Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: March 21, 2008 04:39PM

Another letter from ten years ago which proves that Dave was the one who initiated The Split.

Dear brothers and sisters, Dave here 1 pm Tuesday, 7 April, 1998

Cherry and I just returned from reading the mail. ... If the apologies offered by the key figures there were genuine I cannot understand how letters from both Donna and Darren have come through, continuing to argue the same points without any apparent attempt by anyone there to in Oz to correct them. [Dave had demanded everyone fast and pray and provide a personal response to issues raised against Kevin and Craig, so that is what they did, he just didn't like what they had to say; and goes on to say...]

Let me be very clear about my position. I took a grievance against Kevin and one against Craig.... Our efforts to help out from overseas have not been appreciated; and in particular because of Darren's, Donna's, Ray's, and Kevin's responses to my grievance, I can only conclude that my arguments have been thrown out of court. In the interest of ending this impasse, I wish to announce my intentions of leaving the community and starting a new one. Anyone else who wants to do the same and work with Cherry and myself should make it known to us and to everyone else.

There are, of course, a great number of practical matters which will need to be sorted out, As I said in an earlier letter, I have been giving some thought to them already. Kevin and I will need to sort out something regarding the Easy English program...

I will not be taking responsibility for the newsletter. If it is to continue then others will need to take the initiative in keeping it alive.

I am open to whatever is decided with finances; but it would be helpful if we could get some decision on that as soon as it is clear how many people (if any) will be coming with Cherry and myself and how many will be staying with the original community. It would be nice if we (the new community} were given some funds and/or a vehicle, but I'm sure God will provide if the group decides against it.

We will need to work out accommodation arrangements. I believe that even if there was only Cherry and myself, we would be able to continue a presence in Australia and one in India (though not at the same time if it was just Cherry and me)...

I would push most strongly for the right continue distributing The Liberator and the EE novels, something which I shouldn't think anyone would have objections to. I assume the Sydney PO box would stay with the continuing community; but we in the new community would probably print our own addresses on lit in future....

Decisions about where new disciples would be better cared for would probably need to take into account the personnel and facilities available after the two groups have formed. Obviously the preferences of the new disciples will also be important; but they should understand that there will be pluses and minuses either way.

I expect that our relationship would be very much like that which we have with Tony and Maria at the moment. There will probably be a period of hurt on both sides, after which we would hopefully respect each other's "autonomy". Personally I am hopeful that it will be a time of great spiritual growth for everyone concerned.

One group will not be answerable to the other in any way. If one group or the other does something wrong, they will be totally and personally accountable. The new new community, under my leadership will take no responsibility for autonomous groups, nor will it take grievances against them. If we should offer advice and find that it is not wanted, we will have no grounds for being offended, since neither group is answerable to the other.

I should note, however that the community which I will start will function under the principle that any person at any time has the right to take a grievance against any other person in the community. If the grievance reaches the third stage without being resolved , then one party or the other will be asked to leave the community. Our community will also operate on the principle that there will be a recognised leader responsible for everyone under him or her. The leader's decision will be respected and followed in all matters of opinion... All members of the community will be allowed access to business meetings; but new members would not be REQUIRED to attend, and they may be counselled against attending. All members must be willing in principle to laying down their lives for one another. There should be a strong personal commitment to prayer without ceasing, control over every idle word, and destruction of every proud or selfish spirit... we will each welcome encouragement from others to achieve this potential.

I will leave it here for now and await word from others. I recommend that anyone seriously contemplating working with Cherry and me put it on the highest possible priority to communicate your intentions and to make arrangements with regard to where we will go from here. The sooner we can get this part of the business over with and get on with other business, the better...

In many ways a move such as this was almost inevitable when we first started talking about autonomy. We knew that issues would come up that people would differ on, and we allowed for the fact that the person making the complaint would not automatically be allowed to pursue the grievance. What we did not allow for was what would be the next step when this happened. Division of some sort seems to go hand in hand with such autonomy. With the new "grace" approach, rather than expel the person against whom you have a grievance (if they fail to repent), you expel yourself and carry on, leaving God to sort out the other party. I think that in the overall scheme of things, the world (and probably God too) will see people like ourselves and Tony and Maria as both part of the same movement (or "kingdom") even though there is an unresolved issue between us (i,e, Tony's pride). The same should be the case with this present separation.

Love and prayers, Dave.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2008 04:52PM by apostate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: March 21, 2008 07:51PM

My reply to Dave's decision to leave the community...

Craig here, April 10, 1998, Friday 10 am.

G'day guys. I suppose I should start this letter off with the results of our meeting with regard to Dave's letter about separate communities and his call for any people to follow him in his decision to leave the community. We are all sad to hear that Dave wants to leave. We would like to do all that we can to support a "sister" community if that is what comes of this decision.

We here are interested in continuing to support the work in India. We want to give the entire World Services money that we currently have to Dave to do with as he wishes. The exact amount is $31, 660. After this initial handout we would also like to give further financial support to the work in India as we are able. We would be returning all the bankbooks of the people who have chosen to leave an. We would be giving you the Godstuff account and keeping the "Jesus Christians" one. That way we both get to keep a joint account in which we could unify funds for the individuals in both groups. If you want us to keep the money in the trust account for the purpose of the interest that it would accumulate, we are happy to do so. If you prefer us to just withdraw the money and give it to you so you can have in your accounts straight away, then we are happy to do that as well. We also would be handing back the personal papers of every person that chooses to leave the community.

We also want to make some vehicles available for you to take possession of when you return. We are happy to make a van and the Ford available. We are happy to negotiate in this area according to your needs. We are also happy to accommodate whoever returns for as long as they think necessary.

We are happy to continue the newsletter and to have it as our responsibility, but if you want to take it off us, you can.

I, personally am interested in continuing with the web page, but if you guys want to take it over that responsibility you can.... etc.

I can appreciate Dave's thoughts in that it would be good to get this side of things over with as quickly and painlessly as possible...

I am concerned about the pain that you guys may be feeling at the moment, and I would like to share some of my thoughts about this situation. I see that what is happening is actually in line with with the direction that Dave was previously leading us in, and that his goal as leader was to train people up to the point where he works himself out of a job.... We too want a good relationship with you guys. We don't want things to get any more separate than they already are. We would like to be able to continue to send you our general mail.

- Craig

It looks like I have opened pandora's box here, so I may as well continue the saga...

The Indian base joined Dave's new community and a few weeks later Dave and Cherry returned to Australia, and stayed with us for a few days before Roland and Sue arrived on Good Friday and Dave staged a meeting with the "continuing community".

This was Kevin's letter sent on Easter Saturday about that meeting and its consequences.

May 2, 1998

Dear All,

Well it looks like a clear division has occurred between us.

The meeting on Friday morning began with Dave withdrawing the offer of operating as sister communities and drawing diagrams on a blackboard describing group dynamics with hierarchy pyramids. Dave described two options available to us. One was two groups under the authority of one "apostle" with equal status and the other was two separate groups that viewed each other as the enemy.

Dave was asking that the meeting begin by recognising his authority. The feeling here was that Dave chose to separate himself from us and that it was presumptuous to accept his authority while he was labelling us heretics, and before the issues prompting the division had been discussed. We agreed to focus attention on dealing with the conflict, with the aim of building a bridge of credibility between the two teams. After several hours of discussion where faults were identified in each other, Dave proposed that we all throw away our grievances and start from scratch as one community. He offered to stand down as the "apostle" and return as an equal brother. Darren expressed concern that Dave was insincere in his offer, but the rest of the Oz base felt that Dave should be given the benefit of the doubt and the meeting concluded with everyone agreeing they were happy to bury the months of conflict, to start from scratch, to accept Dave as the apostle and to work as one community. Dave suggested that we toss out our file of correspondence as a sign of our commitment to burying the hatchet. We agreed. [Note: We salvaged the communication file from the bin when we were expelled the next day and that is where these letters come from.]
Dave suggested that we still continue to operate as two autonomous communities and that Craig remain as the leader, although our team identity would simply be determined by the people in the locality. (i,e, Rols and Sue were now part of our team).

We then enjoyed a reunification drink and looking at photos of India. I was glad it was all over and we were brothers once again.

I had a night of disturbed sleep and awoke with a feeling of gloom. I dismissed it as the remnants of the drawn out conflict. Liz and I were on a day away, so I didn't emerge from my room until late when I discovered that Craig had stood down from his administrative position and was surprised by how quickly Dave and Cherry and Rols and Sue moved in to remove all the money and important papers into their room where they were meeting behind closed doors. I commented on how an us-and-them feeling was still in the air and Ray said that Dave had written an email and had meetings with people in the early hours of the morning . I suggested that we make sure we were in fact ONE community as these group huddles could amount to murmuring and Craig asked Dave & Cherry and Rols & Sue to come out for a meeting. I asked about the letter and whether he could share any comments that were made about the meeting. Dave said "It is none of your business. I will not be accountable to you." Craig questioned whether Dave was treating him with suspicion and Dave said "I do not trust you." I reminded Dave that we had agreed to bury the past and start from scratch and how he had said he recognised Craig's leadership, but unless he honours that agreement, yesterday's comments were a sham. Dave made it clear he rejects both Craig and me as "insincere" and not to be trusted and said this was his view in yesterday's meeting. I felt totally betrayed. I completely lost it as the discussion degenerated into insults and orders to leave. Dave said "now you can put into practice YOUR teaching about loving your enemy". I asked how long we had to leave before Dave called the police. Dave said "until Monday". Craig asked in disbelief, "What? You would call the Romans?, and Dave said "Yes".... Ray, Darren & Donna, and Craig & Yesamma agreed that they did not want to continue working under Dave's authority.

We are now in the process of looking for another house. There isn't much available and when I checked with our real estate agent he said I could not sign a second agreement while my name was still on the lease. He said Dave would need to come down and prove he that he could pay the rent on his own before he could sign the lease over to him, or else we would have to both give notice and start again. Dave said they were planning on moving out after we left and I asked if we could stay on as we needed the room. Dave was resistant to any discussion on the subject, so I just signed over the bond and the lease to Dave.

Boyd and Sheri will probably clarify their position, but they had already left before the scene this morning. Sheri was quite distressed last night after a discussion with Dave when he revealed that he was playing strategy to sideline Craig and myself. They returned around lunchtime to tell Dave that they had made an independant decision to leave. They are planning on a trip to Perth as a result of a revelation Josh had. I think it would be good for them and the new disciples to escape the fallout from this disgusting episode.

I don't have a lot of faith in my ability to survive this without some bitterness remaining. I pray that I am not a spiritual liability to the others. I really wonder whether its possible for any Christian community to continue without repeating the sins of the system it broke away from. I hope that people continue to grow and learn whatever they can from whatever circumstances they find themselves in.

Your brother,


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: March 22, 2008 12:13AM

Dear Apostate,

I similarly have been enjoying the "creative burst" of your recent postings.....I can't remember when you joined (...well after my period of internment of course)....and I assume that Kevin has already mentioned this to you earlier.....but the letter from Ross is chock-full of all the all same self-serving circular reasoning that David employed in the eighties, almost to the word (and I presume the seventies and earlier, would reveal similar dependance on the same old fabrications as well....), my! ....You DO have some "treasures" in that crock of gold!!

(I have to take issue with you on one matter, though, Jack...Now that I'm out of the JesusChristians and am not a 19 year old any longer....I consider David to be very third rate in his "journalism", and the "venom" he delivers, is only possible where he has already circumvented any alternative debate, in a forum he controls (....for example, having LivingDonorsOnline cut Dogmother out of the picture).....He is an intellectual weakling, who repetitively resorts to the same old manipulative and dishonest strategies time and time again, couched in many instances, in the very same phrases he has used elsewhere.....!.....I would grant you, though that his snivelling hatred of anyone that denies him the "recognition" he craves, should be acknowledged for the first rate wickedness, that it is.....)

Ross and I were two of the original "disciples" (we were a little later than Neville)....and to see him parrot the "same ol' same ol", decades later is startling......

The "Malcolm Heresy".....(David, (may Satan keep his soul!), very transparently engaging in nothing less than "labelling" again...)....Oh that is a classic, isn't it! (I wonder if I could open my own website, so-named??)

(...extracting Ross's comments from Apostates posting on the previous page...)

"This leads me on to a discussion about what I call "the Malcolm Wrest heresy".

I had a dream some time ago that Malcolm Wrest had returned and had set himself up as a teacher. I think this may well be coming true now. If you start critically examining some of the things Kev has said about the future of the group combined with Craig's gaffe on Feb 11, and you will find some theorising going on that smacks of the Malcolm doctrine.

Thos of us who were in Adelaide with Malcolm, ought to know better by now, but it seems that God is allowing this all to surface again in order that we get things clear before we take on any more new disciples, and confuse them with messy division.

What is the Malcolm doctrine? Malcolm believed that there should be no leaders in the name of equal brotherhood. Sounds nice in theory? What it meant in practice was that Malcolm could assert his own influence over the group and act as its defacto leader, ahead of less ambitious easy going disciples who were less pushy about their opinions. A group which has decided to have no leaders for fear of abuse of power inevitably means that someone, who is usually the least humble, least qualified, and most ambitious will try to take on that role in the absence of protest from anyone else."

David engaged in projection, accusing me of "meglomania" quite openly, on a couple of occasions I was in the community....."asserting my authority" and being "pushy about my opinions"....of course being David to a "T"......Ross is quoting verbatim, here the "euology" David provided about me, explaining where I'd gone wrong.....

Having seen what has happened to Ross, and the "fruit" of David's leadership over the past decades....I see that I will have to modify my original "heresy" somewhat ....however,.....and more in keeping with the meritocracy of Plato's republic, remark that it should be incumbent upon others to EARN the right to vote....and hence that David, and others of his ilk, should have been deliberately stripped of any powers that he once might have held, decades earlier than Apostates' time, in order that the Christian Anarchist democracy I once aspired to (with reference to the period of the "Judges" in the books of the Old Testament) become "theory" that was capable of "implementation".....

I was NEVER in Adelaide, hence Ross is confusing his need to slander me, here, (in order that he can better justify castigating Kevin and Craig as the bogeymen.....seemingly possessed by nothing less than the poltergeist of Malcolm.....(You must have each had one half each of me!!!!)) with the actual facts of the matter...(Never mind Ross, whatever you say, David will approve, won't he...)...

..Ross is right, in one point however ....I have become a teacher! (perhaps to "return" (like General MacCarthur!)......although I'd quite happily just spend my waning years well away from the "companionship" of Ross and cronies just being able to ..well, you know...relax, potter about and indulge in the gentle past-time of cult interventions)

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2008 12:18AM by Malcolm Wesley WREST.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: March 22, 2008 11:45AM

The following collective response was the first written after the final expulsion on Sunday 3 May, 1998 and it covers a long list of lies and false accusation that Dave had written to friends. Sorry it is so long, there was a lot to respond to.

Hello all, Craig, Kevin & co here. May 14,

It has been our intention to keep the details of the split with the community to a minimum with the object of preserving the possibility of us all operating as independent communities without putting pressure on third parties to choose sides.

Dave seems to have modified the grievance system to say that you only have to be "willing" to say the same things to someone's face to spread it on to others. But if one is ignorant of the claims being made against them, how can they offer up a defence before prejudice sets in? Everything we have written about the incident has been sent to Dave. He had asked for third parties to be spared the details, which we mistakenly presumed meant he was limiting his comments about us. The fact is NOTHING Dave has written has been addressed to us. We have written just one general letter each on Sat 2/5/98 about the blow up. Dave said "what they had written has been reasonably honest". Despite the truth in what we had written and our silence since, Dave has found it necessary to write lengthy letters contesting our account, leaving no stone unturned in an effort to discredit us with his extraordinary suspicions and accusations. Unfortunately his reports have not been as honest.

We understand if people are weary of the conflict (we are!) and we can sympathise with those who would like to maintain a position of neutrality. But, Dave has made so many false representations and incredible accusations, that we are compelled to reply for fear that our silence may be interpreted as accepting Dave's lies as fact.

Dave has made so many accusations that it is difficult to answer, as in many instances a challenge in one letter is contradicted with a counter challenge in another. e.g. In one letter we were laying seige to the house planning to stay as long as possible, and in another we were secretly planning to leave on Sunday. We "turned up our noses" at everything that was offered and were out "for everything we could get". When we left we took "half the house" ... and we stuck fairly closely to the list. Craig was a hypocrite for feigning a shocked response, and was guilty because he showed no sign of shock etc.

Some contradictions appear in the same letter. In Dave's 3/5 letter he writes "we didn't think it was really fair to be packing up stuff that they hadn't even bothered to ask for". In the next paragraph he says "There was no evidence of them packing up or vacating any of the house. The lack of consistency is a telling sign that Dave was seeing evil in every action we made, and we believe is evidence of the erratic nature of Dave's mind at the time.

Dave takes comments out of their context to try and prove our hatred. He writes: "We were surrounded by a pack of angry people who saw evil in such innocent things as me pushing my own luggage trolley. Yes, that was one of their accusations against us! I'm telling you these are crazy people!" But Dave was accusing Craig of being rude and inhospitable from the moment he arrived at the airport. Darren defended Craig, by saying he saw Craig make several offers to help Dave push his trolley, but that Dave refused. This is a common tactic used by Dave in his accounts of us.

Regarding Dave's claim; "their secret counsel to their community that the rest of should be taken back in as "enemies" who they were "loving" was totally in keeping with our observation that we had been painted as the enemy ever since we left three months ago. Dave was not viewed as the enemy when he left Australia. There was no "secret counsel" and we were not accepting Dave back as an enemy. Dave was the one who asked to have a private discussion with his community, soon after announcing the possibility of dropping all grievances and rejoining as one community. Darren expressed a concern that Dave may be speaking insincerely and this was just a ploy to gain control. The rest of the community felt Darren's fears were unjustified. Kevin said to Darren that if Jesus asks us to love our enemy, HOW MUCH MORE should we love a BROTHER. When Dave returned we told him what had been discussed, but that we had ALL agreed that it was the right thing ... to not only receive Dave back, but reinstate him as the leader.

The fact that Dave admits to arriving in Australia with the belief ('at the forefront of his mind') that a "coup" had been orchestrated soon after he left Australia is evidence that HE viewed us as the enemy, not the other way around. This preconceived judgement was either blinding Dave to contrary evidence, or has resulted in him consciously refusing to to see any fact that would prove his theories wrong.

If Dave felt God was telling him "If you will be my enemy, I will be your enemy too." should have been ample warning against proceeding with a plan to deceive the Oz base and depose Craig and Kevin as the "enemy".

On April 10 Dave announced that he was leaving the community and those who followed him were severing all responsibility to those who remained. We responded graciously in offering all the funds we had at that time, the Ford to Dave and Cherry and the van to Rols and Sue. We immediately deposited all the funds into the Colonial trust account and started our own budget from scratch. At that time Dave left us to keep what had been left after the split occurred, the (rented) house, two vehicles, the PO box etc, but we did not pursue this "justice". Our approach was consistent with Boyd's "Give what you think God wants you to give."

It is convenient for Dave to believe that he did not kick us out and that on Saturday morning we "asked" to leave. It is also important for Dave to convince himself that the agreement to rejoin as one community the day previous, placed him in a position of authority at the time of the split. We had agreed to rejoin as one community based on his proposal that the current conflict be dropped. The fact is Dave had no intention of living up to the terms of that agreement. Whatever he said was insincere and part of a strategy to remove us and regain possession of those things he claimed to have left.

Boyd and Sheri were the first to discover Dave's deception, because immediately after the fellowship drinks on Friday night, Dave called them aside privately and tried to enlist them in his conspiracy against us. Dave said to Sheri; "This may be a bit of a bombshell, but what happened today has been part of a strategy. I want you and Boyd to take the new disciples away. I don't care what happens to Darren and Donna, and I am through with Kevin and Craig." Sheri in a state of shock responded; "If you really feel that way, why didn't you just kick them out?" Dave replied; "We're doing all this for the new disciples benefit." Boyd and Sheri decided they could not be party to such premeditated scheming that disregarded every teaching of Jesus on dealing with conflict, and quite independently chose to leave.

When Dave's clandestine meetings and treachery was revelled on Saturday morning Dave said, "If you don't like it, you can leave!" Morally, Dave and company were in the same position he was in prior to the meeting on Friday. A community that had separated themselves from us. Kevin made the point of saying "Yesterday was a farce. There is no agreement between us. There are ten people living in this house and if you don't like it YOU can leave." Dave responded saying "Well, there are 11 of us (including those in India) and we're not leaving." Dave was the one threatening a "siege". We decided that we were not interested in fighting over the house or the rights of the continuing community, so we decided to let Dave keep it even though he had no real authority to do so.

We fail to understand Dave's logic when he explained how they decided to disregard Courtney's welfare (18 month old foster child Darren and Donna were caring for) because Kevin walked away from Dave while sorting out the lease. We had made efforts to talk to Dave about the possibility of keeping the house after Dave had revealed they intended moving out anyway. Dave refused to enter into conversation, so Kevin agreed to sign over the lease and bond. (He was legally entitled to claim half of it.) For some reason Dave changed his mind at the real estate office, and lectured Kevin about how he could not arbitrarily call the shots, and how discussion was necessary, but added "I'm not interested in discussing anything with YOU." Whatever was going on in Dave's mind it delayed our house hunting as it was almost 4 pm when he finally "consented" to us signing the house over.

Concerning the claim "There was no evidence... that they were doing anything about making plans. We never even saw a newspaper being checked for adds. We did buy and check newspapers. Dave's double think on whether or not we could have the house slowed things down, but Darren was out until after dark looking for a house in the Concord area. Dave had assured us they were not expecting us to find a place over Sunday (when real estate agents are closed), and that we could stay at least until Monday.

Concerning "relegating" Rols and Sue to the van: Several letters were written in which Darren and Donna offered their bedroom prior to their arrival, which were politely refused in preference to the van. R/S did sleep in D/D's bedroom on Thursday night. D/D made at least three more offers for them to continue using their room. But in each instance R/S declined the offer.

Dave said in a letter to Tony: "I asked Donna if R/S could have their room on Saturday evening and she refused to answer me. I took the matter to Craig, and he told them to move into the sleep out adjoining their room."

Dave did not speak to Craig at all. On Saturday evening Donna was washing Courtney in the bathroom. Dave entered and stood watching over her for approx. five minutes. No words were spoken, but Donna felt extremely uncomfortable. Donna was preparing to feed her when Dave asked "Where are you sleeping tonight?" Donna replied "In my room." Dave asked "Where are Rols and Sue sleeping?" Donna answered "Wherever they like." Dave said "Thanks!".... "Rols and Sue will be sleeping in your room". Cherry said; "Conner will be going to sleep at 6:30 in the cot." It was 6:20, so Donna asked Craig to help her move their stuff out of their room. Dave made no offers of alternative accommodation, so Kevin and Liz offered their room and went to stay with Rachel and Paolo.

Dave says of Sunday morning. "For some reason or other Boyd, Josh and Tim rolled up and were sitting in the front room. I don't know what the purpose was for their visit, and I was told that it was none of my business when I asked... They were probably here to pick up the goods as part of a grandstand attempt to shame us into giving in to their demands. Whatever the reason, it was clear that Boyd didn't mind getting himself and the new disciples into the thick of the fray when there were goodies to be had. We could see that Craig was working another strategy."

Dave's theory about Boyd was reported as fact in a letter to Gary. He said: "Boyd rolled up with Tim and Josh to load the stuff into vans to be taken SOMEWHERE on Sunday."

Once again Dave's description of these events are quite untrue. On Sunday morning we planned to meet together with Boyd and co. at a park for the purpose of discussing future direction and to seek solace in each other's fellowship. It was raining heavily and since the atmosphere was somewhat hostile there was some concern that if we all vacated the house we'd find ourselves locked out when we returned. Kevin met Boyd at the park with the suggestion to meet in Kevin's bedroom at the rear of the house. Yes, they arrived in vans, but that is because they live in them. We had no alternative accommodation, so they were not arriving to remove furniture. Dave and Rols meet us at the door asking "What do you want?" We explained we had come to meet the others. Dave said "You have no right to come in. As far as we are concerned you are treating us as enemies." After a brief standoff, Dave said he was calling a general meeting and invited Boyd and co into the loungeroom. Dave had stated that we had claimed the loungeroom as our territory, but everyone else was huddled in Kev and Liz' room at the rear of the house. When Kevin walked down the hallway to his bedroom, Dave objected and told him to wait in the lounge, Kevin said, I have come to see my friends, besides this is my room. Dave said "No its not. The lease is in my name." Dave ordered Kevin to leave and Kevin resisted saying while his and his wife's possessions remained in the room he still had some legal claim. But he decided to comply and returned to the loungeroom. Boyd upon hearing the conflict had left with Josh and Tim. Dave announced this as evidence of some trick, and could not be convinced otherwise.Contrary to Dave's claim, Boyd WAS trying to keep the new disciples out of the conflict. Kevin found them downstairs and convinced them to return.

The direction of the meeting was confusing. We did not go on the attack as Dave claimed. We were all quite restrained, knowing that Boyd was likely to walk out if we did. Dave began with a sermon repeating much that had already been covered and seemed upset by the list of items that Craig had requested. The previous night Dave said we should not presume to take anything without specifically asking. Two items were requested. Craig asked to take the tape recorder. Dave said "no." Darren asked to take a fishing rod purchased with pocket money. Dave said; "No! Do you think you are going on a holiday?" Dave said things could go "smoothly or roughly" and the choice was ours, and proceeded to call Craig a "pig" and a "churchy. Withdrawing to compile a list seemed more positive than continuing to cause and feel offence with each individual request.

During Sunday's meeting it seemed Dave did not want to take responsibility for either giving or refusing the items that were requested. He said the list would only be considered if we were friends. He did a few rounds of asking "Are you a friend, or an enemy?" Craig replied: "I am your friend. Are you a friend?" Dave made it clear he considered Craig an enemy.

Dave asked when we are leaving. He claims that we said "We'll take as long as we like". This is not true. Craig responded; "As soon as possible." Dave said; "That's not good enough. What action are you taking to get a house. Craig responded "We are doing what we can, but its a bit difficult on a Sunday." Kevin reminded Dave that he had given us at least until Monday. Dave threatened to tear up the list of requests, saying "I have the power to throw you out right now with nothing." Craig said "OK. if that is what you want." Kevin added, You have that power because I gave it to you when I signed the lease over to you yesterday." Dave refuted this saying "The only reason you signed the lease was because God blinded you." Kevin said if that is what you believe then go ahead and reveal where your authority comes from. You are wielding the system's sword at the moment trusting in money and power." Dave said "Yes, I am wielding a sword, and don't think I won't call the police." Kevin turned to Sue and asked "Would YOU call the police and take me to court?" He remained seated throughout the conversation and did not "push his face right up in Sue's face" as reported by Dave. Sue said "Yes." Kevin asked; "What does Jesus say about going to court against a brother?" Roland said "Shut up." Sue replied; "I do not consider you my brother." Kevin asked; "What does Jesus say about how you should treat your enemy?" Sue replied; "I support Dave in what he is doing." Kevin said "As Christians, I thought we were supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus." Rols said "Shut your face." Kevin said; "I will talk about the teachings of Jesus as much as I like." Craig warned that Rols looks like he might get violent. Kevin began discussing Dave's recent writings on Tolstoy and his position on "Judge Not". Dave replied, Tolstoy? Who is Tolstoy? Ha! We thought you were talking about the Teachings of Jesus". A plummer arrived to fix a leak in the kitchen, so Dave said "We won't get the POLICE to get rid of you. We'll get the LANDLORD to do it!" Dave stood up and asked the repairmen to evict us. Craig said "It looks like you have dropped your sword, Dave." Dave then called Cherry, Rols and Sue to a private meeting in their bedroom. Dave's suggestion that they were relegated there is nonsense. It was his choice to leave.

When Dave returned he sat down on the floor, sighed and hit the floor with his fist saying; "What do you want us to do with the $32,000?" We responded with surprise telling him to do with it as he pleased. Dave then made the extraordinary accusation that while Craig had given them the bankbooks, they could not access the funds and Craig had orchestrated everything so that he could steal the funds as soon as we left. Dave claims there was no shock in Craig's eyes, (its been my experience that the bigger the strife, the calmer Craig becomes to cope with it), but you can be sure our surprised approached outrage. Craig has been Dave's most loyal right hand man for many years, and the accusation only prooves how far Dave had turned his mind against him.

Dave escaped further scrutiny over the claim by turning the discussion to Kevin's emotional outburst on Saturday morning. Craig felt the bigger issue was the treachery that provoked the response and said "He's just been betrayed by his father."

The meeting came to an abrupt halt when Dave asked; "What will it take to get you to leave?" We were staying because we had thought we had until Monday and had no alternative accommodation, but the question implied we were holding out for something, so we said "Nothing". Dave said "Good!", opened the door and said "Get Out!". As people started heading for the door, Kevin said "I would like to get Liz' gear." Kevin was facing Dave and Dave leaned over Kevin pushing him with his chest. Roland approached from the side. Dave said; "You are going to take what you want anyway. Let your greed take its free reign!" Kevin repeated the request saying, "I am ASKING if I can take Liz' s things." Kevin;s feet remained planted, with his arms at his side, but he was pushed to the point of almost falling over. Tim approached and said "Settle down, guys." Dave eased back momentarily , turned and then leaned his right shoulder into Kevin, and leapt back staggered as though Kevin had pushed him. Kevin said; "What are you doing Dave? Do you expect people to believe that ?" Dave said "Take what you want." Kevin asked "So, can I take Liz's gear?" Craig asked "Can we take some tracts?" Dave shouted "Yes. Take what whatever you want and get out." People decided to take their clothes and personal necessities.

Dave is correct when he says we stuck fairly closely to the list of requests, however there were a few items we did not take as there was some doubt as to the sincerity of Dave's offer. Dave was on the phone to India telling stories about how we were clearing out the house... He seemed to be making some point about us packing up in a hurry. The fact is, Dave was quite double-minded about whether he was giving or we were taking as he ordered us to leave. So we did feel like the Hebrews fleeing Egypt, unsure whether Pharaoh would change his mind. Liz arrived at the end, and Dave made a point of standing over her in the bedroom watching every move she made.

Before leaving Kevin gave $400 to Dave which he explained was to cover the recent payment to Liz' mother. Dave returned the money saying "We have no intention of giving ANYTHING to Liz' family." Kevin explained that he thought the payment had already been made, so he took the money.

Dave can claim a drawn out grievance with Craig and Kevin as evidence for his suspicions and accusations of them, but what evidence did Dave need for his 24 hour turn on Boyd? No Saturday morning he viewed Boyd as a co-conspirator, but on Sunday morning Dave accused him of "acting like an enemy." Boyd and Sheri have a consistent reputation for living simply and forsaking things. They were living in a van and had collected their few things on Saturday afternoon. The suggestion that Boyd was part of some scheme to move out Sunday so we could rob the W.S> account on Monday and he was out for whatever "goodies" he could get is in total contrast to Boyd's character. When Dave claimed they could not access the money we gave them, Boyd signed withdrawal forms for them, and yet Dave claims that Boyd's disinterest in money was only a pretence.

Dave wrote to Tony; "I know that you and others say that we have misjudged Craig, but remember covcering for a guilty man is just as wrong as condemning an innocent one. All I ask is that you open your eyes and decide whether Craig was operating in faith and love, or whether he was pushing for all that he could. What a good or bad person will do in the future can only be guessed at what they are doing in the present."

We believe this is good advice and would ask that both sides be judged by the same standard.

Dave seems to be losing faith in his argument because he says; "But what if I am wrong? It would be a shame to accuse someone of planning to steal $32,000 when they had no such evil intention. The problem is the $32,000 was really nothing in itself... he had no shame for the almost totally unbroken hatred that we have experienced since we arrived. They are guilty of murder... as they have all worked together to destroy me... Unfairly accused them of planning to take money? As Craig himself would say, "So what?" It's small bikkies compared to hate."

If we stop looking through Dave's hate gogles and throw out the unsubstantiated claims, where is the evidence of our hatred?

Dave says "The argument is simply over who regarded the other as the enemy first and who is more guilty of covering up their real thoughts." We have tried hard to dismantle Dave's false accusations, unfortunately his efforts to paint us as the enemy has produced a self-fulfilling result. False accusations condemn the one making them. Dave's deception and deceit has created a catch 22 situation. The fact that Dave "repented" insincerely and feigned respect for us as brothers will make it difficult to ever believe him again. We feel Dave has a history of faith behind him, and the many years that we have all lived together as a community still compell us to hope for the best, but we cannot close our eyes to the actions of the present without sharing responsibility for the consequences of the future... This situation is not reverible, but at this stage It would take a 'Saul of Tarsus' experience to change things.

- Christians

Dave replied to this email by saying "Don't think that anyone other than me gets to read what you write." So here it is a decade later for those who are interested.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: reprobate ()
Date: March 22, 2008 03:01PM

Kirstie say goodbye
"So long everyone it has been nice to be involved with the conversations going on but it is now time for me to say fairwell to you all. God bless you all

And Dave responds with Matthew 22:14
" For many are called, but few are chosen"
Kirstie goodbye

To me a response like "For many are called but few are chosen" is part of the full quote from Matthew:

"Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen."

In simple talk : "Go to HELL" - But we are the chosen one..

Here is the full Parable from Matthew 22:1 to 14

And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
Then said the king to the servants,

"Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
For many are called, but few are chosen."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: March 22, 2008 06:03PM

Hi Malcolm,

There is a lot of typing involved in transcribing old letters, but not much "creativity" really. I need to get that pro gramme which reads text from a scan!

I knew you would get a kick out of the references to you. It must be flattering to have a whole idea named after you, although I am sure theological scholars could find a lot of other sources for the idea of a religious community not being based around a human authority. I know the Anabaptists opposed central authority, the Brethren do as well, and it would seem the Quaker idea of the" Light of Christ" being in everyone must also be seen as manifestations of the "Malcolm Wrest Heresy". I wonder if the Quaker's know he expels people as 'heretics' for expressing such an idea? The New Testament is full of verses to support that model as well and can remember the verse "You have need that no man teach you..." being in our verse card set, although I recall when Kevin raised that point, Dave getting angry and saying, but WHO taught you that?. It seems the nature of organizations to transpose their own importance over the original principle which they were supposed to be following. It is apparent even in Ross's letter that Kevin was not advocating a "non-leader" principle, but a council of leaders, which for many years Dave pretended to support, and even at the end, Ross was stating this as the ideal if they could ever prove themselves to Dave by castigating his son.

Its therapeutic after all these years to go through the letters and realize there was no way that we could have remained inside Dave's control group. We think too much.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Date: March 22, 2008 06:17PM

Dear Apostate,

...all of your postings of are full of treasures at the moment, that could be mined for weeks to come...

"Our community will also operate on the principle that there will be a recognised leader responsible for everyone under him or her. The leader's decision will be respected and followed in all matters of opinion... All members of the community will be allowed access to business meetings; but new members would not be REQUIRED to attend, and they may be counselled against attending"

Classic psychosis material.......the need for hierarchies in any relationships he has.....and the blatantly contradictory statements (in order that he can then justify acting in any way that pleases him)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: March 22, 2008 08:03PM

and Ash makes 19 ....
On Thursday of this week, Ash finally succeeded in donating a kidney to Sandi Sabloff, the woman that Kate and Nick stopped him from donating to in Toronto, Canada, last year.

The surgeons said that the match beat all the odds by being closer than a match between mother and son, and the operation was a total success.

Kate and Nick turned up at the last minute, despite several requests by Ash for them not to come. They argued with the surgeon, who was almost persuaded to call off the operation just minutes before it was going to begin, but he reversed his decision a few minutes later, and went ahead with it.

Ash asked for Kate and Nick not to visit him, but they ignored his wishes until hospital staff intervened and stopped them from coming into his room after the operation.

The story made the front page of Saturday's Toronto Globe and Mail, in Canada. You can see it here:


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: yasmin ()
Date: March 23, 2008 03:09AM

Apostate, your postings are great, nice to read about what was happening.There is a lot of useful information there for a lot of people.
Kirstie my heart goes out to you.It can be so hard and confusing when you think you have found all the answers, and then for whatever reason find that it is not so. Sometimes a great feeliing of being let down.Can be an emotional time. Please take it easy and take care of yourself.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2008 03:13AM by yasmin.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: March 23, 2008 04:26AM

An example of Dave's false prophet status

This was prophesied 15 - 20 years ago.


1. Within the next few years the United States will be suddenly and almost totally destroyed, in a surprise military attack by the Soviet Union.
2. Russia will not occupy the U.S. after the battle (possibly because of nuclear contamination).
3. Survivors of the holocaust will flee the country as refugees, or be taken as prisoners to other countries.

If it was Old Testament days he would be stoned to death for falsely representing God, as 1993 was the shelf life of that prophesy. Just another reason why people should not even bother listening to him.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2008 04:27AM by apostate.

Options: ReplyQuote

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
This forum powered by Phorum.