Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: June 16, 2008 01:33PM



Divine Authority

(Written shortly after the "split", in 1998)

I have tried all my life to convince myself that anyone can be a leader; but no amount of effort on my part has been able to get some people to see past following whoever happens to be shouting the loudest at the time, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in what they are shouting. We can't put all the blame onto bad leaders if people are silly enough to follow them unthinkingly; but then, if the issues are complex and the bad leader is clever with words, I'm not so sure that we can put all the blame on the followers either.

The ability to lead is a gift, that can be used for good or evil. But you need to learn how to choose good leaders over bad ones.

I can't help but feel that if I had better access to some people, I could get them to follow me in preference to their churchy leaders. And I feel that if I could get them to follow me, I could eventually get them to follow Jesus. But maybe not. Maybe some people are just attracted to rebellious leaders, and it was just a matter of time before they would find one to follow. At any rate, it is important to realise that, merely being a gifted leader does not guarantee that a person will not abuse that gift.

There is something else that I'll call divine authority, which is quite separate from gifted leadership. Every leader will claim some kind of authority, which seems to be almost synonymous with being a leader. But divine authority is different, and it can only come from God. It is something like the difference between pride and confidence. People often confuse them, but one is the counterfeit of the other. A confident person has the respect of others; but is actually humble enough to accept criticism. A proud person tries to demand that people respect him or her, and a proud person hides from criticism.

Rebel leaders are like this. They hide from criticism and teach their subjects not to criticise them. But having such power does not say anything about whether they have God's authority to be leading. In fact, as a general rule, the worst leaders are usually the ones whose so-called authority needs to be most protected from criticism. And the best leaders are the ones who are most tolerant of criticism.

I have always tolerated a great deal of criticism, even criticism from rebels, ex-members, and outright enemies. But don't forget that I am the captain of this ship. I know where we are going, because I am getting my orders from God. I don't have to preach long sermons on it or abuse people in order to make it clear. Nor do I need to hide from confrontations with critics. For the most part, my record will speak for itself, both in showing my authority from God and in showing my ability to take criticism. But the bottom line is that I am here because God has given me a job to do, and I must do it. I'm not here to promote myself in opposition to someone else. I'm here to get God's work done.

I would like to think that each one of you could leave this community and start another community all over again, as Cherry and I did from scratch; but unless you did so under clear direction from God, you would most certainly be led astray if you tried, just as has happened with others who have left our community. The problem is not that they lacked ability, but only that they lacked authority from God to do such a thing. "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that do it." (Psalm 127:1)

Being clever with words and having a stack of my teachings won't amount to anything if you aren't being led by God. For the moment, God has put me here to lead you, and you are not free to just declare yourself to be the leader and automatically expect God to honour your decree.

I rebelled against the "covering" doctrine in the churches, because they were saying that, right or wrong, people have to follow church leadership. No way! If the leaders are wrong, you must not follow them. But if they are right, it's a different story. If you rebel against a "right" leader, you rebel against God, and he will lift his anointing and protection from you. The reason you would fail would not be because I'm so special, but just that any kingdom divided against itself will not stand. God is not stupid. If he has appointed me to lead this work, then he will expect others to work in submission to me.

He may have other leaders out there (whom we haven't met yet) who also have his authority; but he is not going to anoint two leaders in opposition to one another. Even completely separate ministries must be willing to submit to one another in love.

God has at this time and in this corner of the world, anointed me as his apostle. As long as I am doing my job right, he is not going to anoint someone else to rebel against me. If I get away from God, then I will lose my anointing and God will give authority to someone else to take my place. But beware! Just because you get a chance to start a rebellion, doesn't mean that you have authority nor that I have lost mine; and if I catch you rebelling, I will wield the rod of correction in obedience to God, since it is really God that you are rebelling against when you do that.

For many years in the churches, I listened to sermons from desperate men trying to keep their troops together. They preached submission to themselves in sermon after sermon, week after week. Because of that I more or less vowed not to preach such sermons in my community, and I urged followers to think for themselves and not to be afraid to question me. But over and over the very people I have taught this to have turned on me when they got out of the spirit, and argued that I was power hungry and cruel, just as they have argued with God.

All that was bad in all those preachers has come out through the lips of those who have rebelled against my leadership. They have become obsessed with protecting themselves from criticism, and refusing to talk to anyone who criticises them. Now I see that, in overreacting to a false teaching, I had missed an element of truth in it as well. People are given a choice between leaders who welcome criticism and ones who outlaw it, and they end up attacking the ones who tolerate criticism, because they know we will be tolerant of their outbursts.

I now see that, in an effort to do what is right myself (i.e. to accept criticism), I failed to teach respect for divine authority. So gutless followers who are too frightened to stand up to really dictatorial leaders, will turn on the gracious one because they know that he will take it. And if he doesn't, then they'll quote his own teachings back to him in an effort to get him to justify their actions. It is time to put an end to this misconception. Just because I am willing to listen to criticism (and my critics are not) does not mean that the critics are right. In fact, most of them are eternally wrong.

What I am saying does not exempt you from a need to develop a strong conscience and personal accountability before God. These things are especially important in the event that I do go off the rails. But I am ruling out everyone running off with their own opinions and saying that they have as much right as me to say what is right. The plain truth is that you don't. You don't all have the "divine authority" which God has, at least for the present, given to me, to lead this movement.

What I am saying here also does not make me infallible, nor does it exempt me from criticism, as I've already said above. But it does say that if you are going to take a grievance against me, you had better be sure before you start that you are right, or you may be dealt with harshly for taking a false or frivolous grievance. We need to put an end to all those vexatious litigations that I used to almost encourage, in order to make it clear that I wasn't trying to railroad people on issues.

I have authority from God, to lead this movement back to obedience to Jesus, and back to living by faith, in preparation for the return of Jesus. There is a difference between divine authority and the political manoeuvrings of those who seek power for selfish purposes. The political empire builders are like blithering idiots when confronted with someone who is sincerely looking for the truth. And when they're not spreading hatred against me personally, they are running in fear that they will have to answer for something that they have said. The truth is that they are running from God, to whom they will have to answer for their actions, no matter how much they run from me.

I want to especially thank those of you who had the courage to act on authority from God in confronting rebellion even when I was guilty of trying to be soft on it (in order to make myself look like a "nice guy"). Confronting rebellion of your own initiative is the kind of action that makes you true leaders. Mind you, it doesn't guarantee that you too might not be lifted up with pride one day; and that's why God has put me over you for the time being. But it does show that you have a certain amount of divine authority already, which will just simply make way for itself if you continue to sincerely and humbly follow God.

Update, June, 2003. The group that split from us five years ago has totally fallen apart and several are now professing atheists.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2008 01:38PM by zeuszor.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: apostate ()
Date: June 17, 2008 05:01AM

Blacksheep wrote:
“ Correct me if I've read this wrong. McKay has an article on his (Lisa's) website in which he actually admits to circumventing the democratic process so as to hold absolute authority? So is McKay the JC equivalent to the pope? Does he maintain that he is somehow infallible?

The Divine Authority article labours the point that Dave believes he has a special anointing direct from God, which he is yet to find in another.

Dave includes some doublespeak lines about how tolerant he has been of criticism and how he does not view himself as fallible, (even the Pope limits his infallibility to the rare occasion when he speaks Ex Cathedra) But Dave warns of the great danger in taking a grievance against him, ”rules out” the possibility that anyone could run out and repeat what he did, or presume to quote back his own teachings, and says he will wield the “rod of correction” against all such “rebellion”. He views himself as God’s representative on earth and while there may, theoretically, be other such representatives (whom he is yet to meet) they could not possibly oppose him, because that would involve God contradicting himself!

I can’t see any democratic processes working under these presumptions. The fact that Dave admits to Quakers that it represents an anomaly in response to internal dissent, amounts to an admission that normal democratic standards were viewed as inadequate in this instance. When one asserts such unique rights it undermines any claim to be in submission to an objective consistent principle.

For all the rhetoric about an invisible Kingdom of Heaven that supercedes political empire building, it is quite clear that Dave McKay and not the teachings of Jesus is the foundation stone of the JCs.

Regarding the JC doctrine that Jesus is the Word and not the Bible:

You are correct in suggesting it undermines a fundamentalist approach to Christ’s Teachings when everything Jesus taught is recorded in this "imperfect" vessel. One could make the argument that an objective book represents a more reliable authority to subjective and successive human authorities. Personally, I think it’s healthier to move away from needing infallible certainties and to work out one’s own path through life with humility and reason.

For all the bluff and bully Dave is no more certain of his destiny than you or I and we are all better off recognizing that fact.

Note to all JCs - The truth is not subject to Dave's dominion. If what you have is real, it will work outside of his influence and if it doesn't, then it never was.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Jack Oskar Larm ()
Date: June 17, 2008 06:36AM

Thanks for bringing that article to light, Zeuszor.

It's been a long time since I've visited the pathetic lunatic assembly known as the JC website/forum to read the dangerous writings of its narcissistic leader, Dave McKay.

I'm probably missing something vital, but every electric impulse of my being feels quite ill having to wade through his self-important rhetoric.

A direct command from God to lead? To demand submission? To use his gift of intellect to deceive and corrupt?

I must certainly be missing something.

True, I have a propensity for questioning authority, especially when it seems corrupt and manipulative. This is my own fault for which I am willing to let the passage of time and experience temper. But I suppose I haven't yet yielded to the notion of, 'better to live a lifetime on my knees than stand up for a moment'.

Call me arrogant, obstinate and a complete fool.

Only time and my own life do I sacrifice to this folly.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: June 17, 2008 06:52AM

I wonder if Les Byron really exists, and if so, whatever happened to him?

In this article, DM seems to be implying that he is God's "hammer," that his followers are "nails," and that together they are building "God's house":

A true hammer does not hate the nails that it appears to be bludgeoning to death. A true hammer is working on something bigger... something that the nail may not be able to see. A true leader has a vision of something bigger, that each nail can play a part in building. The bludgeoning is whatever discipline is necessary to build the house. I have seen hammers hit nails too hard and bend them. I've seen hammers keep hitting after the nail is in, and end up damaging the timber. But bent nails and damaged timber aside, the job gets done better with a hammer than without.

A nail can run off and roll across the floor, thus escaping the discipline of the hammer. But what does it accomplish? A whole box of nails can spill themselves all over the place, but unless one of them becomes a hammer, they too will be unproductive.

All of our arguments against authority, against control, against discipline soon start to change when we are put in the driver's seat. Obviously, we cannot lead a community, lead our family, or even lead ourselves without some kind of control. As Maxwell Smart would tell you, without CONTROL, you are going to have CHAOS.

Notice how in this article (unlike in the "Divine Authority" piece) DM never makes any direct claims about himself or his position; he never says that he is that "hammer." Also notice the repetitive use of the word "discipline" in the above paragraphs. Cherry herself has said that it's not that people do not like her husband, it's that they cannot take discipline. Mention of bludgeons, hammers, nails...(whips?)

From "A Gun to Your Head"

The gun of God's righteousness is pointing at your head right now. You will pay for your greed, your selfishness, your pride, your laziness, your stubborn refusal to change. God is lovingly and patiently waiting for you to come to your senses and repent. But he will not wait forever. Each time someone dies, it is a reminder to the rest of us that we could be next. Loving God or not, death is out there waiting for us. It is real and it is inevitable. And after death comes the judgment.

From "The politics of Suicide"

Political regimes face overwhelming frustration when they impose one punishment after another onto dissidents, but all to no avail. Their frustration can easily get out of hand. If torture fails to achieve submission, then dictators often find themselves pushed to the point of murdering their own people.

This willingness by dissidents, to die before accepting defeat, is a powerful political tool amongst the oppressed peoples of the world. When the oppressed do not have the military might or will to destroy their enemies, they are often able to achieve more by destroying themselves. Their willingness to die, and even to push the button or pull the rope themselves highlights the ultimate powerlessness of their opponents.

From "Deathbed Conversions"

It is only in the face of death that we are able to truly appreciate God and Truth. Most, if not all, of our lives are lived in a prison called life. All our talk about God is so saturated with thoughts about life, about the people who inhabit this world of time and space, and about what they think of us, that we rarely ever escape from that prison into the arms of God, where mortal life is seen for what it really is.

When we stop running away from death, and reach out to it as one of the most important experiences of life, we will start to change in powerful and dramatic ways. Daydreams about dying and facing God are probably the deepest form of prayer that we can experience, and they should highlight every day of our lives. Work at it. And when you do, you will see what true "conversion" is all about.

From "No Pain, No Gain"

In the midst of all this, we seem to have forgotten that suffering is an inescapable part of life in the real world. Many of us continue to search for a world where there will be no pain, no suffering, and no death. We run away from and rebel against anything that seeks to bring us back to this reality.

Learning to suffer starts at birth (the baby's first test of endurance), and it should continue throughout life. Everyone must learn to cope with little pains in positive ways when they are young, so that they can manage greater sufferings later in life. Parents who overly protect their children hinder their children's maturation process. We all need to learn how to deal with pain in order to become adults. We need to make mistakes, and learn from them, in order to become stronger and wiser. Avoiding mistakes and the pains associated with them (by withdrawing from the battle) keeps us forever immature.

There's a real undercurrent of negativity in these writings, and this subtle assumption that life is all pain and suffering. Allusions to death, suffering, self-mortification all over the place. This stuff is just replete with subtle references to death, martyrdom, suffering. I read no joy, or optimism in this stuff, only cynicism and a condescending attitude.

From a Reachout Trust pamphlet from 2002:

"A further area of concern is the constant references to their willingness to die for what they believe. Examples include:

We see that the answer lies in personal attitudes... individuals with a commitment to fight hate with love, and fight fear with faith.

People who want to learn more than they want to get an education.

People who want to be productive more than they want a paid job.

People who want to grow daily in self-discipline, in sensitivity to the needs of others, and in a willingness to lay down their lives to see God's government changing the hearts and lives of others around them.

Would you like to be a part of this? If so, please contact us today.

It used to say, "...a part of this army of martyrs, then please write to us today." DM must have edited that volatile reference to martyrdom out.

Look at this, compare the two texts, the Ronson piece and the article off of DM's own site; I can PROVE that DM edited out the martyrdom bit!



Another reference to death:


"Fear of death is what gives the bosses their power! How long do you think you can survive without eating? Maybe a month or two! OK, would you rather have one month of freedom or a lifetime of slavery? Anything that isn't worth living for isn't worth dying for!"

From "Ananiases"

We need to make these people aware that it is a privilege to even be considered as a potential disciple.
We need to have the confidence to deal with greed, pride, fear, and dishonesty, if the Spirit is telling us that it is time to act.

This is particularly true when you get several people making moves to join at the same time. You need to make a bit of a spiritual race out of it, with the last person across the finish line being expelled. What I mean by that is that you look at how much the two, three, or more new disciples are hungering after the truth, and you eliminate the one who seems to be the least hungry. In fact, you could even include some of the older disciples in that kind of a competition.

Remember, that if you make an example of a few slackards, it will pay dividends in those who are left. If you don't, then what will happen is that they will each look at what the others have gotten away with, and they'll add everyone else's bad habits and sins to their own personal sins, and we'll end up with an army full of self-willed, rebellious trouble-makers.

This is not a holiday camp. It is an army, and we're involved in a war. There will be casualties. There will be costs. And for those who survive, there will be victories. But if anyone wants to be a part of this army, then they need to get it clear that they must obey orders.

(Italics added by myself.)

From "A Martyr Complex:"

The more good we do secretly, the more persecution we are going to get. (John15:18-21) The prince of this world (Satan) senses our commitment to God and love. If our actions communicate love and an absence of fear, persecution is a natural by-product. And if we do anything to make that persecution known, it will lead to more persecution, because the world hates martyrs.

So do not be ashamed to take up your cross and follow Jesus. You can, through your persecution, bring glory to your heavenly Father as Jesus did, and you will not be guilty of robbing glory for yourself by doing so.

From "Why So Much Persecution?"

So we have, in fact, achieved a greatness (or authority) which is disproportionate to our size. Our authority is that of Jesus himself, of whom it was said, "He spoke as one who had authority, and not as one of the scribes or Pharisees."

When we go in the name of Jesus (i.e. backed up by what he said, and not just saying "Lord, Lord"), we have this same authority, as he promised we would have. Kings and armies are forced to hide from the dazzling power of that Light which we hold forth.

Reject Us, Reject God

(February, 1998)

When you really love someone, and you see them making a serious mistake, there's never any satisfaction in saying, "I told you so," or in knowing that one day they're going to know that you were right and they were wrong. All that you really want is for them to correct the serious mistake that they're making.
But one of the cleverest tricks the devil has in his bag of tricks is the one where he gets you off the rails by telling you that you can blame someone else for it. Ironically, the one most likely to cop the blame is the one shouting the loudest that you're off the rails.
"Who are you to judge?" "I'm sick of your criticisms!" "Let me live my own life!" they all say, as we watch them walk away. They're not walking away from us so much as they are walking (or running) away from God.
"And now I suppose you think you're God?" they reply to that one.
Well, in a way... yeah.
Jesus said (John 13:20; John 15:20) that when we come in his name (i.e. really saying the things he said, and not just using his name as a cloak for teaching our own made-up doctrines) when we come teaching people to obey him, and they reject us, they're rejecting him.
Now we challenge anyone to show us someone who is more serious about teaching people to obey Jesus than we are.



All I know is this is the way God speak to me and has from the beginning and I am only a messenger boy who delivers his telegrams and I am not responsible for what is being said or revealed. You'll have blame God for that, or thank Him.

-David Berg

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2008 07:15AM by zeuszor.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Jack Oskar Larm ()
Date: June 17, 2008 07:23AM

Thanks Zeuszor. It's no secret that I've been very busy of late. I do check up on the happenings here once in a while.

With regard to this whole 'God loves me best' claim, it makes me think how insecure children will sometimes stamp their feet and cry out, 'Mum and dad loves me more than they love you. So, there!'

But most of us grow out of that...

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: June 17, 2008 07:37AM

He's always been that way, from a very early age, and has only gotten worse over time. He'll never change, and he'll never "get better." Have no illusions.

I'm not making this stuff up. It's all straight from his own writings, in black and white. DM has a real proclivity for manipulation, domination and control.

Ex-JCs: does the following sound like DM to you? I myself am not an ex-member, but from what I know of DM this sure sounds like him to me. Spot-on.

All I did was Google the words "manipulation domination control" and this comes up, and article on church discipline. Amazing.

Control by false authority, manipulation, intimidation
Written by Steve Morris
circa 1999

Manipulation–definition–Skillful and efficient deceit using artful, unfair or unobtrusive devices and contrivances in a secret manner in order to control others.
Intimidation–definition–The use of fear or coercion to force submission to another’s will.
Domination–definition–To influence the actions and conduct of another to be first in power, influence or rank.
Practitioners attempt to project an attractive and irresistible image of superior natural and/or supernatural skills, abilities and accomplishments. The attempted techniques, methods and procedures employed are easily recognized:
(1) Projection of guilt upon others by:
(a) Correction
(b) Criticism
(c) Fault finding
(d) Disapproval
(e) Condemnation
(f) Confrontation
(g) Ignoring an individuals existence
(h) Circulating malicious opinions
(i) Non-acceptance into their clique
(j) Blame
(2) Statements in the form of questions or analogies designed to put others on the defensive.
(3) Not initiating closure when problems surface in a personal relationship, regardless of who is responsible for the problem. They will always depend on the unresolved tension to cause the other party to contact them first to resolve the issue.
(4) Establishing uncertainty of the past, present or future to build insecurity in a person and dependence upon the practitioner’s abilities and information by:
(a) Altering true information
(b) Withholding true information
(c) Issuing false information
(d) Using big names as information sources
(5) Illegally assuming authority without responsibility, by:
(a) Outright claims that they have the official sanction of those in charge
(b) Implied claims they have the official sanction of those in charge
(c) Manipulating, maneuvering and motivating others to think, feel and choose the way the practitioner wants them to
(d) “Spiritual” revelations
(e) Physical authority—violence, temper tantrums, force, sex, drugs, etc.
(f) Rebelling against established authority
(6) Illegally attempting to assume responsibility without authority.
(7) Declarations of dependency: “You don’t understand how much I need you (depend, trust, etc).” This may be followed by “and how little you care what happens to me.”
(8) Declarations of reverse dependency: “You don’t understand how much you need me (depend, trust, etc).” This may be followed by “and how much I care what happens to you.”
(9) The “Let me show you how to do it” ploy. This makes others realize they do not have the time, talent or temperament to accomplish something, thereby shaming them into letting the practitioner volunteer to do the job.
(10) The “Show me how to do it” ploy. This makes others realize the practitioner does not have the time, talent or temperament to accomplish something, thereby shaming them into volunteering to do the job.
(11) The “I tried to cover for your mistake” routine, “and it:”
(a) Worked, so you’ve got to repay the favor by doing something for me.
(b) Didn’t work, so you’ve got to do something to fix the problem.
(12) The “I tried to teach you, but you won’t listen to me, so don’t ask me any more questions” ploy. This ploy is to punish others by instilling a deep sense of loss created by withdrawal of the practitioners (opinionated) “wise counsel.”
(13) Insults directed at others to further distance the practitioner, who by now knows they have failed in their efforts to dominate.
(14) Polarizing groups of people into adverse parties. This is further punishment for failure to recognize the superiority of the practitioner and an attempt to establish control by comparing persons to create competition.
(15) Withdrawal, when suggestions, comments or questions come up about their pronouncements, with simulated:
(a) Hurt
(b) Rejection
(c) Depression
(d) Physical sickness
(e) Protests of innocence
(f) Accusations of others
(16) False remorse, with hypocritical statements of now perceiving how their past activities have hurt others and a seeking of forgiveness for past behavior.
(17) Self-proclaimed martyrdom, usually follows withdrawal or false remorse when the practitioner realizes others are not fooled by their insincerity.
Withdrawal or self-proclaimed martyrdom is tacit admission of failure to successfully dominate others.
(18) Instigation of difficult, uncomfortable or costly activities for others, which may or may not benefit the practitioner.
This is their last desperate effort to control others after having been exposed as two-faced hypocrites, gossips and liars. They will eventually resort to their old, more satisfying, tactics in an attempt to force others to depend upon them. This dominating technique, however, may be used at any time by them to control situations, circumstances and social environments.
(19) You may also notice one or more of the following communication techniques.
They will:
(1) State the obvious
(2) Make a mountain out of a molehill
(3) Play “can you top this”
(4) Promise beyond their delivery capability
(5) Stampede into action before all the facts are in
(6) Edit the facts to dramatize their point
(7) Keep in constant motion, unconcerned about direction
(8) State the opposite of the facts, because all else failed.
Under no circumstances respond directly to their overtures. Do not address the issues they raise. You must respond by stating that they have no responsibility or authority to make such a statement to you, and that they are out of order.
If your relationship with them has not been that close in the past, you may add that because of their present improper social behavior and breach of etiquette, your mutual relationship certainly won’t be close in the future.

The Dude Abides!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2008 08:00AM by zeuszor.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: Talamasca ()
Date: June 20, 2008 06:16AM

David McKay continues to play the martyr.

First, he's a sweet little innocent, being persecuted by those big bad Quakers.

Now, poor little Dave is being stalked by Brian Birmingham, who wants to kill him.

Right. That'll be the same Brian Birmingham who McKay was perfectly happy to appear with on a British TV program, The Jeremy Kyle Show.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: June 20, 2008 07:02AM

I never said that I want to kill David, and in fact I do not. Nor do I want anybody else to do so. I wish no violence upon anybody. I have been saying this for over a year and a half now.

That song and dance is played out, David.

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: June 20, 2008 09:12AM

I wish I'd never met the JCs on the street all those years ago...

Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay
Posted by: zeuszor ()
Date: June 20, 2008 12:01PM

I am the only one left it seems who has not been banned form the JC forum so here I am banging my head against the wall with David one more time.


I cannot identify with Rick Rodriguez David. I have no way of relating with what happened to him. I do not wish you any harm nor any violence upon you.

The JCs never did anything harmful to me personally. I admit that. Unless you count the time that they screwed me in Houston. That made me mad.

You want me to spell it out for you again huh? You must have missed it the first 99 times. Here goes:

Following are my five main (generalized) points of objection to JC policy and procedure.

1) Witnessing to and agreeing to meet with minors who are "potentials" is wrong. Period. You have no business talking to any High Schooler who is not yet 18. You ought to respect the rights and boundaries of the parents of these kids.

2) You say they work for love and not money. OK, so what is with all of the constant money-generating schemes? What is with all of the organ and body-fluid donation? Why do they sell your books on the street? To whom does all of the money go, and who controls it?

To put it simply, I think that you are a hypocrite with this "love not money" line. Everything you do is all about the money. When was the last time you yourself scrounged for food in a dumpster? Oh yeah, that's right: you usually eat at McDonald's.

Basically, how come it seems like everybody in the JCs has to forsake all except for David and Cherry?

3) It seems to me that you have put a legalistic over-emphasis on the red letters (Gal 2:16), and that the JCs constantly negatively judge other Christians and churches by that fallacious standard. The collective attitude and MO seems heavy on judgment and is highly provocative, but I feel no grace from them. (Jam 2:13).

4) (related to 3) You all generally seem to have nothing but contempt for those who would question you. Where are the fruits of the Spirit in what the world can see of the JCs? (Gal 5:19-26)

5) When was the last time that Ash and Joseph called their mothers and told them that they love them? When was the last time that you encouraged them to do so? Why does DM prevent parents from having open access to their own children?

We can go round and round David. I have all night.

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