The pattern of a friendly, internet-based relationship with the cult's leadership, plus participation in the cult's messageboards (the current one being hosted on the "Ning" service as described above), is typically present when someone is in a controlled relationship with NCCG ( [www.nccg.info] ). This has been the case since 2002 or 2003 through today (2009) ( timeline: [www.nccg.info] ).
I don't think I have to state how absurd NCCG Concern's definition of a "controlled" relationship is -- essentially, one only need to be participating on their message board and somehow, through some mystic mojo that Christopher Warren is believed to possess, people essentially become "brainwashed".
I'm not going to state that some people aren't easily influenced (they are), but in this sense, I think some of what NCCG teaches is hard to swallow for the average "joe" (NCCG members/investigators tend to be highly intelligent and/or idealistic -- in fact, I think it can be demonstrated through the individuals of the group alone that while many participate on their boards, the vast majority do not join and yet still remain on friendly terms with them -- after all, the group teaches salvation is only through Christ, not the group). Likewise, on pages such as Fast Facts, NCCG Concern states carte blanche
that Christopher Warren uses some sort of "hypnotic writing". Where? Can it be demonstrably proven? Can it be falsified? Or should we take NCCG Concern's word for it when she states that its "just so"?
Before NCCG Concern can state this, she has to present an example of hypnotic versus non-hypnotic writing. Obviously, I would prefer an expert on this sort of thing and not just her or someone with an agenda -- an unassociated individual who has training in this would be ideal.
Finally, she has to demonstrate an example of this hypnotic writing in effect: a case study, in particular, as it relates to Christopher Warren, AFTER
it happens and using primary documentation.
As for myself, personally
, the crux of her argument seems to imply I'm in a "controlling relationship" because I participate on their boards. I also occasionally post to and belong to a Seventh Day Adventist social network on Ning -- does that mean they, too, are controlling me or that I'm now a Seventh Day Adventist? Do I magically, through osmosis, enter controlling relationships with each individual I talk to and take on their beliefs since I've now "lost" control? This idea of "control via osmosis" is pure rubbish unless
, I believe, Concern meets the criteria I have mentioned above. Her policy of "assert first, ask questions later" needs to end. And while I'll admit that, at times, it seems to me
this group does the same ("assert first, ask questions later"), I believe objectivity is only possible when people drop all preconceived notions of the other. In short, Concern has to be able to present a scientifically testable theory of many of the things she asserts (hypnotic writing, Warren's so-called "psychopathy", etc.).
As for her historic time line in her second link in her recent post on this thread, I have never questioned whether or not its true or false, but given her source sample, I believe it is possibly more false than true. A total of 34 different times, Concern cites an unnamed but highly involved individual as a "primary source". This source is highly antagonistic (which obviously colors all objectivity) and while they may or may not be speaking the truth, it is hard to tell unless we can see either primary documentation which backs their claims or more people come out and verify these facts. I do believe this source skirts dangerously close to libel, a sin I once committed, no matter how "well-intentioned" -- courts generally do not smile favorably on this sort of thing and Concern may see her self in more legal water than she can chew if the group decides to prosecute.
In other words, until she can say, "All the things that source 22 says is true and we know this because of source 23, 24, 25, etc. and this information has been cross-examined and backed by trained professionals", she skirts awfully close to libel. And while I wouldn't necessarily disregard
source 22's testimony as a scholar, neither would I interpret the data on source 22's testimony alone, but would seek a plurality of witnesses and primary documentation. Regardless of how you feel about a group, you want your data to correspond with reality in order to be objective.
In this, though, I am not stating one needs to be dispassionate as a result of the data. I do think, though, one needs to be clear about what they are evangelizing for (and whether or not Concern acknowledges it, she is evangelizing for an ideology -- in this case, one that disagrees with NCCG/MLT). I am a Christian and I have sought to be as clear as possible about what it is I evangelize for: I'm going back to college to study Classical Languages (Greek and Latin) and Philosophy so that I may eventually pursue a Master's and Doctor's in Theology. I personally believe one should be as knowledgeable as possible about the things they believe (even if its atheistic nihilism) if they are going to evangelize for it. And believe it or not, I decided to pursue this route because of doctrinal disagreements I've had in the past with this group and also the Mormons, Messianic Jews, etc.It should be noted that not once in this post am I either affirming or denying NCCG/MLT may or may not be a cult.
I, personally, do not see it. I have stated my reasons why I do not see it. I also think that some of Concern's conclusions, taken to their logical conclusion, are just as downright absurd. The truth is, based on this post and others, she seems to believe that people have the ability to take your rights through some form of psychological "dark magick" (i.e. hypnotic writing) that she has not demonstrated yet (I think she told me in a phone conversation she heard this was possible from a cult deprogrammer -- I do not know if its true or not, I am just saying nothing more than it needs to be demonstrated). She likewise seems to think that just because they possess this ability, all are "influenced" in the same degree. I can state categorically that I am not in any way, shape or form controlled by this group -- these are my thoughts and they're not being fact-checked by Chris Warren. If he were to tell me I needed
to present my own thoughts in any other way than that which my conscience and the Bible allows me, I would tell him I'm a slave only to my God and my own conscience.Neither am I denying dangerous religious groups or ideologies may or may not exist.
As a Christian, I would be absurd to make that judgment, since I believe anything in opposition to the gospel is potentially dangerous. People are free in this world to agree or disagree with my assessment. But, irony of all ironies, since I myself am highly logical, I demand proof of Concern's assertions before I swallow it. I have outlined areas where I think proof is lacking.
If these things can be factually proven, it is then I am more likely to make a judgment about whether or not NCCG is a cult. As far as I'm concerned, based on my current assessment, it is a group with a history of mistakes of which they have readily admitted and repented for (whereas I think a "cult" would want to gloss over those aspects). Everything that pertains to me has been resolved, to my satisfaction, privately through conversations with this group. And while I still have questions, neither will I hate ANYONE with whom I happen to disagree with, regardless of the harm they may have caused me. Nor do I hate Concern.
But I do take issue with her "belief", colored by her worldview, I believe, that I'm some incompetent "mind controlled" victim under undue influence. I believe I have already demonstrated that I have my own agenda and that is repairing reputations that I, through libel, have destroyed. This is my Christian duty to any group I disagree with, whether they are Christians or whether they offer virgins on the altar to Satan. A Christian is supposed to be honest, regardless. Neither do I have any obligations to Christopher Warren -- I think my stated disagreements here are evidence of that.
And its because of this assertion that I'm "involved" because of, in her words, a "pattern of a friendly, internet-based relationship with the cult's leadership, plus participation in the cult's messageboards [sic] . . . [which] is typically present when someone is in a controlled relationship with NCCG", that I have written this post. I think its absurd in the umpteenth degree to suggest that because I may or may not have been influenced in the past means I am or am not influenced now (and it likewise ignores a number of psychological factors I underwent at the time and whether or not the group truly "exploited" those or if it was my own fault for viewing Warren the same way Mormons view their own prophet -- a belief system I came out of shortly before involving myself with NCCG back in 2004). I take issue with this because if her beliefs regarding this are taken to their logical conclusions, one would be unable to form relationships of any sort with anyone out of fear of undue influence.
This has been a bit long, but I do believe Concern has to satisfy the above criteria before I take her seriously as an investigator. I believe any scientific, rational-minded person (Christian, atheist, Buddhist, etc.) would argue that the things I suggest above are not only logically sound, but imperative if she wishes to make the assertions that she does make.