I agree that we have probably not yet heard from a single JC other than Davejc so far.

The reason they are not posting on the JC site is that Davejc is playing gatekeeper there, except for an occasional appearance by someone, Ross/Grace, to back him up in some unlikely assertion. Denise of course gets a guest spot and her latest nasty videos posted.

Malcolm, if Joe was in the UK is he likely to be with the Gianstefanis or do the JC's still have a flat in S.E. London?

Stoic


I'd imagine that the relationship with the Gianstefani's has taken a considerable turn for the better now that McKay is "sidelined" (I doubt that they can admit that to themselves however...as the Moderator has remarked we are yet to see evidence of their "recovery" from McKay speak...)...but simply due to the logistics of housing a family AND a single male in a average camper, over any extended period of time......long term I think he'd have to be in the Guildford flat, with the rest of the "semi-permanent" cell, there.

Quote
Apollo
That was an excellent posting Hello/Jezebel made on the xjcs site.

I didn't realise there was another paedophile incident involving someone with learning difficulties. You learn something new every day with this destructive cult. I would like to revisit this incident in the near future.

Stoic I think you may be right when you say ''that their willingness and ability to sell his tracts for him outweighed any other consideration for the welfare of the children''. I don't think he could care less what type of threat someone poses to children as long as they reach their sales targets that's all that really matters.

I was really happy to see this post from hello. This is the same person who, a few years ago, was pushing for everybody to make get-well cards for Dave as a gesture of goodwill (supposedly he had cancer at the time) , and who proposed that we all hold a bake sale in order to help with the Johnsons' legal defense. Good on you, Franky, for standing up and telling Dave NO!

[jcs.xjcs.org]

By DM not knowing what is being collected and what is being sent out, he feels less in control.

We are dealing with a cult leader i.e. a control freak.

His classic response to virtually everything, is to use his journalistic skills to manage each PR crisis that comes along and to counter attack. Typically that includes naming his critics in public, discrediting the critic by negative information, downplaying any evidence collected, etc. Classic Scientology stuff.

He has even criticized by cut and paste a professional Psychiatrists report on the net. Even a Court testimony, Sheila's deposition. Ronson's news article, the list goes on and on.

By the way, I have read many of these Dr. reports and they are fairly standard in the way they research them and put them together. They have to refer to outside material as their client could be lying.

However, if Dave doesn't know what is being said, he is absolutely helpless. It creates fear, he becomes disorientated. He retreats, makes mistakes.

But now he has an opportunity to be back in control. To manipulate to get the info. They fall for it. They think they are being fair, ethical, etc but they are being manipulated.

Dave will then use any information, believing he has it all (which he hasn't) to maintain, "the rebels" don't have anything on him, it was all bluff, etc, etc.

He will come out winning the propaganda war. Agreeing to send him any info of any kind is a big, big mistake.

[www.jesus-teachings.com]

The Five-fingered Ministry

(October, 2000)

"He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry." (Ephesians 4:11-12)

Any of the passages from the epistles, where Paul uses titles to identify various positions within the church, need to be taken with a grain of salt, i.e. we should not be too rigid about interpreting them as absolute formulas for the structure of a religious organisation. Paul seemed more interested in describing what people were do-ing, rather than just giving them titles. You will notice, for example, that Paul seems to use different terms each time he brings up the subject of roles within the church. Sometimes he talks about elders and deacons, sometimes about bishops, sometimes about "gifts", such as helps, prophecy, tongues, healing, or the performing of miracles. And then we have this bit about evangelists and pastors, etc. So what do they all mean?

There is a fair bit of room for differences of opinion on this; but I would like to share my own understanding of this passage, based as much on experience as anything else.

Before focusing on the various terms used in the first half of the verse, let us look at the second half of the verse, which tells us why these various people exist in the body of Christ. They exist for the purpose of training the rest of the body of Christ to become "ministers". In other words, everyone in the church should either be a minister, or be training to be a minister. "Minister", mind you, is a very broad term that just means "one who serves". There are different ways that we serve, and some of us will lean more toward one ministry than toward another; but we should all be working toward something.

The Christians were first called "disciples", which literally means "students". We should all be studying the teachings of Jesus, as part of our preparation for ministry. Jesus had many disciples (at least 70), but only some of them reached the level of being called apostles. Nevertheless, that is the direction toward which we should all be moving, i.e. from disciples to apostles.

There are five titles given in the passage of scripture from Ephesians 4. They are: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, and Teacher. These words describe the various aspects of Christian ministry.

Let us picture them as five fingers on the hand. The apostle is like the thumb. The thumb is able to reach over and touch each one of the other fingers. And so, an apostle must be capable of filling the role of all the other four ministries if called upon to do this.

The reason for this is because the apostle is more or less a "pioneer", taking the Christian message into new lands. In such circumstances, an apostle may often find himself or herself in a situation where a particular ministry is needed, but where there is no one else to turn to.

In the past, missionaries were more or less apostles. However, today, many so-called missionaries are just employees of large organisations who happen to have overseas placements. The real pioneering has already been done in most countries on behalf of most churches, so there is little real need in those churches for one person to be able to perform all four ministries.

Nevertheless, there are areas of the world where genuine apostles are still needed, to pioneer new works. This is particularly true with regard to our own situation, where we are trying to bring in teaching which is not going to receive the support of the existing churches. We can find ourselves doing the work of apostles even in Western countries, because we will become totally isolated from other professing Christians when they hear that we are preaching obedience to the teachings of Jesus.

Some apostles succeed in establishing a network of new communities. In such situations, the apostles become overseers or supervisors of the various works that they have established. The Apostle Paul and his ministry have become the classic pattern for this picture of what it means to be an apostle.

But don't forget that the title in itself proves nothing. The primary thing is just to do the job. If you start something, and you take a genuine interest in the welfare of the people involved, you can call yourself a president, a facilitator, the managing director, an apostle, or nothing at all. It doesn't really make much difference, so long as you do the job.

The other four ministries represent the qualities which must go together to make up an apostle. Some people will find themselves naturally inclined toward one more than others; however, the more we can develop an understanding of the benefits of all four approaches, the better leaders we will be.

Two ministries (prophet and evangelist) are mainly directed toward people outside the community; and two (pastor and teacher) are mainly directed toward people inside the community. But these are not strict job descriptions. In our own community, for example, we have been able to successfully distribute teaching on many different subjects to people outside of our community; and occasionally someone has had to act as a prophet to the rest of us within the community itself.

Another way to look at the four ministries is to think of two of them (prophet and teacher) as being "crunchies" and two of them (evangelist and pastor) as being "smoothies". An apostle should be capable of taking a hard line or a soft line, and be able to deal with people inside the community, or with people outside the community. When you have that down, then all you need is the wisdom to know when to be hard, and when to be soft.

The prophet is the critic, or the crunchy, usually with regard to people outside the community. A prophet must be capable of seeing things that others cannot see. The prophet must have the courage to speak up when he or she sees that something is not right. The prophet takes initiative, and risks expulsion (if he or she is a member of the group being criticised) in order to set things straight. The prophet is not overly concerned about what people think. What matters most is what God thinks.

In his discussion of spiritual gifts, Paul said that we should seek the best gifts, and in particular, that we should seek the gift of prophecy. (I Corinthians 14:1) Most people think this means predicting the future. However, that is but a small part of what the prophet may need to do. Certainly, if a prophet wants to be more than just a critic, he or she must be capable of seeing the bigger picture, and recognising the direction in which people are heading. A prophet gets the eternal picture, and calls people back to eternal values rather than the short-sighted, organisational obsessions that so often lead groups astray. The prophet usually speaks from outside the establishment being criticised.

As a community, we have spoken collectively as prophets to the established churches, calling them to repentance and obedience to Jesus.

While the prophet's message often comes across as harsh and judgmental, the message of an evangelist is much more positive. An evangelist is one who tells the "good news" to those outside the church. The evangelist is very much like a salesperson, because he or she is able to persuade people to make a decision to change or "convert" based on the benefits to be received personally through such a conversion.

A pastor is similar to the evangelist, in that the pastor also has a soft approach. The pastor continues to comfort and care for the converts after they have become part of the Christian community. The word "pastor" literally means "shepherd".

Most people today think of the pastor as being more like a priest or an apostle, because in traditional Protestant churches, the pastor is the professional full-time minister while the rest of the congregation just pays his salary.

This is not the way it was in the early church, and it is not the picture that we get from the passage in Ephesians 4. The particular emphasis of the pastor is on unity and administration. In a Christian community, pastoral duties would include housekeeping, cooking, working out the budget, and counselling and encouraging members. A pastor is part administrator and part counsellor. The pastor, like the evangelist, is able to inspire people to change and to grow spiritually.

The teacher's primary emphasis is a rational, unemotional consideration of the facts, in an effort to arrive at the truth. Good teaching should not be based on emotional issues so much as they should be based on justice, logic, and fair play. Because of this, teachers may seem more crunchy than pastors. A pastor can use a song or a game to inspire change or encourage unity; but the teacher can only rely on the truth. A true teacher cannot compromise the truth in order to make it more comfortable.

Of course, people can blend aspects of both ministries, and in that way make it easier for disciples to accept truths which require them to change. When criticisms are difficult to take, most of us are encouraged to accept the truth in the criticisms at least partly because we do not want to lose the blessings that come from being part of such a close fellowship.

A further observation with regard to our own ministry is that we have probably excelled in a type of teaching ministry which extends beyond the boundaries of our own organisation. Some of our teachings are truly prophetic, in that they challenge and convict the religious establishment. But other teachings may be far less threatening, and even inspirational. This study in itself would not be considered prophetic, nor would it be considered evangelistic, and yet through such things as the Internet, we have been able to make it available to the general public. Our tracts differ from traditional Christian tracts as well, in that they usually include a lot of teaching, and they do not restrict themselves to John 3:16 type messages.

Of course, because we include so much teaching in our message, we do not necessarily make many converts. We are pretty crunchy in the things that we say, and so people must be strongly motivated to find the truth before they will make a choice to actually join with us in our mission. We have chosen to do it this way, because we have felt that people won through too much of a soft line (or smoothy) approach, are more inclined to fall away when they discover the costs of discipleship.

Hopefully this study has made it clear that there is more than one way to get the job done... and there is more than one job to be done. Whether we are working out the budget, denouncing hypocrisy in the church, listening to someone pour their heart out about problems they have been going through, or leading a class on seven ways to know God's will, all of this is part of building the kingdom of heaven. You should be able to see natural tendencies for yourself and others. For example, the tendency for Robin to be a pastor, Ross an evangelist, Roland a prophet, Fran a teacher, and Dave an apostle.

It is good to memorise the four different approaches to Christian ministry. Remember that two of them are generally directed toward people outside the group, two are generally directed toward people inside; two generally apply a hard line, and two generally apply a soft line. If you can keep this picture in your mind, you will be more likely to consider the entire range of options when trying to make a wise decision as to what approach to take toward a person or situation.

[www.jesuschristians.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2011 03:05AM by zeuszor.

Margaret Singer once told me that most, if not all, cult leaders are psychopaths.

See [www.oregoncounseling.org]

The psychopath is one of the most fascinating and distressing problems of human experience. For the most part, a psychopath never remains attached to anyone or anything. They live a "predatory" lifestyle. They feel little or no regret, and little or no remorse - except when they are caught. They need relationships, but see people as obstacles to overcome and be eliminated. If not, they see people in terms of how they can be used. They use people for stimulation, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value (money, property, etc..).

A psychopath can have high verbal intelligence, but they typically lack "emotional intelligence". They can be expert in manipulating others by playing to their emotions. There is a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may have felt and why). The lack of emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a psychopath. A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught is the second best sign.

The following is a list of items based on the research of Robert Hare, Ph.D. which is derived from the "The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, .1991, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems." These are the most highly researched and recognized characteristics of psychopathic personality and behavior.

* glibness/superficial charm

* grandiose sense of self worth

* need for stimulation/prone to boredom

* pathological lying

* conning/manipulative

* lack of remorse or guilt

* shallow emotional response

* callous/lack of empathy

* parasitic lifestyle

* poor behavioral controls

* promiscuous sexual behavior

* early behavioral problems

* lack of realistic long term goals

* impulsivity

* irresponsibility

* failure to accept responsibility for their own actions

* many short term relationships

* juvenile delinquency

* revocation of conditional release

* criminal versatility

There is no actual diagnosis of Psychopathy in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), but it is a highly studied area. A psychopath is not the same as an antisocial personality. Antisocial personalities may or may not be psychopathic. The antisocial personality is primarily a problem involving a failure to respect the right of individuals, the law and rules of society. Psychopathy involves poor emotional intelligence, the lack of conscience, and an inability to feel attached to people except in terms of their value as a source of stimulation or new possessions. There are many expressions and forms of psychopathy. For instance, a sexual psychopath is one form of a psychopath.

There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest that:

* there may be a genetic influence that creates a psychopathic personality

* adult psychopaths do not benefit from traditional counseling therapy and may in fact offend again and sooner because of it

* the brain of a psychopath may function and process information differently from those of non-psychopaths

* less intelligent psychopaths end up in prisons (highly intelligent psychopaths can run companies)

* psychopathic behavior may have once had a strong genetic "survival of the species" value

* psychopathic personalities are much more common than most of us realize

For further and more detailed information as well as research, see [www.hare.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2011 03:21AM by rrmoderator.

Hervey M. Cleckley's The Mask of Sanity is recommended reading, as well. Hare's work was based on that of Cleckley.

[en.wikipedia.org]

zeuszor:

Wikipedia is not a reliable reference resource.

See [en.wikipedia.org]

"Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages."

I would use other links to more reputable and reliable sources whenever possible.

Hervey M. Cleckley's 'The Mask of Sanity' is available as a free PDF download here:

[www.vainencounters.com]

Quote
rrmoderator
zeuszor:

Wikipedia is not a reliable reference resource.

See [en.wikipedia.org]

"Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages."

I would use other links to more reputable and reliable sources whenever possible.

You are right, Rick, thank you. You sound line one of my professors with the "Wikipiedia-is-not-a-source" warning.

Martha Stout's The Sociopath Next Door is a good (and easy) read, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2011 05:38AM by zeuszor.