Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: March 15, 2012 09:39PM
If the ''Melbourne Weasel'' is correct then GRACE has returned to the cult. The last we heard from Grace was roughly 12 months ago when she posted the following on her blog...
[funkyfreeganjournal.blogspot.com]
Though I have been too busy to post much these days, I have been continuing my freegan lifestyle and outreach, with such things as the dumpster rides, interviews, personal bin raiding, and my work at the Hippie Kitchen.
In my last post, I mentioned that I would be leaving the LACW this spring, to hit the road once again. I'm excited to get back to the nomadic lifestyle that has shaped my adult life.
At the moment, my friends and I have a van as a living space, but we're looking for more. We don't want anything extravagant, but just a small trailer (10' to 14') that can be easily towed by our vehicle.
It's unusual for me to ask for anything, but I am aware that people often have travel trailers or campers rotting in their backyards. If any of my readers has access to such an item (like the one on my graphic wishlist below) that they'd be willing to part with for free or cheap for the sake of a few free spirited freegans, please contact me! Any response is greatly appreciated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we know she had decided to move on from the Los Angeles Catholic Workers and it seems her next stop may have been the ''Truth Believers'' aka the ''disbanded'' Jesus Christians which would have provided her with the freeloading ''nomadic lifestyle'' which she so desperately craves.
Was Grace in fact pleading for a caravan on behalf of the ''Truth Believers'' whom she had recently joined?
That may well be the case. Considering Grace was apparently abused whilst in the Jesus Christians i'm very saddened to hear she may have decided to put herself back in the firing line.
[funkyfreeganjournal.blogspot.com]
Though I have been too busy to post much these days, I have been continuing my freegan lifestyle and outreach, with such things as the dumpster rides, interviews, personal bin raiding, and my work at the Hippie Kitchen.
In my last post, I mentioned that I would be leaving the LACW this spring, to hit the road once again. I'm excited to get back to the nomadic lifestyle that has shaped my adult life.
At the moment, my friends and I have a van as a living space, but we're looking for more. We don't want anything extravagant, but just a small trailer (10' to 14') that can be easily towed by our vehicle.
It's unusual for me to ask for anything, but I am aware that people often have travel trailers or campers rotting in their backyards. If any of my readers has access to such an item (like the one on my graphic wishlist below) that they'd be willing to part with for free or cheap for the sake of a few free spirited freegans, please contact me! Any response is greatly appreciated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So we know she had decided to move on from the Los Angeles Catholic Workers and it seems her next stop may have been the ''Truth Believers'' aka the ''disbanded'' Jesus Christians which would have provided her with the freeloading ''nomadic lifestyle'' which she so desperately craves.
Was Grace in fact pleading for a caravan on behalf of the ''Truth Believers'' whom she had recently joined?
That may well be the case. Considering Grace was apparently abused whilst in the Jesus Christians i'm very saddened to hear she may have decided to put herself back in the firing line.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: March 15, 2012 09:52PM
Didn't Grace and one of the Kronmilloer twins recently marry, as well? Last April, I think it was.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: March 15, 2012 11:37PM
Quote
zeuszor
Didn't Grace and one of the Kronmilloer twins recently marry, as well? Last April, I think it was.
Going by her blog it would appear she was still going out with someone called Eric at the beginning of last year. He appears in the below clip from 02:00 onwards. He's a fellow bin raider and free loader.
[www.youtube.com]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/15/2012 11:38PM by Apollo.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: March 16, 2012 02:44AM
zeuszor:
If you post personal attacks regarding either members of this board or "Jesus Christians" they will not be approved.
Continue in this behavior and you will be banned from this message board.
Last warning.
If you post personal attacks regarding either members of this board or "Jesus Christians" they will not be approved.
Continue in this behavior and you will be banned from this message board.
Last warning.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: March 16, 2012 11:21AM
From my own personal perspective (perhaps shared more widely??) I do not want to be seen to comment on the Jesus Christians's "beliefs"...
(Be that "Living by Faith" or the committment to community or the voluntary poverty that may be read into the Sermon on the Mount) ....many of which I share with them still
..I do though think that where their BEHAVIOUR is either illegal or unethical:
Fraud (deceiving Kevin and the community in Australia to move out of the property leased as much in their name as McKay's and providing him unfettered access to all the cash (some AUD$10,000?) they held, requiring individuals to "forsake all" with no further proprietary rights to recompense in the event that they depart the JC's for any reason)
Extortion (blackmailing parents into silence with the threat of loss of access to their children in any fashion...e.g Betty Ngogre's family in Kenya)
Grooming (Bobby Kelly and Joe Johnson, were both underage, at the time they "committed" to the JesusChristians(obviously unsuccessfully in Bobby Kelly's case)...clandestine communication that occurred without the knowledge of their parents, or that purposely misled the parents....a situation that I seem to remember Robin also was in?)
Misrepresentation (the current "re-badging" exercise being a classic example of the readiness to which they engage in deceit (all to a "good cause" as they tell themsleves)....
Welfare Fraud (Yes....you may "spoil Eygpt" and steal from "Ceasar" as "Ceasar" originally stole from God (this being their actual interpretation of the passage) however the ethical consequence of this is that you personally develop, and are SEEN to have, the pyschology of common thieves)
Estranging family (deliberately poisoning relationships between the young lives McKay preys upon and the family who can see through the sham to the servitude their chilldren became engage in...NOT to "follow Jesus" but to spend their lives peddling the ghastly literature of self-seeking McKay)
(....just to site some general examples, and disregarding several other specific instances of questionable behaviour, such as the onus of Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Predators, unpon the leadership in any organization within Australia!
I think that there IS, sufficient grounds to be "critical"....
....if the JesusChristians with to be "delisted" as a cult, they only need reform themselves,
in keeping with the Christ that they currently lie that they stand for.....
(Be that "Living by Faith" or the committment to community or the voluntary poverty that may be read into the Sermon on the Mount) ....many of which I share with them still
..I do though think that where their BEHAVIOUR is either illegal or unethical:
Fraud (deceiving Kevin and the community in Australia to move out of the property leased as much in their name as McKay's and providing him unfettered access to all the cash (some AUD$10,000?) they held, requiring individuals to "forsake all" with no further proprietary rights to recompense in the event that they depart the JC's for any reason)
Extortion (blackmailing parents into silence with the threat of loss of access to their children in any fashion...e.g Betty Ngogre's family in Kenya)
Grooming (Bobby Kelly and Joe Johnson, were both underage, at the time they "committed" to the JesusChristians(obviously unsuccessfully in Bobby Kelly's case)...clandestine communication that occurred without the knowledge of their parents, or that purposely misled the parents....a situation that I seem to remember Robin also was in?)
Misrepresentation (the current "re-badging" exercise being a classic example of the readiness to which they engage in deceit (all to a "good cause" as they tell themsleves)....
Welfare Fraud (Yes....you may "spoil Eygpt" and steal from "Ceasar" as "Ceasar" originally stole from God (this being their actual interpretation of the passage) however the ethical consequence of this is that you personally develop, and are SEEN to have, the pyschology of common thieves)
Estranging family (deliberately poisoning relationships between the young lives McKay preys upon and the family who can see through the sham to the servitude their chilldren became engage in...NOT to "follow Jesus" but to spend their lives peddling the ghastly literature of self-seeking McKay)
(....just to site some general examples, and disregarding several other specific instances of questionable behaviour, such as the onus of Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Predators, unpon the leadership in any organization within Australia!
I think that there IS, sufficient grounds to be "critical"....
....if the JesusChristians with to be "delisted" as a cult, they only need reform themselves,
in keeping with the Christ that they currently lie that they stand for.....
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: March 16, 2012 10:09PM
Malcolm Wesley WREST:
Certainly seems fair to criticize the bad behavior of the group and also the beliefs that may promote that behavior.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2012 09:57PM by rrmoderator.
Certainly seems fair to criticize the bad behavior of the group and also the beliefs that may promote that behavior.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2012 09:57PM by rrmoderator.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
Apollo
()
Date: March 17, 2012 11:41PM
Quote
Malcolm Wesley WREST
Grooming (Bobby Kelly and Joe Johnson, were both underage, at the time they "committed" to the JesusChristians(obviously unsuccessfully in Bobby Kelly's case)...clandestine communication that occurred without the knowledge of their parents, or that purposely misled the parents....a situation that I seem to remember Robin also was in?)
Child Labour (Deceitfully gaining the trust of a vulnerable and poverty stricken Indian family who would later allow McKay to take their two children (Rachel and Elizabeth Sukumaran 12 and 14) to Australia with promises of an Australian education and a better quality of life. Instead they were forced to trawl the streets eight hours per day selling McKay's propaganda. Annette's children were also forced to trawl the streets for eight hours per day selling McKay's propaganda and they weren't allowed to eat unless they met their daily targets.
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: March 19, 2012 11:08PM
SCRIPTURE TWISTING...
The Scriptures simply do not support a "peace at any price" or "hands off" position. False teachers like the McKays, and false doctrine destroy people spiritually.
Please consider the pastoral epistles where Paul calls out the false teachers by name.
Read about Hymaneus (sp?), Philetus (sp?), and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20).
We can also look at 3 John where Paul calls out Diotrephes by name.
Then, of course, there is the entire book of Galatians in which Paul speaks directly to the false doctrines infiltrating the church there.
Jude 3 commands us to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The context of the passage makes it clear that we are contending against false teachers. 2 Peter says very similar things.
1 Corinthians 11 says that some divisions are necessary so that those who are approved by God may become manifest from those who are not.
2 Cor. 11 also has very strong statements about false teachers.
Another great passage is Acts 20:28-31.
Then there is my personal favorite passage on the topic, Ephesians 5:11-12.
And what about 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul tells the church there to deliver the fornicator to Satan for the destruction of his flesh?
He's a false teacher and false prophet, he's a wolf among the sheep, he's a twenty-first century Diotrephes. What are the fruits (Galatians 5:22-23) of the McKays' ministry? Do I need to spell my point out for anybody reading this?
1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 11:22PM by zeuszor.
The Scriptures simply do not support a "peace at any price" or "hands off" position. False teachers like the McKays, and false doctrine destroy people spiritually.
Please consider the pastoral epistles where Paul calls out the false teachers by name.
Read about Hymaneus (sp?), Philetus (sp?), and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:20).
We can also look at 3 John where Paul calls out Diotrephes by name.
Then, of course, there is the entire book of Galatians in which Paul speaks directly to the false doctrines infiltrating the church there.
Jude 3 commands us to earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The context of the passage makes it clear that we are contending against false teachers. 2 Peter says very similar things.
1 Corinthians 11 says that some divisions are necessary so that those who are approved by God may become manifest from those who are not.
2 Cor. 11 also has very strong statements about false teachers.
Another great passage is Acts 20:28-31.
Then there is my personal favorite passage on the topic, Ephesians 5:11-12.
And what about 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul tells the church there to deliver the fornicator to Satan for the destruction of his flesh?
He's a false teacher and false prophet, he's a wolf among the sheep, he's a twenty-first century Diotrephes. What are the fruits (Galatians 5:22-23) of the McKays' ministry? Do I need to spell my point out for anybody reading this?
1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luk 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 11:22PM by zeuszor.
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay (thread 2)
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: March 19, 2012 11:33PM
Quote
zeuszor
Sorry, I just noticed a big mistake in my above post.
It should have read, "...from a set of unpublished and uncopyrighted notes that were written by a former counselor for the Wellspring Retreat."
They were neither published nor copyrighted. I studied those notes thoroughly when I was in therapy, and then "tweaked" and adapted them in order to apply them to the JC cult.
Also, I did that as well with sections of this interview. I have decided that now is the time to show all of you this. I always planned on doing so, and have decided that the stars are aligned properly tonight.
I doesn't matter if we're talking about a high-school class project or a modestly-successful NRM: the group dynamics, the social-psychological influences and the internal and external mechanisms of control are roughly equivalent from situation to situation. And the comments and experiences are a constant, too.
In other words, I could be reading you the testimony of a former member of the Twelve Tribes cult, but in a certain context and in such a way that if you didn't know any better you'd think that I was reading you the testimony of an ex-Jesus Christian. See what I mean? They're all kind of interchangable like that. Lots of similarities, common experiences.
I'm trying to, and have been trying to, how the commonalities between groups and demonstrate that in a sense none of them are unique. A high-control, abusive group is a high-control, abusive group by any other name. They're all cults.
[www.twelvetribes-ex.com]
The Community maintains its own criteria for judging fruit which states “Judge a tree by its fruit. If the fruit is rotten the tree is rotten.” They proclaim that the Twelve Tribes are for everyone and that those who fail to respond will suffer physical and spiritual death. Community members believe that Yahshua only grants protection to them. Because people can’t implicitly obey Elbert Eugene Spriggs some have committed suicide. Often young adults leave their parents to join the Community. The man and wife relationship is repeatedly destroyed. Although the Tribes outwardly promote personal relationships, these friendships are not allowed to develop or flourish even between married couples. Many married couples surrender their home (to the Tribes), remain in the Community 5 or 10 years and then get kicked out or they may decide to leave which reduces them to zero financially, spiritually and emotionally. This scene plays out quite often in the Twelve Tribes. What kind of shape are these people reduced to after contact with the Community? This is the visible fruit.
[forum.culteducation.com]
The JCs maintains its own criteria for judging fruit which states “Judge a tree by its fruit. If the fruit is rotten the tree is rotten.” They proclaim that the JCs are for everyone and that those who fail to respond will suffer physical and spiritual death. Community members believe that Jesus only grants protection to them. Young adults leave their parents to join with the JCs. The man and wife relationship is repeatedly tempered with, as well. Because people can’t implicitly obey David McKay some have attempted suicide. Some ex-members have reportedly committed suicide. Although the JCs outwardly promote personal relationships with non-members, these friendships are not allowed to develop or flourish. Many remain in the JCs 5 or 10 years, or for however long, and then get kicked out or they may decide to leave which reduces them to zero financially, spiritually and emotionally. What kind of shape are these folks reduced to after contact with the JCs? This is the visible fruit of the Jesus Christians.
The surname of the man who wrote most of those uncopyrighted notes is PILE. Full credit must go to him. He and I spoke last weekend and he is totally cool with my use of his notes. Thanks, sir!
Re: "Jesus Christians," Dave McKay, the "Truth Believers", "cult"
Posted by:
zeuszor
()
Date: March 20, 2012 11:20PM
DAVE MCKAY, MODERN-DAY DIOTREPHES:
3Jo 1:9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.
3Jo 1:10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
3Jo 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.
Consider Diotrephes...
[www.thefaithfulword.org]
"How do you stop the discerning faithful in the church from disrupting your plans to sneak in a false doctrine or two? Your biblical model is Diotrephes. He found an ideal mechanism to silence those whom opposed him and was even able to make it seem as though his approach was spiritual. Even grander, this approach can be used in personal relationships. We will explore how.
I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:9-11)
Ambition
It is unclear whether Diotrephes was the formal elder (overseer/pastor) of the church or whether he simply desired to be especially prominent. In reality, this is irrelevant because it is equally true of pastors or laymen that they can become "ambitious for the place of first distinction." Ambitious for preeminence in the church is entirely different than being desirous to do the work of shepherding/pastoring. Ambition for prestige and control is what leads to "lording it over the flock" (1 Peter 5:3), that is, to become the monarch of the flock and the object of adoration, and it might be added, some small amount of intimidating influence. Contrast that with being desirous to do the work of pastor, which is to dedicate oneself to service, to study, to counseling, and to openly debating and refuting doctrinal errors.
Poor Doctrine
Diotrephes did not accept the teaching of the apostles (v.9). Given his standing of prestige in the church it should be readily evident that he was likely a Christian, and maybe even the majority of his doctrine was "orthodox." Nonetheless, some aspect of Diotrephes’ doctrine, probably the specific "something" to which John refers when he says he "wrote to the church," was not aligned with the apostles’ teaching.
Now, the problem for Diotrephes is that he had run out of arguments and Scripture to justify his stance. Some do-gooder in the body was obviously pressing Diotrephes to give a biblically sound defense for his corrupted doctrine and he was unable to do so. In short, he was trapped. How do you shout down the discerning individuals who just will not shut up and who refuse to stop demanding an answer for the false hope you have articulated so well?
But a Really Good Strategy
Diotrephes used a wonderful and almost unassailable two-pronged attack. An almost perfect strategy. First he attacked the character of the apostles, not their doctrines or theology, but their character, "unjustly accusing us with wicked words." This is so precious. For it should be noted that Diotrephes was able to sidestep his real problem. He could not address the doctrines because he had no Scriptural leg to support him, so he attacked the character of those with good doctrine in order to discredit them and by association, everything they said.
How beautiful that strategy is. How do you counter a character assassination? He said, she said, someone said, all leaves impressions in the minds of the hearers and truth becomes secondary and ultimately lost. The focus is no longer doctrine but whether the person has a good reputation, which by the way was just defamed by the very accuser who is trying to hide his doctrinal failings in the first place.
Prong two is the stroke of genius to the master plan. Cut off fellowship between those who have true biblical discernment and those on whom you are trying to impose the erroneous doctrine. Once fellowship is broken, it becomes impossible for anyone to contradict you. Those who remain in fellowship are those whom you have already won to your point-of-view (who lack appropriate discernment) or are those who are too intimidated to invoke the Word of God against you or against your faulty doctrine. The result is that no one is left to raise any dissent or to contradict you, or worse, raise a valid biblical debate.
In other words, you win by default. You have silenced all your detractors and you win. You do not have to be right, because you win. And by winning, you do not mean that you have attained good doctrine but that you have retained control in spite of your lack of answers and in spite of your poor doctrine. You win, the others lose.
How do you break fellowship between the discerning and the deluded? This requires careful scheming and impeccable execution. You must "put them out of the church" just as Diotrephes did. The only known mechanism that has the appearance of Scriptural and ethical propriety is by using "church discipline." Not genuine "church discipline" however, but pseudo (fake / imitation) church discipline.
Genuine church discipline is all about bringing the sinner back into fellowship by encouraging his repentance from a sin. To encourage his repentance you must privately rebuke him, publicly rebuke him in front of the church, then ultimately treat him as you would any sinner on the street (Matthew 18). Of course, this means no longer inviting him to your breaking-of-bread church services, asking him to take on deacon duties, or allowing him to teach, pray, or read Scripture during meetings of the church. Every interaction will be polite, filled with quotations of Scripture that entreat him to confess his sins and turn from them, always inviting him back to fellowship with God and the church.
This, of course, will never do for your purposes. You goal is not restoration to fellowship, but to permanently sever it. You do not want the Bible-thumpers being lovingly confronted with Scripture because you have none to offer. And frankly, you are the sinner (introducing improper doctrine—remember?), so you do not want or need the discerning ones to repent from any sins, you just want them to go away and not come back. OK, you would also settle for them to just stay quiet and let you run things, but you know that someone who has sufficient discernment to know the Word also knows he is obligated to speak the truth in love, always and often, so you know they will not stay silent.
Executing an Evil Strategy Well
The solution is to level a charge that is improvable, and most importantly, is impossible from which to repent. Among church power brokers the favored charge is "factiousness" (Titus 3:10). Paul says that you should reject a factious man after one or two warnings. Issue these warnings generically from the pulpit, offer no names or specifics, just make generalized warnings—later you can refer to those warnings as already being issued and streamline the entire process.
Then defame and slander their character by adding the charge of anger because those who are passionate about the Word always express emotion sooner or later out of frustration at not being heard so you will always be able to point to some tangible public display of emotion. Oh, never mind that Titus 3 actually defines a factious man as being the one who is introducing destructive and error laden doctrines and who is dividing the fellowship of the church based on improper motives because almost no one is discerning enough in the church to look up the passage on their own, much less properly interpret it in context (hmm, the irony is that while you are falsely accusing the righteous man of being factious Titus 3 actually defines the real factious man as being you). The charge of factiousness itself is sufficient to win the day.
Then, out the door the trouble-making Bible-quoting discerners will go. Most will leave of their own accord anyway, having had enough of their characters being maligned. The few that stick around can easily be sent through a pseudo-church discipline meeting and they too will soon be gone. And since they have nothing they can repent from, they will never return to plague your fellowship again. In fact, this form of ungodly "discipline" might best be characterized by the term "shunning" because its sole goal is to irrevocably destroy fellowship. However, you must never use that term in public because it might draw attention to fact that what you are doing to these innocent individuals really is shunning which is strictly an illegitimate act; we are nowhere called to destroy fellowships but to restore them.
Only One Complication
There is one down side to the tactic. John calls the Diotrephes strategy both "wicked" and "evil." To implement such an approach in the church, in a personal relationship, or in a family setting requires that you leave your interest in obeying the Word of God behind, that you stop loving the victims (love is defined as doing things for their benefit not yours--1 Corinthians 13:5), and that you determine that you are willing to tolerate living in a state of perpetual sin. This is a hard thing for a true believer and follower of our Lord to do, but if you want to act on your ambition to become preeminent in the local church, able to implement whatever doctrine strikes your fancy, and not have to answer to those who insist on biblical accuracy, what choice do you really have?
Really, what choice do you have?
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:11)"
3Jo 1:9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us.
3Jo 1:10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.
3Jo 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.
Consider Diotrephes...
[www.thefaithfulword.org]
"How do you stop the discerning faithful in the church from disrupting your plans to sneak in a false doctrine or two? Your biblical model is Diotrephes. He found an ideal mechanism to silence those whom opposed him and was even able to make it seem as though his approach was spiritual. Even grander, this approach can be used in personal relationships. We will explore how.
I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:9-11)
Ambition
It is unclear whether Diotrephes was the formal elder (overseer/pastor) of the church or whether he simply desired to be especially prominent. In reality, this is irrelevant because it is equally true of pastors or laymen that they can become "ambitious for the place of first distinction." Ambitious for preeminence in the church is entirely different than being desirous to do the work of shepherding/pastoring. Ambition for prestige and control is what leads to "lording it over the flock" (1 Peter 5:3), that is, to become the monarch of the flock and the object of adoration, and it might be added, some small amount of intimidating influence. Contrast that with being desirous to do the work of pastor, which is to dedicate oneself to service, to study, to counseling, and to openly debating and refuting doctrinal errors.
Poor Doctrine
Diotrephes did not accept the teaching of the apostles (v.9). Given his standing of prestige in the church it should be readily evident that he was likely a Christian, and maybe even the majority of his doctrine was "orthodox." Nonetheless, some aspect of Diotrephes’ doctrine, probably the specific "something" to which John refers when he says he "wrote to the church," was not aligned with the apostles’ teaching.
Now, the problem for Diotrephes is that he had run out of arguments and Scripture to justify his stance. Some do-gooder in the body was obviously pressing Diotrephes to give a biblically sound defense for his corrupted doctrine and he was unable to do so. In short, he was trapped. How do you shout down the discerning individuals who just will not shut up and who refuse to stop demanding an answer for the false hope you have articulated so well?
But a Really Good Strategy
Diotrephes used a wonderful and almost unassailable two-pronged attack. An almost perfect strategy. First he attacked the character of the apostles, not their doctrines or theology, but their character, "unjustly accusing us with wicked words." This is so precious. For it should be noted that Diotrephes was able to sidestep his real problem. He could not address the doctrines because he had no Scriptural leg to support him, so he attacked the character of those with good doctrine in order to discredit them and by association, everything they said.
How beautiful that strategy is. How do you counter a character assassination? He said, she said, someone said, all leaves impressions in the minds of the hearers and truth becomes secondary and ultimately lost. The focus is no longer doctrine but whether the person has a good reputation, which by the way was just defamed by the very accuser who is trying to hide his doctrinal failings in the first place.
Prong two is the stroke of genius to the master plan. Cut off fellowship between those who have true biblical discernment and those on whom you are trying to impose the erroneous doctrine. Once fellowship is broken, it becomes impossible for anyone to contradict you. Those who remain in fellowship are those whom you have already won to your point-of-view (who lack appropriate discernment) or are those who are too intimidated to invoke the Word of God against you or against your faulty doctrine. The result is that no one is left to raise any dissent or to contradict you, or worse, raise a valid biblical debate.
In other words, you win by default. You have silenced all your detractors and you win. You do not have to be right, because you win. And by winning, you do not mean that you have attained good doctrine but that you have retained control in spite of your lack of answers and in spite of your poor doctrine. You win, the others lose.
How do you break fellowship between the discerning and the deluded? This requires careful scheming and impeccable execution. You must "put them out of the church" just as Diotrephes did. The only known mechanism that has the appearance of Scriptural and ethical propriety is by using "church discipline." Not genuine "church discipline" however, but pseudo (fake / imitation) church discipline.
Genuine church discipline is all about bringing the sinner back into fellowship by encouraging his repentance from a sin. To encourage his repentance you must privately rebuke him, publicly rebuke him in front of the church, then ultimately treat him as you would any sinner on the street (Matthew 18). Of course, this means no longer inviting him to your breaking-of-bread church services, asking him to take on deacon duties, or allowing him to teach, pray, or read Scripture during meetings of the church. Every interaction will be polite, filled with quotations of Scripture that entreat him to confess his sins and turn from them, always inviting him back to fellowship with God and the church.
This, of course, will never do for your purposes. You goal is not restoration to fellowship, but to permanently sever it. You do not want the Bible-thumpers being lovingly confronted with Scripture because you have none to offer. And frankly, you are the sinner (introducing improper doctrine—remember?), so you do not want or need the discerning ones to repent from any sins, you just want them to go away and not come back. OK, you would also settle for them to just stay quiet and let you run things, but you know that someone who has sufficient discernment to know the Word also knows he is obligated to speak the truth in love, always and often, so you know they will not stay silent.
Executing an Evil Strategy Well
The solution is to level a charge that is improvable, and most importantly, is impossible from which to repent. Among church power brokers the favored charge is "factiousness" (Titus 3:10). Paul says that you should reject a factious man after one or two warnings. Issue these warnings generically from the pulpit, offer no names or specifics, just make generalized warnings—later you can refer to those warnings as already being issued and streamline the entire process.
Then defame and slander their character by adding the charge of anger because those who are passionate about the Word always express emotion sooner or later out of frustration at not being heard so you will always be able to point to some tangible public display of emotion. Oh, never mind that Titus 3 actually defines a factious man as being the one who is introducing destructive and error laden doctrines and who is dividing the fellowship of the church based on improper motives because almost no one is discerning enough in the church to look up the passage on their own, much less properly interpret it in context (hmm, the irony is that while you are falsely accusing the righteous man of being factious Titus 3 actually defines the real factious man as being you). The charge of factiousness itself is sufficient to win the day.
Then, out the door the trouble-making Bible-quoting discerners will go. Most will leave of their own accord anyway, having had enough of their characters being maligned. The few that stick around can easily be sent through a pseudo-church discipline meeting and they too will soon be gone. And since they have nothing they can repent from, they will never return to plague your fellowship again. In fact, this form of ungodly "discipline" might best be characterized by the term "shunning" because its sole goal is to irrevocably destroy fellowship. However, you must never use that term in public because it might draw attention to fact that what you are doing to these innocent individuals really is shunning which is strictly an illegitimate act; we are nowhere called to destroy fellowships but to restore them.
Only One Complication
There is one down side to the tactic. John calls the Diotrephes strategy both "wicked" and "evil." To implement such an approach in the church, in a personal relationship, or in a family setting requires that you leave your interest in obeying the Word of God behind, that you stop loving the victims (love is defined as doing things for their benefit not yours--1 Corinthians 13:5), and that you determine that you are willing to tolerate living in a state of perpetual sin. This is a hard thing for a true believer and follower of our Lord to do, but if you want to act on your ambition to become preeminent in the local church, able to implement whatever doctrine strikes your fancy, and not have to answer to those who insist on biblical accuracy, what choice do you really have?
Really, what choice do you have?
Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:11)"
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.