Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
cultmalleus
()
Date: February 10, 2007 09:31PM
Glad, what you said reminds me of how even my wife and I felt inhibited from freely sharing our thoughts about leaving even though we both were thinking about it a lot before we did!
Fran, your last response makes me sense this discussion is getting to you. Imagine studying to gain skills to help others, then really work at it, with a properly run organisation, you'd be fulfilling Matthew 25 much more than you are now.
The so-called "great commission" seems to me to be relatively low in terms of priority if you try and sort out the historical Jesus from church tradition, and in any case, preaching words without actions is pretty empty don't you think?.
Fran, have you ever looked at the Jesus Seminar? Interesting stuff, even if you end up not agreeing with it fully.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Fran, the so-called "system" is not some monolithic Empire of evil, opposed to God. It is a constantly evolving patchwork of multiple influences, some of God and Love, some not. We can find other people to work with to expand the influence of good, love and God, in freedom. You can do God's work without ever distributing a single book or tract again and God will still love and accept you.
Thank you Xenophone for your excellent explanation of recent fads in the group.
Fran, your last response makes me sense this discussion is getting to you. Imagine studying to gain skills to help others, then really work at it, with a properly run organisation, you'd be fulfilling Matthew 25 much more than you are now.
The so-called "great commission" seems to me to be relatively low in terms of priority if you try and sort out the historical Jesus from church tradition, and in any case, preaching words without actions is pretty empty don't you think?.
Fran, have you ever looked at the Jesus Seminar? Interesting stuff, even if you end up not agreeing with it fully.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Fran, the so-called "system" is not some monolithic Empire of evil, opposed to God. It is a constantly evolving patchwork of multiple influences, some of God and Love, some not. We can find other people to work with to expand the influence of good, love and God, in freedom. You can do God's work without ever distributing a single book or tract again and God will still love and accept you.
Thank you Xenophone for your excellent explanation of recent fads in the group.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
matilda
()
Date: February 10, 2007 11:40PM
It is positive that members and ex members are talking to one another here.
Am still trying to track info on the two items mentioned above
In the meantime, I have read the JC entry on Wikipedia
[en.wikipedia.org]
Here is an extract from that entry and it appears to have been submitted by the JC's themselves.
I think it would be interesting to hear the experiences of people here (both current and ex members) on the following section
1. What happened when you ' forsake all' ?
where did the proceeds go/ did you give them away or did the group take care of it?
2. Did you have an equal say (with Dave and others) in how the money was spent?
3. Did you and each member receive an equal portion of the groups funds ? If so , how much was it and what did you do with your share?
4. Why is the Kenyan property held as a privately owned property in 2 names ?
Am still trying to track info on the two items mentioned above
In the meantime, I have read the JC entry on Wikipedia
[en.wikipedia.org]
Here is an extract from that entry and it appears to have been submitted by the JC's themselves.
I think it would be interesting to hear the experiences of people here (both current and ex members) on the following section
Quote
Members forsake all private ownership, handing over all of their earthly possessions to the Jesus Christian community. ("Forsaking All", from Jesus and Money) [7] The group teaches that all members must have equal say in how funds are to be used. ("Power--Good or Evil" [8], and "Setting Up Your Own Community" [9]) Although there have rarely been more than 30 members of the community, in 2005, the community was broken up into two and three-person teams, with equal portions of the group's funds going to each member. Those teams continue to function autonomously, although members occasionally transfer by mutual consent from one team to another.
As of 2006, there was an on-going team operating in Kenya, which receives and disperses funds from the other, travelling teams in Australia, America, and the United Kingdom. The co-founders (Dave & Cherry McKay), are considered to be part of that team, even though they spend most of their time in a small one-bedroom apartment in Sydney, Australia.
1. What happened when you ' forsake all' ?
where did the proceeds go/ did you give them away or did the group take care of it?
2. Did you have an equal say (with Dave and others) in how the money was spent?
3. Did you and each member receive an equal portion of the groups funds ? If so , how much was it and what did you do with your share?
4. Why is the Kenyan property held as a privately owned property in 2 names ?
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
apostate
()
Date: February 11, 2007 09:34AM
Quote
matilda
It is positive that members and ex members are talking to one another here.
Am still trying to track info on the two items mentioned above
In the meantime, I have read the JC entry on Wikipedia
[en.wikipedia.org]
Here is an extract from that entry and it appears to have been submitted by the JC's themselves.
I think it would be interesting to hear the experiences of people here (both current and ex members) on the following sectionQuote
Members forsake all private ownership, handing over all of their earthly possessions to the Jesus Christian community. ("Forsaking All", from Jesus and Money) [7] The group teaches that all members must have equal say in how funds are to be used. ("Power--Good or Evil" [8], and "Setting Up Your Own Community" [9]) Although there have rarely been more than 30 members of the community, in 2005, the community was broken up into two and three-person teams, with equal portions of the group's funds going to each member. Those teams continue to function autonomously, although members occasionally transfer by mutual consent from one team to another.
As of 2006, there was an on-going team operating in Kenya, which receives and disperses funds from the other, travelling teams in Australia, America, and the United Kingdom. The co-founders (Dave & Cherry McKay), are considered to be part of that team, even though they spend most of their time in a small one-bedroom apartment in Sydney, Australia.Quote
1. What happened when you ' forsake all' ?
where did the proceeds go/ did you give them away or did the group take care of it?
My stuff was absorbed into the group. I was not concerned with that as I had already given away most of possessions prior to joining them. There were times when new members had some resources to give of which it would be said that they were free to give to World Vision or something, but then there were times when Dave would challenge such things by saying that the Bible talked about all the funds being laid at the feet of the apostles... that being the case he would question a potential who wanted to join but did not want to give their resources to the group. So you got the message that if you did decide to channel your respources elsewhere it was veiwed as a sign of rebellion and lack of support for the group theyw ere joining.Quote
2. Did you have an equal say (with Dave and others) in how the money was spent?
There is no "equal say" with Dave. If, for example, Dave wanted to go on a round the world book flogging tour, no-one could stop him. He was going to do what he was going to do. Any who challenged him would be made look like they were being proud by challenging his leadership.
Dave is doing as he did with the Children of God originally by removing himself from communal life to be free of accountability to group members, while at the same time mimicking David Berg's "Moses on the mountain" routine. That is the motivation behind his so called autonomy experiments. No member would dare actually live autonomously because Dave would soon attack them as being rebels. Dave wants to have little communities operating under his "top down" model of communal life with pseudo autonomy with himself as a travelling apostle/prophet in charge of all things. If you think of the COG's and how they wrok you will se what David McKay is trying to do.
Dave has never allowed himself to be placed into a situation of equality. Whenever it comes close to that happening he throws a temper tantrum and declares he is starting a new community with himself as an unquestioned leader, and making acceptance of that the terms for membership. Those more fearful would be bluffed into conforming while those who didn't buy into it were excommunicated and slandered to prevent new members from hearing contrary accounts.Quote
3. Did you and each member receive an equal portion of the groups funds ? If so , how much was it and what did you do with your share?
I cannot say yes to that.Quote
4. Why is the Kenyan property held as a privately owned property in 2 names ?
Because the names he has chosen keep it in the family line, i.e. his daughter and son in law, while distancing himself from any legal or financial obligations he would have to the Kenyan authorities due to foreign nationals owning land... or to Australian authorities because he and Cherry are current recipients of Australian welfare.
In response to Fran.
Be honest, you know you are not free to be autonomous financially from David Mckay. If you even try to have an independent thought it will be challenged severely. Cultmalleous has given you some sound advice. It is true that you can do more for God without ever having to ask for "donations" to cover printing costs. You are young enough to start afresh, build a family with your wife and really enjoy life. If you have a family in the JC's you will be miserable with constant tension due to Dave feeling a need to inject his values into how you raise your children or relate to your wife.
I am free enough to join your group again, but the fact remains your group is not free enough to have me. That is why I was originally expelled. Your group cannot tolerate differences. Dave cannot tolerate disagreement. He is not free enough to be able to do so. He has proven that fact time and time again. If he is not free to tolerate disagreement, how can any of his followers possibly be?
The JC's are a group built upon the foundation of a malcontent who mimicks COG teachings, while convincing himself and others that he can do better. All evidence says contrary. Even his little Kenyan experiment has seen a volunteer being whipped. Hardly an example of a utopian existance.
Fran, both you and Kimono would do yourself a great service if you left the group and really engaged in the larger community, as when it comes down to it you are benefitting the world very little compared to what you could do on the outside of the JC's. You could bring little Fran's into the world. Raising children is a very rewarding experience. Don't leave it too long.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 11, 2007 08:48PM
Dear Fran,
Others who know you have spoken positively of you here, and you've had the gumption to continue to contribute to this post, which makes you a cut above the avearge JC....(hence assuming you haven't become one of the "soul-dead" long termers in the JC's...i.e one of David's "spiritual zombies")...perhaps you could be so kind as to explain this "policy change" for me....
While I was in the "Christians" from '81 - '85 the Quakers were just another brain-dead bunch of "Churchies"....were I, or any other member to suggest a meaningful dialogue was possible with them, we would have been subject to countless "grievance meetings" (once David had finished publically denouncing our "error" in front of the rest of the group)...
However "fast-forward" to 2005 and I see that this particular group have been "rehabilitated" and are now seemingly spiritual partners with the JC's. Now of course, an ungrateful ol' curse like me would attribute this to Davids' utter duplicity and the fact that David is able to "press into service" the Quakers public image, behind which he can hide in order to better realize his own nefarious ends...
But of course that's NOT true, is it Fran? You have a better reason for it all....(and we're all waiting to hear it!!!).....because if you CAN'T, just perchance, account for this, you know the appearance is going to be that you can quote the Quakers "Everybody has some small reflection of God inside them" approach....only because you are "allowed to" (and were David and Cherry not to trying to be camouflaged within them....you would not be "allowed to") express such a sentiment...!
Come on Fran you can DO it!! What happened to bring about this reversal of policy! I've just (again) maliciously misremembered Davids' instruction after all these years(Damn it! I'm always doing that aren't I!!)....he really used to say, "They're all damned hypocritical churchies except.... for those heavenly Quakers", didn't he....But Fran you know what David really meant all those years ago don't you (...and if you don't know, why just ask David how to explain the matter away, for you ....!)
Malcolm
Others who know you have spoken positively of you here, and you've had the gumption to continue to contribute to this post, which makes you a cut above the avearge JC....(hence assuming you haven't become one of the "soul-dead" long termers in the JC's...i.e one of David's "spiritual zombies")...perhaps you could be so kind as to explain this "policy change" for me....
While I was in the "Christians" from '81 - '85 the Quakers were just another brain-dead bunch of "Churchies"....were I, or any other member to suggest a meaningful dialogue was possible with them, we would have been subject to countless "grievance meetings" (once David had finished publically denouncing our "error" in front of the rest of the group)...
However "fast-forward" to 2005 and I see that this particular group have been "rehabilitated" and are now seemingly spiritual partners with the JC's. Now of course, an ungrateful ol' curse like me would attribute this to Davids' utter duplicity and the fact that David is able to "press into service" the Quakers public image, behind which he can hide in order to better realize his own nefarious ends...
But of course that's NOT true, is it Fran? You have a better reason for it all....(and we're all waiting to hear it!!!).....because if you CAN'T, just perchance, account for this, you know the appearance is going to be that you can quote the Quakers "Everybody has some small reflection of God inside them" approach....only because you are "allowed to" (and were David and Cherry not to trying to be camouflaged within them....you would not be "allowed to") express such a sentiment...!
Come on Fran you can DO it!! What happened to bring about this reversal of policy! I've just (again) maliciously misremembered Davids' instruction after all these years(Damn it! I'm always doing that aren't I!!)....he really used to say, "They're all damned hypocritical churchies except.... for those heavenly Quakers", didn't he....But Fran you know what David really meant all those years ago don't you (...and if you don't know, why just ask David how to explain the matter away, for you ....!)
Malcolm
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Malcolm Wesley WREST
()
Date: February 11, 2007 10:09PM
Dear Porky B, (and Josh)
You ask why I recommend Josh look at the Jesus Christians teachings, but don’t recommend their site in general….Where the Jesus Christians look directly at scriptures, I think they have a refreshingly honest approach to the Bible (be it derived from the COG’s or not) that challenges the sincere in their faith…..however once you move beyond direct scripture the deceit quickly becomes insidious.
Even your initial question Josh, hints that you are being “fed” assumptions from the word “go”….
“Why do you guys think that you had such a hard time while in the Jesus Christians but others that are still in the group seem to be doing well and are quite happy? In your opinion what's the difference between you and them?”
Without having ever met Cultmalleous or Zenaphone or Dogmother, how could you or I (or anyone for that matter) know that they DON’T actually lead “worthwhile and happy” lives…of course we can’t...but what’s one of the first things you’ll hear from the Jesus Christians…”assumptions forming the basis of unsubstantiated accusations”. All ex-members have nothing positive to live for and thus mired in “unproductive hatred”…it’s a lie of convenience for them.
The JesusChristians spend a lot of time telling others about all the “good” they do (which I’m sure you will recognize Josh, as an unbiblical practise) but conversely until you have actually met some of the people who post here….you wouldn’t be in a position to judge whose lives were more “worthwhile and productive”……the conceit of their own “self-worth” lies underneath many of the Jesus Christians “post-biblical” doctrines.
The JesusChristians will tell you that as we (ex-members) don’t live communally and have a shared purse, we are in willful rebellion of the scriptures, whatever we might say. (…unlike the “faithful and true” Jesus Christians of course). I personally consider this biblically unsound if for no other reason, than Christs’ remark that “I have other sheep, not of this fold” (Even in Christs’ time, let alone now, the Church was not physically united ), but lets take their argument at face value….
Those who live in community with a shared purse, live by faith, and abide by the scriptures, are thus truly Christians. Or are they…?
Then no doubt, Josh, the JesusChristians will have discussed with you at length the activities of Boyd and Sheri Ellery in Brisbane…..(the ex-members who have probably remained the most committed to the former lifestyles we once led)…No doubt, the Jesus Christians will have waxed lyrical about the devotion Boyd and Sheri have displayed……because if they didn’t….if you’ve never even heard about Boyd and Sheri….if all the Jesus Christians have found time to do was to tell you how wonderful their own lives are…why then….
….then if becomes apparent that the real “crime” of the ex-members is that we choose not to be in subjection to David McKay. It becomes apparent that it really doesn’t matter what any of us, individually of communally ever did, those “resentful”, “negative” and “bitter” JesusChristians would always find fault with us.
How better to illustrate this Fran himself, who has captured the hypocrisy of the Jesus Christians so poetically, it could be a sonnet.
Frans tells that us that he is inspired by the Quaker doctrine of the “revelation” of God being somehow inside all, that he has been blessed by this cheerful outlook on all and sundry….
In his very next posting, Fran tells us that in his nine years of experience the only reason people left the Jesus Christians was for reasons of their own personal inadequacy (much like Davids’ earlier self-serving reply to Zeusor that only those who didn’t like the “disciplines of Christ” left the Jesus Christians)….
Josh, the dishonesty and wickedness may be partially hidden in some circular reasoning, but it is certainly there.
Hmmm….everyone has the “revelation” of God inside them, except those who choose to willfully interpret this revelation differently from the way the JesusChristians believe they should……then they are clearly “inadequate”.
In nine years, having met dozens and dozens of “potential disciples” who failed to “make the grade”….their “inadequacies” is all Fran can see….whereas with yourself Josh, and others who are not (as yet) openly critical of the JesusChristians….Fran can see the “revelation” of God in you!! (Touching,….truly touching of you…thank you Fran!!)
Christ advised his disciples to do as the Pharisees said but not as they did…I’d have similar counsel for in regard to the JesusChristians Josh.
(P.S. I will reply to your earlier questions directed to me, in the near future Josh! Have to go right now!)
You ask why I recommend Josh look at the Jesus Christians teachings, but don’t recommend their site in general….Where the Jesus Christians look directly at scriptures, I think they have a refreshingly honest approach to the Bible (be it derived from the COG’s or not) that challenges the sincere in their faith…..however once you move beyond direct scripture the deceit quickly becomes insidious.
Even your initial question Josh, hints that you are being “fed” assumptions from the word “go”….
“Why do you guys think that you had such a hard time while in the Jesus Christians but others that are still in the group seem to be doing well and are quite happy? In your opinion what's the difference between you and them?”
Without having ever met Cultmalleous or Zenaphone or Dogmother, how could you or I (or anyone for that matter) know that they DON’T actually lead “worthwhile and happy” lives…of course we can’t...but what’s one of the first things you’ll hear from the Jesus Christians…”assumptions forming the basis of unsubstantiated accusations”. All ex-members have nothing positive to live for and thus mired in “unproductive hatred”…it’s a lie of convenience for them.
The JesusChristians spend a lot of time telling others about all the “good” they do (which I’m sure you will recognize Josh, as an unbiblical practise) but conversely until you have actually met some of the people who post here….you wouldn’t be in a position to judge whose lives were more “worthwhile and productive”……the conceit of their own “self-worth” lies underneath many of the Jesus Christians “post-biblical” doctrines.
The JesusChristians will tell you that as we (ex-members) don’t live communally and have a shared purse, we are in willful rebellion of the scriptures, whatever we might say. (…unlike the “faithful and true” Jesus Christians of course). I personally consider this biblically unsound if for no other reason, than Christs’ remark that “I have other sheep, not of this fold” (Even in Christs’ time, let alone now, the Church was not physically united ), but lets take their argument at face value….
Those who live in community with a shared purse, live by faith, and abide by the scriptures, are thus truly Christians. Or are they…?
Then no doubt, Josh, the JesusChristians will have discussed with you at length the activities of Boyd and Sheri Ellery in Brisbane…..(the ex-members who have probably remained the most committed to the former lifestyles we once led)…No doubt, the Jesus Christians will have waxed lyrical about the devotion Boyd and Sheri have displayed……because if they didn’t….if you’ve never even heard about Boyd and Sheri….if all the Jesus Christians have found time to do was to tell you how wonderful their own lives are…why then….
….then if becomes apparent that the real “crime” of the ex-members is that we choose not to be in subjection to David McKay. It becomes apparent that it really doesn’t matter what any of us, individually of communally ever did, those “resentful”, “negative” and “bitter” JesusChristians would always find fault with us.
How better to illustrate this Fran himself, who has captured the hypocrisy of the Jesus Christians so poetically, it could be a sonnet.
Frans tells that us that he is inspired by the Quaker doctrine of the “revelation” of God being somehow inside all, that he has been blessed by this cheerful outlook on all and sundry….
In his very next posting, Fran tells us that in his nine years of experience the only reason people left the Jesus Christians was for reasons of their own personal inadequacy (much like Davids’ earlier self-serving reply to Zeusor that only those who didn’t like the “disciplines of Christ” left the Jesus Christians)….
Josh, the dishonesty and wickedness may be partially hidden in some circular reasoning, but it is certainly there.
Hmmm….everyone has the “revelation” of God inside them, except those who choose to willfully interpret this revelation differently from the way the JesusChristians believe they should……then they are clearly “inadequate”.
In nine years, having met dozens and dozens of “potential disciples” who failed to “make the grade”….their “inadequacies” is all Fran can see….whereas with yourself Josh, and others who are not (as yet) openly critical of the JesusChristians….Fran can see the “revelation” of God in you!! (Touching,….truly touching of you…thank you Fran!!)
Christ advised his disciples to do as the Pharisees said but not as they did…I’d have similar counsel for in regard to the JesusChristians Josh.
(P.S. I will reply to your earlier questions directed to me, in the near future Josh! Have to go right now!)
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Xenophone
()
Date: February 12, 2007 12:20AM
Hi everyone. Dave made a response on his forum, to a post that I made on this forum about gimmicks. In it I use old emails from Dave in an effort to show how contradictory he is of himself. I'll post it below if anyone is interested. --Xenophone.
It doesn't defy logic. I'm saying that you want to give people the impression that they are free to make their own choices, so you give them some pretense of autonomy, yet a short while later you make suggestions and efforts to regain your control over them. Your aim is to leave your followers with a false sense that they free to follow God, while you still keep them under your thumb. It's like the "plastic peace" period you wrote about in Survivors. My point in all this is not that it's wrong for you to give freedom to your followers, but that don't let it continue. You don't mean it.
Don't you find it odd how quickly these "experiments" as you call them ended up no different than before? And I'd like to add that they were not "experiments". Maybe thats what they were to you, but I can tell you that we were under the impression that they were actual movements, and your communications to us testified to this. More on that later.
Um, if it was just a trick by you to get some of us to leave, then why did you fight and argue so furiously with us during our falling-out period? Why didn't you just let us go? To me it's obvious that you didn't want us to leave, but were fighting to get us to further conform to your will.
Did you ever think that the reason some of us chose to use our "freedom" to do other things was because we didn't share [i:c58d58875b]your[/i:c58d58875b] vision of selling box after box of Survivors day-in-day-out? Don't you find it odd that almost everyone chose to distribute less when you gave them that option? And it's not like we used our "freedom" to sit on the couch and eat chips; some of us decided to improve our mechanic skills, some of us chose to focus more on educating their children, and some of us chose to spend more time improving relationships with their spouses (like me).
Again you state that it was an "experiment", and state that it was agreed upon that we wouldn't communicate for several months. This was not the case.
You further push your "experiment" angle, and state that we all agreed that we would not communicate for a few months. Lets look at what you actually said. The following italicised and unterlined text is from letters that you, Dave sent as the community was in the process of splitting.
So we would go our way maybe with the understanding that we won't communicate at all, and if we do deside to communicate, to won't be for a very long time. True you are being suitibly vague with your time frame, but what impression does this give you? Certainly more than a few months. Besides, even if that's what we did agree on, it was less than two months from when we split to when you started demanding that we share our budget details with you.
More of the same. We are to live as though we won't hear from each other again.
This paragraph really sums up what the split was supposed to be about. It was not supposed to be something temporary, and certainly not an experiment. You blatantly state that the split was not temporary, and that we would not come together again. That was the whole idea of the Kenya team (the Jesus Christians) being seperate from the rest of us as we went our individual ways to be autonomous teams. And how has that turned out? Have any of the members switched to different bases? Have any of them joined the Kenyan base? Have you suggested any collaberation between you base and any autonomous teams?
I find this statement in bold to perfectly fit how I see your gimmicks. You can't encourage people to work in freedom from you and then get angry with them when they don't make themselves accountable to you. I'm not at all surprised that you ended up responding to me when I was directing my post to Fran.
Quote
Dave
Just updating people on what is happening on the RR forum...James has given a lengthy summary (not very accurate in places, but fair enough for the point being made, both by him and by me in this post) of several attempts I made over several years to get members of the community thinking more for themselves, and not being so dependent on me. What is most startling about all of this, is that the conclusion he comes to is that those efforts were really an effort by myself to do exactly the opposite, i.e. to rob people of their freedom. Kind of defies logic that a leader seeking only to control people would experiment with so many different approaches to leadership, autonomy, communication, etc. in an effort to develop MORE independence, MORE initiative, and MORE creative thought on the part of members of the community.
It doesn't defy logic. I'm saying that you want to give people the impression that they are free to make their own choices, so you give them some pretense of autonomy, yet a short while later you make suggestions and efforts to regain your control over them. Your aim is to leave your followers with a false sense that they free to follow God, while you still keep them under your thumb. It's like the "plastic peace" period you wrote about in Survivors. My point in all this is not that it's wrong for you to give freedom to your followers, but that don't let it continue. You don't mean it.
Don't you find it odd how quickly these "experiments" as you call them ended up no different than before? And I'd like to add that they were not "experiments". Maybe thats what they were to you, but I can tell you that we were under the impression that they were actual movements, and your communications to us testified to this. More on that later.
Quote
So what I noticed each time that we tried an experiment with more freedom is that those people who were just malcontents used them as an excuse to leave. In fact, if there was a "trick" in what we were doing with autonomy, that was it: i.e. that we were trying to trick them into leaving. I came right out and said it... several times.
Um, if it was just a trick by you to get some of us to leave, then why did you fight and argue so furiously with us during our falling-out period? Why didn't you just let us go? To me it's obvious that you didn't want us to leave, but were fighting to get us to further conform to your will.
Quote
Annette used autonomy to create a community in L.A. where everyone went off to work except herself, and where her kids were always given special treatment. As she has just pointed out on the Rick Ross forum, she then tried to enlist other members of the community in a campaign against me, and when it backfired, she took her kids and left. She accused me of cheating on the autonomy that had been granted to the community in L.A. simply because I talked to the members who were being abused by her.
James had no such ambitions. He was just lazy from the word go. So autonomy always meant to him, a chance to slack off and do nothing, and he hints at that in his report of the history of autonomy in the community. We actually had to give him and his wife about ten thousand dollars and instructions not to communicate with anyone for a few months before he had enough courage to do what he had been wanting to do for a very long time, which is to just more or less do nothing.
Did you ever think that the reason some of us chose to use our "freedom" to do other things was because we didn't share [i:c58d58875b]your[/i:c58d58875b] vision of selling box after box of Survivors day-in-day-out? Don't you find it odd that almost everyone chose to distribute less when you gave them that option? And it's not like we used our "freedom" to sit on the couch and eat chips; some of us decided to improve our mechanic skills, some of us chose to focus more on educating their children, and some of us chose to spend more time improving relationships with their spouses (like me).
Quote
But something autonomy was never meant to do was to destroy the spiritual unity that exists between the various communities. Even the experiment with not communicating between bases for several months was declared to be temporary from the start. Only James thought it meant that there could never be any communication between the teams.
Again you state that it was an "experiment", and state that it was agreed upon that we wouldn't communicate for several months. This was not the case.
Quote
This unity which persists despite breaking up into independent groups is what angers Rick and his little rickettes, because the requirement for "membership" in their community is simply that people hate Dave. We Jesus Christians all agreed (a couple of months before James left) not to communicate with each other for a few months, so that people would have a greater chance to make decisions based on their own experience. I said at the start that I expected some people (and I had James and his wife in mind when I said it) would use the freedom to leave. That was fine. It was worth the financial lost just to be rid of the dead wood.
You further push your "experiment" angle, and state that we all agreed that we would not communicate for a few months. Lets look at what you actually said. The following italicised and unterlined text is from letters that you, Dave sent as the community was in the process of splitting.
From: Dave Mckay Sept 24, 2005.Quote
[u:c58d58875b][i:c58d58875b] I haven't thought this through completely, but I was thinking that if we tallied up all of our assets (books, vehicles, and cash mostly) and then divided it evenly amongst all of our members, and then people kind of paired up in groups of two (or on their own if anyone wants to do it that way), [b:c58d58875b]then we just all go our separate ways, maybe even with the understanding that we WON'T be communicating with each other any more... at least not for a very long time.[/b:c58d58875b] [/i:c58d58875b][/u:c58d58875b]
So we would go our way maybe with the understanding that we won't communicate at all, and if we do deside to communicate, to won't be for a very long time. True you are being suitibly vague with your time frame, but what impression does this give you? Certainly more than a few months. Besides, even if that's what we did agree on, it was less than two months from when we split to when you started demanding that we share our budget details with you.
From: Dave Mckay Sept 25, 2005.Quote
[u:c58d58875b][i:c58d58875b]It is important, however, for people to realise that they should not be trying to prove anything to the rest of the community, that the community as we know it now simply will not continue to exist. It's why I feel we need to almost take the attitude that we will not hear from each other again after the break-up occurs. [/i:c58d58875b][/u:c58d58875b]
More of the same. We are to live as though we won't hear from each other again.
From Dave Mckay Sept 26, 2005.Quote
[u:c58d58875b][i:c58d58875b]Someone mentioned the idea of us just breaking up for a year and then coming back together again. It may take some time for the vision I am trying to communicate to sink in (and very possibly it never will), but from my perspective, any attempt to make the split up temporary will only result in people focussing on the day when we all come back together again, and Dave hands out report card marks on how well we each have performed. Can you see how this totally negates the idea of people actually becoming charismatic eaders, and getting their orders straight from the top?[/i:c58d58875b][/u:c58d58875b]
This paragraph really sums up what the split was supposed to be about. It was not supposed to be something temporary, and certainly not an experiment. You blatantly state that the split was not temporary, and that we would not come together again. That was the whole idea of the Kenya team (the Jesus Christians) being seperate from the rest of us as we went our individual ways to be autonomous teams. And how has that turned out? Have any of the members switched to different bases? Have any of them joined the Kenyan base? Have you suggested any collaberation between you base and any autonomous teams?
Quote
It really is tragic that the same people who belly ache about being kicked out (or about being THREATENED with being kicked out) of the Jesus Christians are the same ones who tell us that they were disgruntled for a long time, and that they imagine everyone else is disgruntled and secretly wants to leave. [b:c58d58875b]C'mon, guys, you can't have it both ways.[/b:c58d58875b] If you really wanted out so badly, and if you're so happy now, then what is all the fuss about? Surely others will do the same thing as you if/when they decide they want to leave too. And if they don't, we'll probably arrange some enticement that will make it easier for them to leave.
I find this statement in bold to perfectly fit how I see your gimmicks. You can't encourage people to work in freedom from you and then get angry with them when they don't make themselves accountable to you. I'm not at all surprised that you ended up responding to me when I was directing my post to Fran.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
hello
()
Date: February 12, 2007 12:37AM
Thank goodness that you and your wife are out of there- your contributions are really valuable.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
hello
()
Date: February 12, 2007 04:14AM
Reading through the thread- I noticed that the only person apart from DM who posts here is Fran. With regard to the positions of leadership within the community- what was Fran's status? With the rank and file mentality- who is " rank" and who is "file". The process of having you all inform on each other seems like something the Nazi's came up with.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Fran
()
Date: February 12, 2007 05:18AM
There is a lot to comment on, and I would like to comment on a few things. However, I'll start with responding to James first (Xenophone), as he is the one who knows me better than anyone else, and I was quite close to him.
Hi James, I find it disturbing that you think you were not autonomous. Isn't it true that you were given an equal share of the assets of the community? And isn't it also true that you were never asked to return that money? You know that in a community where people forsake all for God, when they leave, they are supposed to leave with nothing (because they gave up everything for God). And yet you left with quite a lot. No, I don't believe it was a gimmick. But I do believe that it was for you whatever you thought it was.
I also do not agree with the spirit behind your account of the various moves towards autonomy. I do agree, however, that we kept gravitating back towards accountability for the most part. But ask yourself this... who was the one who pushed for autonomy at each step of the way? And why would Dave keep pushing for autonomy and look for better ways of getting people to be autonomous, if he didn't want people to be autonomous?
Let's look at each of the moves towards autonomy that you have mentioned...
First, you mentioned the thing with experimenting for 2 to 3 days with other forms of witnessing. I am not sure if I was in the U.S. at the time or not, because I have memories of experimenting with different forms of witnessing in different countries and at different times, so that this particular period that you refer to is one that hasn't stopped that much for me. I have done street preaching, internet chats, forums, witnessing at airports, posters, busking, music recording, chalking, graffitti, and a few others. You say that at one point Dave decided that perhaps we should get back to full time distributing as it seemed a better way of reaching people, particularly the people of the U.S. Did you complain at the time? Did you inform Dave that you knew, as a result of all your freedom with different witnessing approaches, a better way to get the message out to the people of the U.S.? My guess is that you did not, and that instead, you were also keen to get back to distributing.
Next, there was this anarchy you refer to. Yes, I remember it. The "no rules" period. Annette in particular thought it was a gimmick, and it seems that you now think it was one. I think the reason is that you both didn't have the courage to believe it. You say that Dave was disappointed later to find out that people were not distributing that much as a result of anarchy. So what?! It's anarchy, right? Why didn't you just stand your ground and say that you didn't believe in distributing anymore? You say that anarchy ended after two weeks without discussion. Why didn't you discuss it if you were so concerned? The truth is, James (and you know it's the truth), that you used your freedom as an excuse to be lazy. And when it was suggested that we try to get out lots of tracts in a given week, you were all for it. I heard no complaints from you. In fact, you were enthused. And you were enthused for a long time after that too. It's only now, when you are trying to search for negative files, that you are twisting these experiences in your mind. As a result you rob yourself of the good times you had.
Then there is this Autonomy thing where each base tried to be more autonomous. Here we remember things slightly different. I don't remember that we had split up into 2-3 person teams at that stage and that each team had their own assets. Instead, I remember that we were just split up into bases (ie. Oz, U.K., U.S.). I remember at this time that I went to Spain with Reinhard. I was not at all accountable to Dave. If anything, I was accountable to YOU. Yes, you, remember? You were the base leader. Through the use of yahoo chat and email, I was in direct contact with you while I was in Spain. I don't remember you ever telling me anything about Dave having said this or that. Instead, we made our own decisions. You know what I am saying is true. The only time I contacted Dave was to get some advice with regard to the revelations I (and others) were getting about me marrying Kim, and that was only after I had counselled with you about it.
And finally, as you say, there was the split... ie. the time when 2-3 person teams including you and Ruth were given an equal share of the assets and sent off on your own to do as you wished. You asked why it was that we needed to split if we were already autonomous. The reason, as far as I remember, was because before, although we were autonomous, we were still operating in larger teams (e.g. The U.K. team was still the U.K. team. consisting of several members). The idea with the split was that each 2-3 person team could start with an equal share of the funds and do as they wished with them. Of course, we all hoped that each team would make moves in starting up their own community, assuming that people were in the community in the first place because they shared the same goals. By splitting people up in smaller teams, it gave people more freedom to discover for themselves just how committed they were to the principles of the Jesus Christians. That is why you are where you are now. You were given assets and freedom to do what you wanted, and you have chosen your path.
James, to my knowledge, you didn't complain at the time we decided to change from one thing to another. In fact, for many years, you continued happily distributing Survivors. It was only later, when you had been autonomous for some time, and when you started believing in the preterist theory of eschatology, that you didn't want to distribute Survivors anymore.
So, James, I don't agree with you. Other people on this forum can think what they like of me, and no doubt regardless of what I say, they will believe what they want to believe. But you know better. You know me better than anyone on this forum. Am I really the can't-think-for-himself puppet that you and others imply I am? You know me well, and I know you and Ruth well too. And I must say, I am disappointed. Nevertheless, as I have said to you several times, I really love both you and Ruth and I have many fond memories of our time together. I wish nothing but success to you in your endevours to follow God.
Quote
James
Hi Fran, I find it troubling that you, or any other JC, still thinks that you are in autonomy. For me it's so obvious that the autonomy was just another gimmick.
Hi James, I find it disturbing that you think you were not autonomous. Isn't it true that you were given an equal share of the assets of the community? And isn't it also true that you were never asked to return that money? You know that in a community where people forsake all for God, when they leave, they are supposed to leave with nothing (because they gave up everything for God). And yet you left with quite a lot. No, I don't believe it was a gimmick. But I do believe that it was for you whatever you thought it was.
I also do not agree with the spirit behind your account of the various moves towards autonomy. I do agree, however, that we kept gravitating back towards accountability for the most part. But ask yourself this... who was the one who pushed for autonomy at each step of the way? And why would Dave keep pushing for autonomy and look for better ways of getting people to be autonomous, if he didn't want people to be autonomous?
Let's look at each of the moves towards autonomy that you have mentioned...
First, you mentioned the thing with experimenting for 2 to 3 days with other forms of witnessing. I am not sure if I was in the U.S. at the time or not, because I have memories of experimenting with different forms of witnessing in different countries and at different times, so that this particular period that you refer to is one that hasn't stopped that much for me. I have done street preaching, internet chats, forums, witnessing at airports, posters, busking, music recording, chalking, graffitti, and a few others. You say that at one point Dave decided that perhaps we should get back to full time distributing as it seemed a better way of reaching people, particularly the people of the U.S. Did you complain at the time? Did you inform Dave that you knew, as a result of all your freedom with different witnessing approaches, a better way to get the message out to the people of the U.S.? My guess is that you did not, and that instead, you were also keen to get back to distributing.
Next, there was this anarchy you refer to. Yes, I remember it. The "no rules" period. Annette in particular thought it was a gimmick, and it seems that you now think it was one. I think the reason is that you both didn't have the courage to believe it. You say that Dave was disappointed later to find out that people were not distributing that much as a result of anarchy. So what?! It's anarchy, right? Why didn't you just stand your ground and say that you didn't believe in distributing anymore? You say that anarchy ended after two weeks without discussion. Why didn't you discuss it if you were so concerned? The truth is, James (and you know it's the truth), that you used your freedom as an excuse to be lazy. And when it was suggested that we try to get out lots of tracts in a given week, you were all for it. I heard no complaints from you. In fact, you were enthused. And you were enthused for a long time after that too. It's only now, when you are trying to search for negative files, that you are twisting these experiences in your mind. As a result you rob yourself of the good times you had.
Then there is this Autonomy thing where each base tried to be more autonomous. Here we remember things slightly different. I don't remember that we had split up into 2-3 person teams at that stage and that each team had their own assets. Instead, I remember that we were just split up into bases (ie. Oz, U.K., U.S.). I remember at this time that I went to Spain with Reinhard. I was not at all accountable to Dave. If anything, I was accountable to YOU. Yes, you, remember? You were the base leader. Through the use of yahoo chat and email, I was in direct contact with you while I was in Spain. I don't remember you ever telling me anything about Dave having said this or that. Instead, we made our own decisions. You know what I am saying is true. The only time I contacted Dave was to get some advice with regard to the revelations I (and others) were getting about me marrying Kim, and that was only after I had counselled with you about it.
And finally, as you say, there was the split... ie. the time when 2-3 person teams including you and Ruth were given an equal share of the assets and sent off on your own to do as you wished. You asked why it was that we needed to split if we were already autonomous. The reason, as far as I remember, was because before, although we were autonomous, we were still operating in larger teams (e.g. The U.K. team was still the U.K. team. consisting of several members). The idea with the split was that each 2-3 person team could start with an equal share of the funds and do as they wished with them. Of course, we all hoped that each team would make moves in starting up their own community, assuming that people were in the community in the first place because they shared the same goals. By splitting people up in smaller teams, it gave people more freedom to discover for themselves just how committed they were to the principles of the Jesus Christians. That is why you are where you are now. You were given assets and freedom to do what you wanted, and you have chosen your path.
James, to my knowledge, you didn't complain at the time we decided to change from one thing to another. In fact, for many years, you continued happily distributing Survivors. It was only later, when you had been autonomous for some time, and when you started believing in the preterist theory of eschatology, that you didn't want to distribute Survivors anymore.
So, James, I don't agree with you. Other people on this forum can think what they like of me, and no doubt regardless of what I say, they will believe what they want to believe. But you know better. You know me better than anyone on this forum. Am I really the can't-think-for-himself puppet that you and others imply I am? You know me well, and I know you and Ruth well too. And I must say, I am disappointed. Nevertheless, as I have said to you several times, I really love both you and Ruth and I have many fond memories of our time together. I wish nothing but success to you in your endevours to follow God.
Australian cult: Anyone recognize this?
Posted by:
Fran
()
Date: February 12, 2007 05:38AM
Quote
cultmalleus
Fran, your last response makes me sense this discussion is getting to you.
It's true it can be frustrating to have to keep saying some stuff over and over again. Eventually, I'll probably give this
forum a break, as I would like to invest my time into other things I'd like to get done.
Quote
cultmalleus
Imagine studying to gain skills to help others, then really work at it, with a properly run
organisation, you'd be fulfilling Matthew 25 much more than you are now.
I think what you suggest is fine, if that is what God leads you to do (ie. investing your time to study to gain skills).
There are many ways to fulfill Matthew 25 without having a university degree (e.g. Teresa). Nevertheless, I am not against
university degrees as such. By the way, is it not true that the Jesus Christians decided to study medicine to gain skills
and help people? Is it not true that you also studied at university as a direct result of the decision made by the Jesus
Christians?
Quote
cultmalleus
The so-called "great commission" seems to me to be relatively low in terms of priority if you try and
sort out the historical Jesus from church tradition, and in any case, preaching words without actions is pretty empty don't
you think?.
Yes, preaching words without actions is pretty empty. As the words to the song goes, "You've got the truth, it's right there
in the book, but you've got to see clearly and not just to look. How can you say that you're serving Lord Jesus when working
for money is what you believe? You've got to see that the chains that enslave are the things that you hold to and what you
must leave. Who are you serving? God or Mammon? What's the choice? Just God, or the system?"
Quote
cultmalleus
Fran, have you ever looked at the Jesus Seminar? Interesting stuff, even if you end up not agreeing with
it fully.
[en.wikipedia.org]
No, I hadn't seen the Jesus Seminar thing before. I read the link you provided. It was somewhat interesting, but nothing that I haven't read before through other books. But you guessed right that I wouldn't end up agreein with it fully. I do believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Quote
cultmalleus
Fran, the so-called "system" is not some monolithic Empire of evil, opposed to God. It is a constantly evolving patchwork of
multiple influences, some of God and Love, some not.
I do believe the systems of man are, overall, opposed to God, and that they are controlled by such evil forces as greed.
Quote
cultmalleus
We can find other people to work with to expand the influence of good,
love and God, in freedom.
And at the moment I am working with the Jesus Christians to do just that. Why can't you accept that? Why does it always have to be this "anyone but the Jesus Christians" attitude. It doesn't impress me at all.
[quote="cultmalleus]You can do God's work without ever distributing a single book or tract again and God will still
love and accept you. [/quote]
I fully agree with this statement.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.