soooo tired of them.

Blessings on all of you who are seeking light, I am taking great interest in the things posted here, wether or not I agree.

Good morning,
wifeinchrist

[aletheainheart]

nameless wifeinchrist,

You are only touching on minor things and that is why you look at they whole denomination the way you do. A little more time will show you much more serious problems. Then you will not interpret my statements as bad attitudes, etc.

If you have some objection to anything said then point it out specifically. Otherwise your comments are baseless slanderous rants without any support. It is a very dangerous thing to just go by how you "feel". What I mean is, when people go by how they feel then what happens is that they impute their own feelings or character upon others as if they have the same feelings or character when saying such words. I mean when someone says such and such, they assume that it is said in the same way they would have said it. A selfish person interprets everyone's statements selfishly, or as selfishly intended. A bitter person interprets any negative statements with the assumption of bitterness. A hateful person hateful in the same way. A perverse person perverse in the same way. A gossipy person gossipy in the same way. A slanderous person slander in the same way. We need to get beyond feelings because most people's character is sinful and so interpret other people's words sinfully. Such people can only say they feel you are saying something sinful because they cannot give you any examples or facts. Just prejudice. Just assumptions based upon feelings. This is no exaggeration or small matter.

This is why sinners misunderstand the bible and God. As an apologist missionary who has travelled around to numerous campuses across the US witnessing to thousands of skeptics, I can say that this is the number one problem in evangelism. People assume God has the same motives and character as most professing Christians or has their own character. Thus you cannot understand the bible right or theology without having a pure heart....

There are rules to conversation, one being that you attempt to understand the people you are reading or corresponding to, and not just assume they mean this or that, or worse, that they are me