Christians in mainland China’s “underground” house churches have faced persecution from the country’s Communist government for years. They now face another threat from one of the mainland’s largest cults, which frequently uses deception and coercion to gain converts from among house churches.

The cult calls itself “The Church of Almighty God.” The Chinese government refers to it as the “Real God” cult. Chinese Christians call it “Eastern Lightning.” Its followers believe that Jesus has returned in the form of a Chinese woman, like “lightning that comes from the east,” according to the description of His second coming in Matthew 24:27.

Estimates of the group’s size vary. A November 2001 Time magazine article titled “Jesus is Back, and She’s Chinese” said followers numbered themselves at 300,000, although observers estimated only tens of thousands. A 2002 report produced by the Center for Religious Freedom, which contained copies of seven confidential documents from a Chinese government report on religious cults, said that the group had active organizations in more than 10 provinces and cities and was deceiving thousands. China For Jesus, a Christian mission organization, estimates that the cult has more than a million members in 20 provinces. Fear of government persecution has driven religious groups in China underground, making an accurate head count of any group’s followers virtually impossible.

According to the secret security documents, the public security minister, Jia Chunwang, called for increased action against the cult, saying, “We need to work more, talk less to smash the cult quietly.” Security officials are concerned by the cult’s declaration that China is the Great Red Dragon of the book of Revelation who faces destruction. Beijing police arrested more than 2,000 followers of the cult prior to 2002, but they were not able to destroy the group.

Scores of first-hand accounts received by Christian organizations working in China confirm the devastating effect that the Eastern Lightning cult is having on the house churches. A report titled “When China’s Christians Wish They Were in Prison,” by Paul Hattaway, director of the mission organization Asia Harvest, contains accounts of Christians being deceived, kidnapped, brainwashed, beaten, poisoned, and blackmailed by the cult. One worker in northwest China told Hattaway that the Chinese house churches that usually experience phenomenal growth had been declining due to the cult’s activities. He explained, “In the past year many of our leaders were targeted by the Eastern Lightning cult. Some were attracted by their financial inducements and joined them. Later, when they discovered what they’d joined was not biblical, they were not permitted to leave. Dozens of our believers are missing, dozens more crippled. Some who have managed to escape the cult’s clutches are in hiding, fearing for their lives. At least two of our people have been murdered. Others have simply vanished.”

In April 2002, Eastern Lightning members kidnapped 34 leaders of the China Gospel Fellowship, a network of house churches. Cult members posing as representatives of Haggai Institute, a leadership training school in China, lured the leaders to attend a seminar where they were separated and held against their will. One woman managed to escape and alert the police. By June all the others had escaped or were released, although some who were drugged while being held captive continued to suffer physically.

Invisible Lightning. There are a several versions of the cult’s history. A number of Christian organizations cite the Time magazine article and the seven secret security documents that say that the cult was founded in 1989 by a man named Zhao Weishan, a former member of a Christian sect called the Shouters. Weishan proclaimed that Jesus had returned in the form of a 30-year-old, plain-looking Chinese peasant woman named Deng from the province of Henan. This teaching is based on revelation that Weishan claims he received from God regarding Matthew 24:27. Asia Harvest reports that in 2000 Weishan was granted refugee status in the United States, where he continues to run the cult’s activities in China. The report does not cite the source of this information.

Reports from other missions organizations do not mention Weishan as the founder but say, rather, that the woman Deng set herself up as the “female Christ.” Several Chinese Christians who regularly visit the mainland and are familiar with the cult told the Christian Research Journal that although they had heard of Deng, they had not heard of Weishan. Chinese sources favor the theory that Deng hides herself, while Weishan runs the cult’s operations.

An article dated January 2004 on one of the cult’s Web sites (www.hidden-advent.org), however, denies as “rumor” the reports that Almighty God’s Church believes in “a woman with the surname Deng who was once possessed by a demon in Zheng Zhou of Henan province.” The article explains, “Actually, the place of birth and location where God became flesh is not in Henan province at all. Furthermore, the surname is not Deng.” The article does not, however, identify someone other than Deng as the Christ; rather, it explains why “the flesh of the Almighty God” could not be demon possessed. The fact that no one has ever seen or photographed the woman they call the “female Christ” makes her identity or even her existence difficult to confirm.

The Second Incarnation. The group believes that the Bible is out-of-date and that those who limit God’s revelation to just the Bible are like the Pharisees who held on to the Old Testament and rejected Christ. Followers are told to give up the truth of the past and build their foundation on the Holy Spirit’s word for today: the writings of the “female Christ,” which are “God’s new word.”

The cult has published numerous books, including The Word Becomes Flesh and The Lightning Comes from the East, and distributed hundreds of thousands of copies in China. Two of the books that are distributed among Chinese churches in America are titled The Holy Spirit Speaks to All the Churches and God’s Work through His Secret Appearing. The content in these books is nearly identical. Much of it is written in first person, as if by their “female Christ,” and is terse and threatening.

The “female Christ” states that Jesus was God’s first incarnation, but that He did not complete His work; therefore, God needed to come again to finish the work, this time as a woman. This “appearing” ends the previous age and begins a new age in God’s six-thousand-year plan to save all humanity.

God’s plan, she says, has three ages (creation, salvation, and destruction) and three dispensations (law, redemption, and kingdom). She claims that she comes for the kingdom dispensation and therefore her work is judgment.

Her books are filled with explicit and horrific pronouncements of damnation and judgment on unbelievers. The only sin is not to accept her as the Christ, she says, and salvation is possible only by following her. She states that “God is inhumanly cruel” and she admits that she hates humankind.

She teaches that Christ died for our sins, but denies that He rose again physically. She ardently opposes the concept of the second coming of Jesus and tells followers not to wait for a “white cloud descension.”

The “female Christ” doesn’t prove her divinity to potential believers by healing the sick, casting out demons, or performing miracles; instead, she uses threats and intimidation to persuade converts. She says that she will punish or slay those who repudiate her, and even their family members will meet with misfortune. Another of the cult’s Web sites (www.godword.org) lists 887 cases in which people allegedly died of sickness, accident, or unknown causes after rejecting the cult’s evangelistic efforts.

The cult demands complete obedience and sacrifice. Adherents must turn their material possessions over to the organization and follow orders, otherwise they will be punished. They are urged to leave their families, to live in a commune, and to spread the message of the “female Christ.”

Spying and Paving the Way. The cult is known for its deceptive evangelization practices. An article in Tianfeng, the magazine of the Chinese government–controlled Three Self Patriotic Church, says the cult entices people with money or gifts, but will turn to violence or even murder if a person accepts their gifts but fails to join.

A report from China for Jesus describes four stages of strategy that the cult has used. The first stage was simply to send books and money to Christian preachers. In the second stage they adopted aggressive tactics, including violence and coercion. In the third stage they used sexual temptation and entrapment as a means of blackmailing prospects.

The fourth stage is called “spying and paving the way,” the name the cult gives to their process of infiltrating a house church. Followers are instructed to mingle with church members in order to identify those who are strong Christians and core members of the church. Likely targets are those who arrive before a church meeting and stay after, and who can look up Bible passages efficiently. Cult members will try to befriend such people and to act like sincere truth seekers in order to gain their trust. Once the infiltrators have successfully “spied” these people, they begin to “pave the way” by asking questions to shake the Christian believer’s faith. They may invite the believer to a “Bible study,” for example, where instead of studying the Bible they badger the believer with questions such as, “Where is heaven? Is it on earth?” Or they will question the concept of the rapture of the church, a doctrine the cult ardently denies. Ultimately, they turn to preaching their message, which is the second incarnation of God. The author of the China for Jesus report predicted that they will begin to use an unknown fifth strategy now that this latest one has been exposed in recent years.

The cult denies that Almighty God’s Church kidnaps people and forces them to accept its message. An article on one of their Web sites (www.hidden-advent.org) states that regulations instruct followers not to pressure those who are not willing to believe in God, because the church doesn’t want “worthless” members who do not really believe. The article claims that in 1999 alone the church dismissed 70 to 80 thousand people “who were guilty of misconduct and disobedience to the church’s regulations.”

Eastern Lightning prefers to target orthodox Christian house churches rather than fringe or heretical groups. According to the cult’s own internal instructions, they are not to evangelize those who do not worship Jesus alone and do not study the Bible, such as Buddhists, Taoists, and Muslims, as well as many Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics in China. Non-Christians and even family members of Eastern Lightning followers are also excluded from being evangelized.

A book about heresies in mainland China, published in Taiwan by the Christian and China Research Center, contains the testimony of a Chinese house church member who escaped the cult. He says that the cult never acts in the open, but that their activities are always covert and organized. “Wherever they go, they destroy and scatter that church with incredible speed and unmatched means.”

Even though the central Chinese government denounces the cult, some Chinese Christians view the cult’s behavior and financial strength as indications that it is being supported by individual local Communist officials who are seeking to disrupt and destroy house churches. Other Chinese Christians see the cult as satanic and believe that the Satanic church in America is behind it.

Global Vision. The message of the “female Christ” of Eastern Lightning resembles that of Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church. Moon came to America in 1971 claiming that Christ had not completed His mission, and in 1992 he declared he and his wife to be the Messiah, the True Parents, who would usher in a “Completed Testament” age of world peace.

The “female Christ” declares that her appearance as the new Messiah ushers in the last stage of God’s plan. On one of the cult’s Web sites (www.hidden-advent.org) she confirms that its work has already expanded beyond the borders of China: “At the present time, the work is one of conquering the deeply corrupt people in the nations. Moreover, it is not merely a work of guiding people in China, but one of guiding the entire universe. You now only see the work being done in China, but actually it has already started to extend overseas.”

In a 2001 article titled “Lightning from the East” in the China Insight Newsletter, researcher Tony Lambert reported that the cult now has centers in New York and Toronto. The Journal has received reports from Christians in Paris and Amsterdam that the cult has reached Europe as well. Sources in the West have reported that the cult has been distributing books, tracts, and CDs through the Internet and in the parking lots of Chinese churches. It has also advertised a paid position to translate their books into English.

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” (2 John 10).¹

Not long ago, a friend e-mailed me to express his concern about allowing Jehovah’s Witnesses into his home for the purpose of evangelism. His concern was rooted in his desire not to violate 2 John 10, which he understood as a restriction not to let people who hold a heretical view of Christ into our homes. He could not understand why the apostle John — himself an evangelist — would object to evangelism in the home. My friend asked me if I could help him clear up the mystery. In this case, a review of history removes the mystery.

When investigating the historical context of a particular biblical book, the interpreter’s goal is to examine such issues as: What do we know about the author of this book? To whom was the author writing? When was the book written? What were the historical circumstances of the author and his readers? What was the author seeking to accomplish among his readers? Answering these questions helps us understand what the verse originally meant to its first-century audience. Only then can we properly apply the verse to situations in our own day.

We must not forget that we are reading 2 John more than 1,900 years after it was written. We are also reading this epistle (i.e., letter) in a different language, in a different geographical region of the world, and in an entirely different religious context. It makes good sense, therefore, to investigate the historical context of John’s writings when seeking to understand his intended meaning; so let’s dive in and see what we can discover about the historical context of 2 John.

What do we know about the author of this epistle? Fishermen by trade, John and his brother, James, were sometimes called “Sons of Thunder” by Jesus — perhaps because of their feisty nature (Mark 3:17). John was very close to Jesus, identifying himself as the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23). So close was John to Jesus that John was with Mary at the foot of the cross when Jesus was crucified, and Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John before He died (John 19:26–27). Understandably, then, John would take any doctrinal attack against his beloved friend and Savior with utmost seriousness.

When was the epistle written? Most scholars believe this epistle was written around AD 90 (plus or minus a few years). This means that by the time the aging apostle John wrote this epistle, Christianity had already been around for more than 50 years, which was plenty of time for doctrinal errors to have developed.

To whom was the author writing? Bible scholars have debated this issue, offering two primary viewpoints: the literal view, which says John was writing to a specific lady and her children, and the personification view, which says John was writing to a church personified as a lady. Let’s briefly consider both viewpoints.

In favor of the literal view is the contention that it makes the best sense of a plain, literal reading of the text. John’s opening words are, “The elder to the chosen lady and her children…” (v. 1). The word “chosen” may point to the prominence of this woman. A reference is made to the lady’s “chosen sister” (v. 13), who may have been another prominent woman.

The other view is that John personified a particular church as a “chosen lady” and her members as “children” in this epistle. The fact that the church is elsewhere referred to as the “bride of Christ” shows that using feminine terms to speak of the church is appropriate (e.g., Eph. 5:22–33; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7). In favor of this view is the argument that John says “all who know the truth” love this “lady” (v. 1), which may fit better with a local church than a particular woman. The exhortation in verse 5, moreover, that we should “love one another” seems strangely inappropriate as an exhortation to a woman and her children, but would be perfectly fitting in a church context. The closing greeting — “the children of your chosen sister greet you” (v. 13) — would also make sense in terms of members of one church sending greetings to another church. Proponents of this view argue that John may have written this way to protect church members in the event that the epistle ended up in the hands of Roman persecutors. If the letter were discovered, the Romans would think nothing more than that this epistle was a private letter to a friend, and then the church would be safe.

What were the historical circumstances of the author and his readers? In all three of his epistles, John seems to have been dealing with an early strain of a heretical belief known as Gnosticism. Gnostic teachers apparently were trying to conduct an itinerant ministry in some of the churches overseen by John.

John’s main concern in his second epistle was the Gnostic denial of the humanity of Christ. The root of the problem was the Greek idea that the spiritual and material (physical) realms are entirely separate and have nothing to do with each other. In this line of thinking, spirit is good but matter is evil. Some false teachers, therefore, argued that the spiritual Christ could not have actually become human.

The Gnostics denied Christ’s humanity in two ways. Some, called Docetists, claimed that Jesus had only the appearance of flesh, without substance or reality (like a phantom). (“Docetism” comes from a Greek word, dokeo, meaning “to seem” or “to appear.”) Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross, they said, was not real, for the body was not real.

Other Gnostics, following the lead of Cerinthus, believed the spiritual Christ entered into a human (physical) Jesus at the time of his baptism (in the form of a dove) and left the human Jesus before the crucifixion. History reveals that Cerinthus lived in Ephesus toward the end of the first century, which was also where the aged apostle John lived. Irenaeus (AD 130–200) tells us that John specifically directed his Gospel against Cerinthus (e.g., John 1:14; 20:19–31).² John’s epistles also effectively refute Gnostic heresy (e.g., 1 John 2:22; 4:2–3; 5:1; 2 John 7).

What was the author seeking to accomplish among his readers? John’s goal in this epistle was to commend truth (notice that the word “truth” is mentioned five times in the first four verses) and to warn against deceivers who taught heresy concerning Christ — more specifically, the heresy of denying that Christ came in the flesh (v. 7). John, therefore, warned, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” (v. 10).

The backdrop to understanding John’s warning in the early days of Christianity is the absence of centralized “church” buildings where believers could gather. Since such church buildings did not appear until the third century, meeting in homes was a necessity for the early believers. In the New Testament we are specifically told that a church met in Nympha’s house (Col. 4:15), in Aquila and Prisca’s house (Rom. 16:3–5; 1 Cor. 16:19), and in Philemon’s house (Philem. 1–2; see also Acts 2:46; 5:42; 8:3; 12:12; 20:20). Such house-churches were widespread.

It was common for visiting religious teachers to be given a platform to deliver messages in house-churches. Such a platform, however, should never be given to one who teaches a heretical view of Christ — especially those who were as seriously errant regarding Christ as were the Gnostics. Seen in this context, John’s warning in 2 John 10 takes on great significance. If such teachers were allowed to deliver their heretical message to a house-church, all the members of that church might become doctrinally confused, and this confusion might then spread to other neighboring house-churches like a disease. In order to prevent such doctrinal disease from spreading, John advised that false teachers were to be quarantined outside the church, with no access whatsoever. They were not even to be greeted (vv. 10–11), for such a greeting might be misconstrued as some form of approval. A lack of greeting, by contrast, would communicate to those false teachers as well as Christian observers that they were in need of repentance.

An alternate interpretation, also based on historical considerations, is that the particular “house” in 2 John 10 may not be a house-church. In this view, the epistle was addressed to a lady who had made her home available to traveling missionaries in the past (cf. 3 John 5–8; Matt. 10:9–14). In order to keep expenses down, such missionary teachers would often stay in the home of a local Christian family (e.g., Acts 18:2–3; 21:7) and use it as a base of operations to bring their message to the rest of the city. It may be, then, that the apostle John was merely instructing this lady to be discerning in regard to whom she showed hospitality. Obviously, no such hospitality was to be shown to heretical missionaries, otherwise the lady would be participating in an evil ministry, thereby making her an “accessory to the crime.” John said this should never be!

Regardless of which of the above views you think has the stronger evidence (I think the first is correct), it is clear that the historical context of 2 John 10 rules out the idea that this verse prohibits believers from allowing Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons into their homes, especially if the believers’ purpose is to evangelize them. History clears up this mystery quite well. The main application of this verse for today is that neither our churches nor our homes should be provided to cultists as a platform or base of operations from which to spread their heresies.

— Ron Rhodes

NOTES

1. All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 26.1; see also 1.8.1 and 3.16.3, 8.

Yahweh ben Yahweh (God, Son of God), originally named Hulon Mitchell, Jr., and leader of the Nation of Yahweh cult, was paroled after 11 years in prison on conspiracy convictions. In a trial that concluded in 1992, Mitchell was connected to 14 murders committed by cult members, who were tried for the murders they claimed were ordered by Mitchell. They had randomly killed white people and also killed black followers who had become disaffected or were disrespectful to Mitchell. The cult teaches that white people are the incarnation of evil.

At first, two factors stood between Mitchell and parole: payment of $16,000 in fines and parole conditions barring him from any direct or indirect association with fellow Yahweh cult members. Mitchell initially refused the parole conditions and consequently did not pay the fines. He asserted that such conditions violated his constitutional rights by preventing him from practicing his faith. After several weeks of negotiation with officials, he accepted the conditions and was paroled to live under close supervision in Florida.

Mitchell founded the Nation of Yahweh in 1979, which is also known as the Nation of Israel and the Black Hebrew Israelites. Mitchell, 65, one of 15 children of a fundamentalist Christian pastor from Oklahoma, has taught that he is the Son of God, that blacks are the lost tribe of Judah, and that Jews and other whites are devils. At the group’s height in the 1980s, it claimed 10,000 members; controlled $8 million worth of property, mostly in the Miami area; and had temples in 22 cities.

Current membership and power is much less, although 1,000 followers and supporters appeared at a Mitchell support rally during the summer of 2001 in Canada. The cult’s official Web site (http://yahwehbenyahweh.com/ index02.htm) distances itself from the previous teachings and practices. The Web site claims that Yahwehs are not racist. Their claim to be “law-abiding citizens” is carefully framed within their contention that their duty to Yahweh is to be citizens of his kingdom and obedient to his laws. The site contains an impassioned defense of Yahweh ben Yahweh, declaring that his trial, conviction, and incarceration constitute the “crucifixion” of the Son of God (Yahweh ben Yahweh), betrayed by “Judas,” the main prosecution witness, ex-follower and former professional football player Robert Rozier, who confessed to multiple murders, and claimed he did them at the direction of Mitchell.

– Gretchen Passantino

Morningland Publications is responsible for As It Is, a monthly magazine; an annual calendar; and a handful of books (The Way to Oneness; A Thought Away from Donato, and others dealing with occult topics such as astrology and palmistry).

Morningland is an “Ascended Master” cult. Belief in ascended masters (supposedly divine beings who have transcended the cycle of reincarnation and now work from a higher sphere for the good of lower creatures) was first popularized in the late 19th century and has been carried on by many occultic groups, today’s most notable being the Church Universal and Triumphant in Montana, headed by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. While Morningland advocates devotion to Jesus, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, and St. Germain, it is clearly Master Donato who dominates their consciousness. He is lauded as the mediator between earth and heaven.

Morningland offers classes and reading on almost every occult subject conceivable, including astrology, tarot, numerology, auras, telepsychology, palmistry, and yoga. Psychic healing and telepathy are the two most emphasized occult powers at Morningland. Testimonies abound to the healing powers of Donato, and now that he has “ascended,” those powers are supposedly transmitted through select “gopis.”

Morningland is dangerous because of its doctrine, which denies that Jesus Christ is the unique God and that salvation comes through His atoning work on the cross alone. The cult is also dangerous because those who submit to the group’s teachings and disciplines become extremely vulnerable to spiritual oppression and possession. The central aim of the members of Morningland is to achieve a constant telepathic rapport with Master Donato through being open to influences from the spiritual realm. Yet, Master Donato himself acknowledged the danger of such a practice: “Once you become an open channel, you are susceptible to being possessed” (A Thought Away from Donato, p. 163). Because they believe there is goodness as well as evil in the occult realm, Morningland’s solution to the problem of possession is for one to be discriminating about which spirits he opens himself up to: “When we understand the different levels of people, places, and planes, we can begin to understand how possession can be a positive experience” (ibid., p. 171). Thus, being led to believe that some occultic spirits are benevolent, the disciples of Morningland are encouraged to become spirit-possessed. From a Christian perspective, undoubtedly, such a notion originated from such spirits, whom the Bible consistently identifies as demons — deceivers working in league with Satan. In the Bible, possession is never a positive experience, but the most severe of afflictions from which spiritual deliverance is the only solution, even in cases where the powers derived from possession parallel those sought in Morningland. (Acts 16:16-18).

Morningland is so steeped in the occult that the sensitive person immediately discerns the same kind of spirit that one encounters in witchcraft. Anyone who considers attending any of the cult’s functions should pay serious heed to the warning in Deuteronomy 18:10-12: “There shall not be found anyone among you who…uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the Lord.”

Why would a prominent public figure like former president George Bush accept invitations to speak at events sponsored by Sun Myung Moon, thus lending further credibility to Moon’s efforts to become a leading voice for Christians and political conservatives worldwide? Obviously, the exorbitant honorariums are a factor. Bush, however, defends his actions by stating that he doesn’t endorse Moon’s theology, but instead affirms the family values Moon’s organization stresses.

The organization in question is not the Unification Church itself but the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. Moon founded the Family Federation in 1996 and intends to give it a much higher profile than the Unification Church, since his church has failed to grow from its meager numbers in North America even after three decades of intense proselytization by his followers.

George Bush and his wife are not alone in adding their names and presence to Moon’s movement. Other well-known politicians, entertainers, sports figures, and religious leaders have addressed or performed at Moon’s conferences for handsome fees. They include Gerald Ford, Mikhail Gorbachev, pop star Jon Secada, and even Louis Farrakhan. In addition, Maureen Reagan, daughter of Ronald Reagan, has introduced Hak Ja Han, Moon’s wife, at a Thanksgiving conference of the Women’s Federation for World Peace (associated with the Family Federation) saying of her, “I am proud to call her my friend.”

Despite their insistence that they are affirming only the family values message of these conferences and organizations, the marketing of Moon’s movement does not confine their endorsements to traditional views of marriage. Indeed, celebrity names are splashed throughout Moon’s public relations literature. The irony is that Moon’s concept of marriage and the family would alarm most of these people, as it certainly should alarm Christians.

Just as communion and baptism are holy sacraments within evangelical churches, wedding and marriage vows are sacraments within the Unification Church. According to Moon’s theology, God had created Adam and Eve to establish His kingdom on earth with their family as the foundation of this earthly kingdom. Lucifer, however, physically seduced Eve and destroyed the relationship between God, Adam, and Eve. In this way, Lucifer, who became Satan for causing the fall of humanity, ruined God’s perfect and sinless family.

Subsequently, God made several attempts to reestablish His kingdom on earth, but those whom He called for that purpose failed. Finally, Jesus emerged as a great holy man, whom God called to be the Messiah. Scriptures had described two paths that the Messiah might travel — one as the victorious king and the other as the suffering servant. Since the Jews refused to follow Jesus and recognize Him as their king and thereby allowed the Romans to crucify Jesus, He was forced to fulfill only the latter prophecies. Yet Jesus’ primary mission was to defeat Satan, marry the perfect woman, have sinless children, and thus establish God’s kingdom on earth.

Because Jesus failed to restore the heavenly triangle between God, man, and woman, God must call another holy man to fulfill the primary mission of the Messiah. According to Moon, his book Divine Principle reveals the most important truths hidden for ages in the Old and New Testaments. That is why Unificationists refer to Divine Principle as the Completed Testament and regard it as divine scripture. This work not only asserts the doctrines thus far articulated but also indicates who the second Messiah is. Moon teaches that the Messiah will be a Korean, born in this century, and accomplish many of the deeds Moon himself has allegedly done. Although the Divine Principle does not explicitly say that Moon is the Messiah, the implication is quite plain, and naturally most of his followers believe him to be.

One of the most important tasks of the Messiah is that he marry the perfect woman and have 12 sinless children. Moon’s followers regard his marriage to Hak Ja Han as the “Marriage of the Lamb,” taken from Revelation 21:9, which actually describes the union between Christ and His church. Subsequently, Moon’s followers have called his wife “Mother” just as they call him “Father.” Moon and his wife have had thirteen children (a son was killed in an auto accident). Unificationists believe Moon has fulfilled the messianic duty of creating God’s family on earth.

Events in which Moon weds thousands of couples and blesses the marriage vows of married couples (such as at “Blessing ’97” held at the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium on November 29 last year) affirm for Moon and his followers that he is establishing God’s kingdom on earth as the second Messiah. What Jesus failed to do two thousand years ago as the first Messiah, Moon is now supposedly accomplishing. The fact that eminent public figures such as George and Barbara Bush have participated in Moon-sponsored events strengthens Unificationists’ beliefs and affords them additional PR ammunition to persuade others as well.

Now some Unification Church-watchers are concerned that the group is stepping-up another tactic which may result in political acceptance: infiltrat­ing independent charismatic ministries to gain favor in the bur­geoning charismatic movement as a whole.

“They’re out there winning friends and influencing people,” said a source at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) who did not want to be named, adding that gaining acceptance in America is essen­tial to the church’s objective of having their leader Sun Myung Moon recognized as the second coming of Christ.

Last December’s articles, which appeared mostly in promi­nent Knight-Ridder newspa­pers, stated that in March 1987 Moon forged an alliance with the Christian Voice, the largest con­servative Christian lobby in America. They also reported that Moon has been funding anticom­munist guerrillas in Central Amer­ica, Afghanistan, and the Philip­pines, and that the Unification Church gave the late John T. Dolan, founder of the 300,000-member National Conserva­tive Political Action Commit­tee, a $775,000 gift. Former Trea­sury Secretary Robert Ander­son had also been paid $127,500 as a Unification Church consultant.

Recently the NAE warned its members to be wary of Unification Church attempts to infil­trate their ranks by joining with organizations that seem to have conservative goals. Moon-watch­ers say two points of Moonie infiltration into the Christian community have been over issues of religious freedom and anticom­munism.

In recent years certain Chris­tian leaders have been criticized for what some perceived as drawing too close to the Unifi­cation Church. Several years ago Tim LaHaye, Christian author and head of the American Coalition for Traditional Val­ues, came under fire for accept­ing a gift from Col. Bo Hi Pak, a former Korean intelligence offi­cer, president of the Washington Times newspaper, and Moon’s right-hand man. Since then, a number of pastors from a broad spectrum of denominations have received free trips from CAUSA, a Unification Church-funded anticommunism organization. Churchmen have also been speaking at CAUSA rallies (e.g., Jerry Fallwell spoke at a confer­ence in Miami last year which was co-sponsored by CAUSA).

Another group admitting Uni­fication Church funding is the American Freedom Coalition (AFC), publisher of the monthly Religious Freedom Alert, headed by Donald Sills as president and Robert Grant as chairman. Although LaHaye, Florida pastor D. James Kennedy, and others have left the AFC because of the Moon connection, others, such as Trinity Broadcasting Net­work’s Paul Crouch, Ben Armstrong of the National Religious Broadcasters, evangelists James Robison and Rex Humbard, and other prominent evangelicals have remained on AFC’s executive committee. (Although there is no known direct connection between CAUSA and AFC, Sills often speaks at CAUSA func­tions. CAUSA is headed by Phillip V. Sanchez, former U.S. Ambassador to Honduras and Columbia.)

In recent days Sills has been concentrating on attacking anti-cult organizations as a threat to religious freedom to audiences with a high percentage of charismatics. Sills (who visited Moon during his prison term) appeared May 3 on Crouch’s “Praise the Lord” show on TBN and denounced the secular Cult Awareness Network (CAN). From there Sills went on the AFC’s radio network hosted by Grant and sharply criticized CAN and cultwatchers in gener­al. (In recent months Sills has emerged as a public affairs spokesman for the Greater Grace World Outreach — formerly The Bible Speaks World Outreach, a controver­sial group a federal judge recent­ly ordered to return $6.6 million in contributions it swindled from a former member.)

But many agree that the church’s best attempt at influencing the political right is Bo Hi Pak’s Washington Times newspa­per, which is reportedly losing $200 million a year. Moon him­self is widely reported as saying he is having an influence on Pres­ident Reagan “through the Wash­ington Times”.

More striking were revela­tions that a black church mem­ber from Africa was being pos­sessed by Heung Jin Nim, who had been killed in a 1984 car crash at age 17. According to the Washington Post, church members were startled by the news, but they went along with it because it came from Moon.

But as the bizarre story has unfolded with the appearance and subsequent coronation of the unnamed Zimbabwean as Moon’s son, some church mem­bers have become skeptical, while others have been working to quell rumors or theological differences inside the sect

The Zimbabwean, described as a baby-faced black man in his early 20s, has been a member of the church for the past three years. Last year he began claim­ing to hear the voice of Heung Jin Nim. After a church-spon­sored investigation concluded that the man probably was Moon’s son, he came to Ameri­ca and met with Moon. According to the Post, the man knew the answers to five questions only Moon’s deceased son could have known, and thus won Moon’s enthusiastic accep­tance.

Since then the Zimbabwean has gained tremendous power in the church, and has spoken at a number of functions with some of them promoting the American Freedom Coalition, a Moon-sponsored political lobbying group. Other reports have stated that the man has become very authoritarian, and has beaten and slapped church members, including Moon’s second-in-command, Bo Hi Pak.

Yet Moon still grumbles because of his setbacks. It is no wonder that he spends much of his time in his estate in Uruguay complaining about Americans as being stupid, lazy, evil.¹ So what is Moon doing about his tarnished image? Like any man in his late 70s who has tons of cash to throw away, who is obsessed with how people perceive him, and who still yearns to fulfill the glorious dreams of his youth, he is trying to purchase an exceedingly expensive face-lift. He wants to appear more culturally relevant and less religiously arcane by transforming the image of his movement from a church-oriented crusade into a family-affirming organization.

Moon Mania. It seems the only time the news media pay any attention to Moon and his movement is when they think he is doing something outrageous. For example, the most coverage reporters gave Moon in recent years concerned a lavish marriage ceremony, billed as “Blessing ‘97” and held at the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium in Washington. D.C. At this November 29 gathering, Moon blessed 28,000 couples, most of whom rededicated their marriage vows while about 2,500 couples were newly wed. This ceremony ended a week of artistic, academic, and sports activities, which the Unificationists called, “World Culture and Sports Festival III.”

The official sponsor of this and festival was the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, which Moon established in 1996. According to leaders within Moon’s movement, the goal of this organization is to achieve “world peace through ideal families” by promoting traditional and biblical family values. Some Unificationists, such as W. Farley Jones, president of the Family Federation, say this organization is “the successor” to the Unification Church.²

This shift in focus to the Family Federation and away from the Unification Church has been effective in attracting prominent and respected political leaders and celebrities to the movement’s public functions, thus drawing more attention from the news media. In fact, the Women’s Federation for World Peace, a sister organization of the Family Federation, paid former president George Bush and his wife, Barbara, about $1 million to speak about family values at several Moon events in the United States and Asia. Bush, Gerald Ford, Jack Kemp, and other notable public figures have addressed Moon-sponsored conferences under the assumption they were affirming conservative views of the family yet not endorsing the theology of Moon.

Nevertheless, the press has had a field day in subtly scoffing at Moon’s marriage ceremonies and his association with high-profile conservative politicians and entertainers. For that reason, Unificationists, as well as Moon himself, often claim that the American press has been on a relentless campaign to persecute him and his movement. In fact, they believe such persecution led to his unjust 13-month imprisonment in the Danbury Federal Penitentiary for tax evasion from 1984 to 1985. Some followers of Moon also admit that Unificationists purchased the Washington Times newspaper in 1982 in order to provide a positive portrait of Moon and his political conservatism.

Despite the Unificationist outcry that the American press has targeted Moon for being an Asian, a strong conservative, and a Christian leader, journalists have either ignored him or continued to report on the misfortunes in his family, the setbacks of his church, or the perceived weirdness of his public events. Such irreverence for the Lord of the Second Advent further reinforces his feeling that he is truly a remarkable martyr for God.

Where Have All the “Moonies” Gone? In the ‘70s the news media portrayed the Unificationists as “Moonies,” whose numbers in North America were swelling at a geometric rate into the tens of thousands. They were evangelizing on every major college campus, selling flowers on countless street corners, and daily being interviewed in print and on the air. Most people’s perception of the Unification Church was that its American membership had become considerable.

Since both Christian and secular journalists have devoted little coverage to Moon’s movement in the ‘80s and ‘90s, the prevailing notion is that the number of Unificationists has declined significantly. In fact, Frederick Sontag, a professor of religion at Pomona College in California who has studied the Unification Church since the late ‘70s, states, “Their time ran out in the United States.”³

The truth, however, is that the Unification Church and other Moon organizations have never drawn great numbers of Americans into their fold. Although leaders in the Unification Church claim that they have 50,000 members in the United States, the actual total membership is closer to 3,000.⁴ Many Unificationists in North America are actually from Korea or Japan, the only two countries where Moon has been successful in creating a large following. At its peak his church could boast of a membership that ranged between 10 to 15 thousand in the U.S.. Nevertheless, a former church official estimated that of the members who joined during the recruiting high point of 1972-75 only 10 percent remain.⁵

In fact, many Unificationists have become disillusioned with Moon, primarily because of his personal family problems and because of the way his church has watered down the wedding ceremony — “the primary sacrament” within the Unification Church.⁶ “When I joined, you had to be in the church for seven years even to be considered for marriage,” said Ron Paquette, who was president of Manhattan Center Studios, a church-owned recording business in New York. “It was a really sacred event. It would make your children sinless. It was what you were sacrificing for, it was why you would spend 3 1/2 years fund-raising and 3 1/2 years witnessing [recruiting new members]. Now they walk up to people in the Caldor [Eastern U.S. chain store] parking lot and sign them up to be blessed.”⁷

In order to inflate the number of couples involved in Moon’s marriage ceremonies, Moon has had to compromise as Paquette describes. Each event must be more grandiose than the previous one in order to prove to his followers, and to nonbelievers as well, that he is still on course to redeem the world as the Messiah.

Nevertheless, Moon cannot but be annoyed since he has had to bend his principles to meet goals that he had set for himself. Not surprisingly, he blames neither himself nor his church for the small number of Americans who have embraced his teachings. He blames Americans. When Moon first arrived in the United States, he had great hopes for this country. He declared that God would bless the world through America. Now he scorns America as a lost nation. Focusing on the immorality he sees in their society, he says Americans are too corrupt to turn to God and welcome him as the Lord of the Second Advent.

Mainstreaming Moon’s Movement. Ever since Moon first arrived in the United States to conduct his seven-city “Day of Hope” tour from late 1971 to early 1972, he has tried to court conservative Christians in North America by identifying with the political and social causes that evangelicals have fervently embraced. Moon and his followers are undoubtedly like-minded and not merely pretending to share these concerns, but they also know that these concerns might be a crucial bridge between evangelicals and themselves.

One of their first attempts to attract the interest of conservative Christians was their anticommunist campaign. Central to Moon’s theology is that communism is the manifestation of evil and that democracy is the manifestation of good. In fact, he teaches that the thief who was crucified with Jesus and scorned the Lord was to His left while the thief who asked Jesus to remember him was to His right. Moreover, a primary requirement that the Messiah must fulfill is that he unify Korea under the banner of democracy. Hence, Moon was able to mix politics with theology and gain some support among conservative Christians. Although the threat of communism has since diminished considerably and most evangelicals are no longer concerned with this political issue, Moon’s movement still pours millions of dollars into his anticommunist campaign — especially since Korea is still politically divided. Incidentally, the Unification Church has flooded recruiters into the once-communist states in Europe, particularly the Ukraine.

Another concern of Moon is the struggle for racial reconciliation. His organizations have conducted numerous conferences targeting African-American Christians, and many times he has been successful in drawing both political and religious leaders in the black community to these events. Of course, Moon wants people of all racial and national backgrounds to recognize him as the Messiah. When he marries couples in his church, he invariably will mix people of different racial and national backgrounds. Many Christian minorities have welcomed his apparent effort to break down racial barriers. Yet when they discover what he teaches about Christ, their enthusiasm quickly dies.

Moon’s movement has also been engaged in protests against abortion, drugs, and homosexuality. Unificationists often stand with evangelicals during public debate over these issues. In addition, when the government indicted Moon on tax evasion, Moon’s supporters successfully assembled conservative Christians to speak in his behalf against the intrusion of the state into religious affairs. Nevertheless, these Christians were quick to add that they considered Moon’s theology heretical.

Perhaps the most controversial issue is the substantial amount of money that has passed from Moon’s movement to Christian institutions. For example, in 1995, when the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, was on the brink of bankruptcy, Moon’s Women’s Federation gave a $3.5 million grant to the Christian Heritage Foundation, a separate institution that bought much of the school’s debt. A year later another Moon organization, News World Communication, lent Liberty University $400,000. The school’s spokeman, Mark DeMoss, explains, “I’m not going to be pious and tell you we would have turned it down. Because it was a business transaction, we probably would have moved forward even if Dr. Falwell or somebody in the organization knew who News World Communications was.”⁸ Despite all this, Fallwell and other beneficiaries of Moon’s organizations are not hesitant in condemning Moon’s religious teachings.

Although Moon has made numerous attempts to appear attractive to conservative Christians and has spent many millions of dollars to court their favor, Christians still perceive their church as a cult and him as a false prophet. While his movement will continue to seek to enter the Christian mainstream, Moon’s displeasure with American Christians is undoubtedly intense.

Family Foibles. What has certainly been the most painful thorn in Moon’s side pertains to his children. Central to his claims as the Messiah is that he has created the perfect family with sinless children, through whom God blesses all other families. The fact that his children have shown themselves to be “human” is a staggering blow to that belief.

Especially troublesome to his parents has been Hyo Jin, Moon’s eldest son, who is now in his 30s. Moon had groomed Hyo Jin to be his successor, but Hyo Jin’s behavior has been far from pristine. Since marriage and the family are the foundation of the Unification Church and central to Moon’s quest to “[unite] all Christian denominations.”⁹ it was disturbing to many former members that Hyo Jin’s marriage to Nansook ended scandalously.

In fact, Nansook has accused Hyo Jin of beating her and “secreting himself in the master bedroom, sometimes for hours, sometimes for days, drinking alcohol, using cocaine and watching pornographic films,” according to a 1995 affidavit she filed in Massachusetts.¹⁰

Not surprisingly, Hyo Jin and Unification officials deny those accusations. Yet what cannot be denied is that Hyo Jin attended the Betty Ford Center and the Hanley Hazelden Center in Florida for addiction treatment.

Moon’s family troubles are not restricted to his oldest son. Sunjin, one of Moon’s daughters, not only has separated from her husband but also has changed her name. Worse still, Unjin, Moon’s youngest daughter, has clashed with her father and has publicly expressed doubts about her father’s faith.

Such turbulence in Moon’s family is deeply worrisome to Unificationists, for none of his children have the charisma or stature within his movement to succeed him. Moon’s response to that problem, however, is, “I will continue to lead the church front the spirit world.”¹¹

Despite Moon’s confident statement and use of his financial empire to try to create and sustain that confidence among his followers, no cosmetic makeover can disguise the blemishes in his family and theology as they continue to taint his image and undermine his quest to be the Lord of the Second Advent.

— J. Isamu Yamamoto

¹See Marc Fisher and Jeff Leen, “Stymied in U.S., Moon’s Church Sounds a Retreat,” Washington Post, 24 November 1997, sec. A.

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

⁶Laurie Goodstein, “35,000 Couples are invited to a Blessing by Rev. Moon,” The New York Times, 28 November 1997, sec. A.

⁷Fisher and Leen.

⁸Marc Fisher and Jeff Leen, “A Church in Flux is Flush with Cash,” Washington Post, 23 November 1997, sec. A.

⁹Caryle Murphy, “Blessing ’97: Moon’s Church Adapts, Endures,” Washington Post, 19 November 1997, sec. B.

¹⁰Fisher and Leen, “Stymied.”

¹¹Ibid.

In 1957 he published Divine Principle. Moon claims that Divine Principle is a revelation he received from God. Some critics feel that he formulated these teachings in North Korea eleven years earlier in a monastery established by Paik Moon Kim, who himself has claimed to be a messiah of sorts.

On New Year’s Day, 1972, Moon says that God “sent him to America.” He came to America and toured under the guise of patriotism with the theme “God Bless America”. On his second tour he supported President Richard Nixon during the Watergate investigation. Three hundred fifty followers fasted for seventy-two hours on behalf of Nixon, asking Congress to “forgive, love, and unite.” The President personally thanked Moon for his support. Since that event the Unification Church has had the public eye.

Meanwhile, Moon has raised enough money for four estates: Barrytown, New York (225 acres worth $1.5 million); Belvedere in Tarrytown, New York (worth $850,000); Irvington, New York (22 acres worth $670,000); and Boonville, California (650 acres). He has collected this fortune from: (1) companies where he makes marble vases, machine parts, ginseng tea, pharmaceutics, titanium, air rifles, shotguns, and concrete; and more significantly (2) the sacrifice of his followers’ possessions and the funds which they solicit on the street.

Members of the Unification Church and other organizations who follow the direction of Sun Myung Moon are popularly known as “Moonies.” They may say that they are from the Creative Community Project or C.A.R.P., or any of a number of front organizations, but they all follow Rev. Moon, and they worship and obey him as their messiah. Peddling flowers and candy, or simply asking for dona­tions, these smiling solicitors have collected over $15 million for Moon’s empire.

Proselytizing is done very subtly. Prospective members are invited to an “open house.” After the visitors have experienced the camplike atmosphere, they are asked to attend a weekend seminar. There they are kept active constantly, are allowed little sleep, and are given a low protein diet in order to be put in a State of mind where the Unification Church doctrine can be easily absorbed.

The gist of the Unification Church theology is that God’s purpose for creation was to establish a kingdom of heaven here on earth with perfect people. Adam and Eve were created to become perfect and bear perfect children. Before this could take place, however, Lucifer seduced Eve in the garden of Eden and had relations with her. This is what Moon calls the spiritual fall of man. Eve, now having sin, also had relations with Adam, causing the physical fall of man. Now, in order for God’s purpose for creation to be estab­lished, mankind must be redeemed spiritually and physically. God chose Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others to restore man to his proper relationship with God, but none were successful. Jesus was chosen, but because of the unbelief of the Jews he was crucified before he could marry the perfect woman and begin the kingdom of heaven here on earth.

The Unification Church hopes for a messiah who will attain perfection and marry the perfect mate who will bear perfect offspring. They of course believe this man to be Moon.

Unification Church members have either not heard the truth of Jesus Christ’s total victory over sin, or having heard, have not accepted it. Moon, their substitute messiah, has imposed his own way of dealing with guilt. By studying Divine Principle, recruiting new members, and fund-raising for the messiah, the devotees obtain a sense of spiritual merit (and make Moon rich, as well).

Jesus, the true Messiah, was not on earth to become a rich and overbear­ing master, but rather a servant, giving his all, even his life. True expression of love is in giving, not receiving. Jesus offers his authentic love, proven not by a luxurious life, but by his willingness to suffer the penalty we deserve.

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

The following is a list of Moon organizations from the Congregational Record — Senate, 25 March 1976:

The Unification Church

Project Unity

One World Crusade

International Cultural Foundation

International Federation for Victory over Communism

Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles

Freedom Leadership Foundation

The Rising Tide (publication for the Freedom Foundation)

Rising Tide Bookstore (Washington, DC.)

World Freedom Institute

Little Angels of Korea

Little Angels Korean Folk Ballet

Professors Academy for World Peace

Unification Church of New York, Inc.

Unification Church International

National Prayer and Fast for the Watergate Crisis

Unified Family

International Re-education Foundation

The Weekly Religion

The Way of the World

Tongil Seigei Monthly

Ton I (or Tongil) Industry Company

I Wah (or l l Hwa) Pharmaceutical Company

I Shin (or l l Shin) Stonework Company

Ton Wha Titanium Company

The Han Rutile Company

American Youth for a Just Peace

Sun Myung Moon Christian Crusade

Korean Folk Ballet

New Hope Singers International

Committee for Responsible Dialogue

Day of Hope Tour

Unification Thought Institute

Unification Church of America

International Conference on Unified Science

Council for Unified Research and Education

D.C. Striders Track Club

International Pioneer Academy (San Francisco)

International Ideal City Project (San Francisco)

Korean Cultural Freedom Foundation

New Education Development Corporation

Center for Ethical Management and Planning

Eden Awareness Training Center

Creative Community Project

The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity

San Francisco Day of Hope Committee

International Education Foundation

Sunburst

New Educational Development Systems, Inc.

International Exchange

International Exchange Press

Aladdin Coffees, Teas & Kindreds, Berkeley

Aladdin Warehouse, Berkeley

Rose Shop, Berkeley

Judaism: in Service to the World

Leamington Hotel Flower Shop, Oakland

Seno Travel Service Inc., 150 Powell St., San Francisco

International Prisoner Re-Education Foundation

Center for Ethical Management and Planning, Inc., Berkeley

It was our desire that the Ezzos would acknowledge the seriousness of the problems associated with their ministry. We hoped they would take constructive steps to reform their use of Scripture, root out the authoritarian, exclusivist, and isolationist tendencies in their ministry, and lessen the potential for physical and emotional endangerment of children in their programs.

Instead, however, GFI has responded to our article much as they have responded to other Christian critics. They issued a statement saying they wished to address their concerns toward us privately, but at the same time they publicly accused us of “withholding facts, telling half-truths,” and “removing statements from their appropriate context,” and they promised to provide more details to those who contacted them directly.³ When we asked for examples that would substantiate their concerns prior to agreeing to meet with them, they continued to make similar charges publicly for three months without providing any substantial written documentation.⁴ They finally issued a 16,713-word (not including attachments) public critique of our 10,696-word article, questioning our motives, accusing us of duplicity and demagoguery, characterizing us as wicked liars, and challenging the accuracy of our statements, sources, and quotes, even to the point of debating minutiae.⁵ This follow-up Journal article will demonstrate the accuracy of our original comments, provide more detailed information on the comments in question, and indicate even more clearly the need for constructive action on GFI’s part.

A MATTER OF BIAS?

Throughout their critique GFI accuses us of having a “bias” against their work that led to inappropriate conclusions about their ministry.⁶ Although we could point to several reasons why this is not true, the most obvious difficulty for GFI in sustaining this allegation is the fact that we are far from alone. An overwhelming number of other nationally recognized, reputable Christian organizations and leaders have publicly expressed many of the same concerns and conclusions.

Dr. John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (Grace), where the Ezzos’ programs were developed and first taught, issued two public statements warning others of problems they have experienced as a result of GFI programs. Their current statement specifically expresses concerns both with GFI’s use of Scripture and with the isolationism, elitism, and division they have observed firsthand.⁷ Their previous statement also noted Gary Ezzo’s “repeated tendency to avoid accountability.”⁸ According to Phil Johnson, who wrote both of the Grace elders’ statements, “Our concerns about Gary’s lack of accountability are by no means resolved.”⁹

Indeed, John MacArthur himself has written to CRI stating that the Journal article “clearly and objectively articulates the glaring weaknesses with the overall focus of Gary’s material….We wholeheartedly support your conclusions.”¹⁰

Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family (Focus) has also issued statements of concern regarding GFI. Their current statement acknowledges that some have benefited from GFI’s materials but expresses concern with GFI’s exclusivism and misuse of Scripture. It further notes that Focus has received reports of failure to thrive in infants “subjected to the Ezzos’ program” and affirms that “for these reasons we have chosen not to recommend the Ezzos’ material.”¹¹

Kathy Eshleman, whose husband, Paul, heads The JESUS Film Project of Campus Crusade for Christ, issued a letter alerting staff mothers that she believes GFI’s “medical assertions [are] questionable,” “their application of Scripture to parenting is erroneous,” and “the potential consequences upon child development are hazardous.”¹²

Pastor Chuck Smith has addressed the GFI controversy at least three times on his Southern California radio program, affirming that he is “against” GFI programs. He characterized the programs as “rigid,” “strict,” “legalistic,” and “severe,” and he explained, “I don’t think they really prove from the Bible that theirs is truly a godly method.” He expressed concern about the potential for children on the program to become rebellious and “estranged from God,” and he further noted that the Ezzo teaching has become somewhat “cultish” and has “created a lot of division within the body of Christ.”¹³

Dr. Bruce Narramore and Dr. Grace Ketterman, both nationally respected Christian authorities on child development, have individually raised concerns about the potential long-term impact of GFI materials on children (11, 43).

Christianity Today, World magazine, and Group magazine have all published articles addressing concerns about GFI.¹⁴ In addition, Christian Parenting Today “does not endorse or provide editorial coverage for BABYWISE” (the secular version of GFI’s program for infants, Preparation for Parenting [PFP]).¹⁵

It is not plausible that all of these respected Christian leaders and organizations are biased against GFI. Nonetheless, we now turn to GFI’s specific allegations against our original Journal article.

PRIMARY SOURCES NOT CONSULTED

After placing great stress on a statement Hank Hanegraaff made on the radio that our research was based on primary sources, GFI supplies five alleged examples of inadequate primary research. This resulted, they say, in a distortion of the facts.¹⁶

It is first of all ironic that GFI would criticize us for not contacting primary sources. They are arguably the most primary source of all, and yet when Kathleen Terner approached them with a list of questions to ensure accuracy in our article, they refused to answer any of them.¹⁷ Furthermore, as shall be demonstrated below, primary sources were used in each of the examples GFI cites, and we stand behind the accuracy of our statements.

FOCUS DOES NOT RECOMMEND THE EZZO’S’ MATERIAL

In their critique of our article, GFI challenged our quotes from Focus’s statement (11), claiming that Focus’s desire is to maintain a “neutral stance” with respect to GFI’s work.¹⁸ Contrary to GFI’s claim, we quoted Focus’s statement directly and accurately. In addition, Paul Hetrick, a Vice-President at Focus, affirms, “It is not our desire to maintain a purely neutral stance with respect to GFI. We do not recommend GFI’s materials.”¹⁹

DUE DILIGENCE NOT DISPLAYED BY THE EZZOS’ CHURCH

In addition to mentioning Grace’s concerns with GFI, our first article noted inadequacies in GFI’s responses to Grace’s statement. For example, in GFI’s first response to the Grace statement, “the Ezzos promised a ‘thorough examination’ of the issues by their own elders at Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship [LHEF].…None of the elders, however, even contacted Johnson, the author of the Grace Statement, to discuss Grace’s concerns” (44).

GFI does not dispute our accuracy. They charge the Journal, however, with leaving “out some very important facts.” GFI asserts that LHEF had a “good reason” for not contacting Grace to You executive director Johnson: he “was not on the Grace Church Elder Board” at the time the board affirmed and released the statement.²⁰ While Johnson was not on active status at the time, he was still a member of the board of elders, has been since 1985, participated in the meeting when Grace affirmed its statement, and is now again active.²¹

Additionally, GFI has publicly drawn attention to the fact that Johnson was the author of the Grace statement, even in their response to Grace,²² which was “reviewed” and “approved” by the LHEF elders.²³ Furthermore, Gary Ezzo has repeatedly portrayed his meetings with Phil Johnson, mediated by Ken Sande of Peacemaker Ministries, as integral in his conflict with Grace Church.²⁴ The LHEF elders could not have conducted a “thorough examination” without contacting Johnson, and Johnson points out that they still have not done so as of this writing.²⁵

PATTERN OF CONTROVERSY

Our concern about the divisive effects of GFI in evangelical churches today was intensified when we discovered that the Ezzos had been associated with similar controversy in previous years. While this certainly warranted mention in our original article, we chose not to focus attention on past problems. Since GFI has challenged this claim, however, we will provide additional substantiation for our assertion.

Division in New Hampshire

GFI claims that it “could not possibly be true”²⁶ that when the Ezzos left New Hampshire to come to Grace in the early 1980s, their church at that time, Lakes Region Community Church, “was divided due to controversy over Gary Ezzo, with the church accusing him of exhibiting authoritarian and isolationist tendencies” (12).

Although there will always be a number of different perspectives regarding division in a church, it is clear that the church where Gary was pastor-teacher was concerned enough about his actions to ask him to step down. Whereas we based our original comments on consistent firsthand testimony from three witnesses, others since then have affirmed the accuracy of our comments.

Despite the complexities of their situation, leaders from the church affirm: “As indicated in the CRI article, our experience with Gary Ezzo in New Hampshire paralleled the problems that subsequently have been experienced by many others, such as his authoritarianism, exclusivism, and division. As a result of these problems, the church congregation met and decided to ask Gary to step down as pastor-teacher and elder.”²⁷

GFI suggests that people with questions about this event contact a particular staff member at GFI. They do not mention that this staff person is Gary Ezzo’s brother-in-law and one of two former elders who left the church with Ezzo.²⁸

The Formation of the Ezzos’ Church

GFI denied our statement that “Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship, where the Ezzos now attend, took form essentially as a splinter group from Grace — because of controversy regarding Gary Ezzo” (11). GFI further denied that “the establishment of Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship…had anything to do with the Ezzos or GFI.”²⁹ Yet John MacArthur himself has affirmed to CRI that he considers this a splinter group from his congregation and that he so informed the people involved, in writing, at the time.³⁰ As to Ezzo’s involvement, Phil Johnson recounts, “Gary himself admitted to me that he was involved in helping start LHEF from the beginning — while many of the founding group still had membership at Grace Community Church.”³¹

Why Several Original Leaders Left GFI

GFI challenged the credibility of our affirmation that “all three original key GFI leadership couples who worked with the Ezzos to develop, teach, and promote GFI’s programs (Eric and Julie Abel, Dirk and Cheryl Williams, and one other couple who asked not to be named) have decided to leave GFI at different points in time. The reason expressed by them all: strong concerns about the issue of integrity and the content and impact of the programs” (12). GFI questioned our description of the Williamses and Abels by misquoting us and then challenging the misquote. In addition, they indicated that these couples left not because of concerns with the Ezzos, but because the Ezzos believed their departure was necessary.³²

Both the Williamses and Abels not only stand by their original statement but also have provided CRI with extensive documentation to support it.³³ They consider GFI’s statements to be “false and libelous.”³⁴

The Ezzos themselves have characterized the Abels in writing as their “senior advisors and best friends.”³⁵ Moreover, Eric was Director of Ministries of Growing Families International Educational Services (GFI’s not-for-profit arm) and performed similar functions at GFI as well until September 1994.³⁶ Dirk Williams was president of GFI in 1989.³⁷ Both couples were on the first GFI board, traveled out of state with the Ezzos, taught at national leadership conferences, were featured in or helped produce GFI tapes and videos, and were regular radio guests on the Ezzos’ program. Julie and Cheryl were both key contributors to the GFI Contact Mom ministry.³⁸ To question their status as “key original leadership couples” is disingenuous at best.

Both of these couples also clearly initiated their own departures, both clearly due to concerns about integrity. In March of 1994, Eric Abel wrote Gary Ezzo asking for immediate action on three key points, including “accountability for Gary Ezzo and G.F.I. staff.” Abel noted that he had expressed these concerns before without sufficient response from Ezzo.³⁹

In June of that year, Abel wrote again, noting that little progress had been made with his concerns.⁴⁰ In August, the Abels suggested arbitration between them and the Ezzos. On August 28, the Ezzos replied, “We have given much thought to your suggestion of arbitration.…and have decide [sic] to let things stand just as they are. There is no need for arbitration.”⁴¹ On September 1, Eric Abel submitted his resignation from “any authoritative role” and soon left GFI completely.⁴²

Beginning in February of 1993, Dirk Williams wrote the Ezzos a number of letters expressing his desire to move on to projects other than GFI, and the Ezzos replied several times, asking the Williamses to consider continued involvement.⁴³ Williams’s letters expressed his frustration over Gary’s unwillingness to be truthful with him and answer questions about the editing process of GFI’s toddler program, authored by the Williamses.⁴⁴ The Williamses severed their ties with GFI by June of 1993.⁴⁵

Released from Membership

As an example of division associated with GFI, our original article stated that “Debra and Pat Baker were involuntarily ‘released from membership’ and even barred from unofficial church functions after voicing concerns about PFP at Covenant Fellowship of Philadelphia” (CFOP) (11).

GFI challenged this statement, noting that the Bakers had not responded to a letter of concern sent to them from CFOP in a timely manner. GFI stated, “CFOP did what many churches do in such cases, drop non-attenders from their membership roles.”⁴⁶

The Bakers contradict GFI’s implication. They insist they attended church every Sunday during the months preceding their being “released” from membership.⁴⁷ Financial records from the church itself demonstrate that they had consistently given to the church during that period.⁴⁸

Furthermore, the very letter that GFI selectively quotes from makes it clear the church action was based on the Bakers’ disagreement with the church’s teaching on the family, which included teaching from PFP: “We have released you from membership at Covenant Fellowship….The pastors’ philosophy on family life represents many fundamental differences which we will aggressively teach in the future. Wisdom would dictate that you need a church home which supports rather than challenges your strong opinions.”⁴⁹

Finally, while the Bakers had indeed failed to respond to a letter of concern from the church in a timely manner, they also explained and apologized for their late response, reiterated their respect for the church leadership and their desire to continue in membership at the church, and asked the church to reconsider its decision.⁵⁰ The church replied within two days, refusing to reverse its decision. Later they sent the Bakers a letter barring them from even unofficial church meetings.⁵¹

The Journal statement was accurate and based on written documentation from both of the primary sources — the Bakers and CFOP.

GKGW Required at Churches

We also noted in our original article that “parents can’t send their children to the Country Oaks Baptist Church school in Tehachapi, California, unless they have completed” GKGW (12). No other reference was made to the church.

GFI quoted the church’s pastor, Andy Walker, complaining that his church was “cast in a ‘cultic’ light simply because Mrs. Terner didn’t bother or chose not to seek understanding in her ‘interview.’”⁵² Yet even in GFI’s critique, Walker acknowledges that he does use GKGW as an entrance requirement at his church’s school, that Terner did verify this fact with him directly, and that he did have an opportunity to explain the context for his decision.

The Journal did not state that Walker’s church is cultic, nor that it had specifically been divided because of GKGW. Nonetheless, we stand by our implication that this requirement is inherently divisive. We do have on record a testimony from a family who stated that they tried to enroll their children in the school and even offered to bring their children in for evaluation, but they were refused entrance because they had not completed the GKGW course.⁵³

THE RISE OF THE EZZO EMPIRE

Many who are familiar with the popularity and controversy associated with GFI have wondered how the Ezzos’ parenting ministry could have grown so rapidly. In just over 10 years, GFI has expanded into 93 countries, reaching more than a million followers. Seventy thousand parents attend GFI classes at local churches every week (12). The Journal noted that this growth was possible partly through the Ezzos’ connections with John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, where Gary Ezzo was once Pastor of Family Ministry, and with its radio and tape ministry, Grace to You (GTY). This was not, as GFI protests, a “charge” against the Ezzos in any way, but simply a much-needed explanation for GFI’s exponential and worldwide growth. Although it was not endnoted in the article, we had obtained this information directly from the Executive Director of GTY Ministries, Phil Johnson, who oversees all of the GTY ministry — a primary source.⁵⁴

SCRIPTURE TWISTING

GFI Materials Misuse Matthew 27

GFI also criticized some of the facts we used to support our claim that their ministry exhibits five characteristics of a cult — Scripture twisting and extrabiblical revelation, authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, and physical and emotional endangerment (of children). Concerning Scripture twisting, GFI faults us for quoting a public statement from Focus on the Family that noted that the Ezzos have “repeatedly cited Matthew 27:46 — ’…My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ — in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met” (15).

GFI says they are concerned with our use of Focus’s statement because “when Focus on the Family was informed they were misquoting the Ezzos on this point, they dropped it from their correspondence.”⁵⁵ Focus’s current statement, however, once again expresses concern with GFI’s misuse of Matthew 27. In addition, Focus Vice President Hetrick states, “Focus did not misquote the Ezzos; we quoted their materials accurately.”⁵⁶

In defense, GFI’s critique states, “The Ezzos don’t for one minute believe or teach that Jesus hung on a cross to teach us that mothers should refuse to attend crying infants.” Rather, the “Father’s nonintervention in the suffering of His Son is the ultimate example that speaks against the fraudulent notion that love always requires immediate intervention.”⁵⁷ To employ this idea in the context of a discussion of how mothers should respond to their crying infants, however, is to use Christ’s suffering to justify a practice of letting a baby cry. Since Christ’s suffering on the cross for our sins was a unique event for a very specific purpose, it should not be used even indirectly to justify letting infants cry. Furthermore, God did answer Jesus’ cry on the cross (Ps. 22:24).

Sobermindedness vs. Maternal Instincts

One of our key concerns in evaluating GFI’s misuse of Scripture was the extent to which the materials use the Bible to dismiss or downplay maternal instinct or intuition. We commented that the Ezzos “teach that maternal instinct is an unbiblical concept and therefore imply mothers should ignore any intuitive alarms they may hear when following the GFI program” (15).

Although GFI denies our statement is true,⁵⁸ we based it on a number of GFI quotes included in the article, which pit against “reason,” “assessment,” and “sobermindedness,” not only “instinct” but also “feelings,” the “heart,” “what feels natural,” and ”noncognitive responses” — all of which they equate with “unchecked emotionalism.” The Ezzos hinge their defense on a supposed distinction between instinct and intuition, identifying the first with “Darwin’s theory of evolution” while now saying they accept the second.⁵⁹ The Ezzos are apparently unfamiliar with what intuition means, defined by the American Heritage Electronic Dictionary (version 1.0) as, “The faculty of knowing as if by instinct, without conscious reasoning.”

The real issue is not the use of the one word intuition but rather whether “noncognitive responses” such as the heart and feelings play a legitimate role in parenting. In the quotes cited, the Ezzos insist that they do not. Since intuition is clearly a form of noncognitive response, the Ezzos are either confused or they have changed their position, while persisting to defend statements they no longer believe.

Chastisement and Cleansing Guilt

In discussing the Ezzos’ philosophy on chastisement, we commented, “Although the Ezzos affirm the true gospel, their central emphasis on the redemptive role of ‘biblical chastisement’ (a particular method of spanking) has led them into murky theological waters” (16).

GFI complained about this statement, saying, “The Ezzos do not believe or teach that spanking leads to a child’s salvation.”⁶⁰ But we clearly affirmed this to be the case. What we did discuss (and quote) in the original article was the Ezzos’ troubling reference to chastisement removing the guilt, or reminder, of sin from a child. We criticized their lack of theological clarity and qualification on this point, and nothing in their rebuttal invalidates this criticism.

The Ezzos have yet to resolve a quandary in which their peculiar and biblically unsubstantiated doctrine that spanking cleanses a child from the guilt of sin puts them. If a child’s guilt before his (or her) parents is so distinct from his guilt before God that it requires a form of cleansing separate from the blood of Jesus Christ, does that mean that the child could have a clear conscience before God while having a defiled conscience before his parents — or vice versa? The Ezzos would probably, and understandably, answer no. But then, logically, spanking would indeed be necessary to receive forgiveness before God. Again, they clearly do not believe that. Their teaching on this point, therefore, remains confused, self-contradictory, and open to serious misunderstanding and misapplication.

Living “under the Weight of Sin”

The Ezzos’ made it clear that offenses that call for chastisement (spanking) require chastisement, lest “the child lives under the weight of the sin” (16). What offenses call for chastisement? We noted, “In cases where children deliberately disobey the standard, discipline must consistently follow, and the Ezzos dogmatically affirm that spanking is the appropriate form of discipline” (16; emphasis added).

GFI questioned whether this was an accurate representation of the Ezzos’ teaching.⁶¹ Their materials, however, quite clearly state that deliberate disobedience requires chastisement (i.e., spanking as defined by GFI): “Offenses that require chastisement are those related to rebellion. Rebellion is a heart issue that includes defiance, disrespect, disobedience, and any willful failure to learn to remember.”⁶²

GFI Linked to Pelagianism

GFI’s response to our discussion of their theology of the will (18) says,

Terner and Miller’s comments regarding the “will” and the “flesh” and “Pelagianism” are inaccurate and demonstrate confusion over the very heresy to which they refer.…

Pelagius believed the human will to be morally neutral. Clearly he meant that the will is not influenced by sin. We believe he was wrong in that assessment.…The Ezzos clearly teach the doctrine of the depravity of man and original sin.

Simply put, Pelagianism cannot be ascribed to someone who holds to the doctrine of original sin because the acceptance of original sin and the belief that the will is morally neutral are antithetical concepts in Pelagianism.⁶³

Because we never accused the Ezzos of holding to Pelagianism, they are knocking down a straw man. We simply noted that the Grace statement links them to Pelagianism (without identifying them as outright Pelagian), while also noting that not all Christians would take it that far.

Although we did not state it in our original article, we would classify the Ezzos’ view as semi-Pelagian. This means they believe in original sin but also hold to the freedom of the unregenerate human will; that is, they believe unsaved man is depraved but not totally depraved — his will is influenced by sin but not enslaved to it. Nothing either in the original quote we cited nor in their rebuttal refutes this classification.

If Gary Ezzo does not believe in the freedom of the unregenerate human will, he needs to state his position more clearly. Even in the above quote, GFI states, “Pelagius believed the human will to be morally neutral.” When Ezzo uses the same phrase to describe his own view,⁶⁴ what else does he expect people to think?

It is quite clear (even from GFI’s response) that Ezzo did mean his statements in the way we interpreted them, for he proceeds to build his teaching that parents can “train their children to make right behavior decisions” on the assumption that the child’s will is autonomous and morally neutral. This leads to the problem noted in our article that “the role of the Holy Spirit in shaping Christian character truly seems nonessential (although certainly helpful) in the Ezzos’ system” (18). As we suggested in our article, even many other semi-Pelagians (e.g., Arminians) would find this lack of emphasis on the grace of God disturbing, and this is our real concern with the Ezzos’ teaching — not the fact that it is semi-Pelagian.

Is God Obligated to Save Our Children?

Perhaps because of their philosophy of the will, the Ezzos seem to place an excessive emphasis on the role of parents in shaping the character of their children. We noted that “essentially the Ezzos are suggesting that if parents faithfully ‘grow their kids God’s way,’ God will be obligated to save their children…” (18; emphasis in original).

Although GFI objected to this comment, we believe that our original article adequately demonstrates our point. Further evidence is provided by Gary Ezzo’s similar comments in a March 1996 Table Talk article regarding “the importance of securing your child’s salvation” through “training in biblical virtues and values” that “arouse within a child a consciousness of God and eternity” (emphasis added).⁶⁵ In contrast, no biblical passage, correctly understood, states that parents can secure their children’s salvation.

AUTHORITARIANISM

Our original article noted, that the Ezzos lack true accountability to either church elders or a board of directors, that they set up rules that limit debate for their followers, and that they have responded to critics by not answering their questions or by attacking them (19). Through these and other means, they have developed an authoritarian style of leadership.

Jim Dunning

With regard to the Ezzos’ “apparent lack of any true accountability” (19), we stated that Jim Dunning, one of Gary’s elders at LHEF at the time of our article, has in the past “admitted his inability to hold Ezzo accountable” (45).

Jim Dunning and GFI both agree that Dunning had stated in the past that “he personally could not hold Gary accountable.”⁶⁶ What they dispute is the implication that this was Gary Ezzo’s fault. They assert that it was merely a lack of awareness of GFI operations that made it difficult for Dunning to hold Gary accountable.

At least three witnesses who were elders at Grace Church at the time, however, affirm that it was clear what Dunning really meant: “Kathleen Terner’s report about Jim Dunning was accurate, and the connotation those remarks carried in the Journal article was also accurate. Our perspective on this is based not merely on a single comment, but on separate comments Mr. Dunning made privately to each of us — as well as a statement he made before the full board of elders at Grace Church. It was clear to everyone at the time that Jim Dunning was frustrated with Gary Ezzo and blamed Gary for the lack of accountability.”⁶⁷

A Network of Hundreds of Pediatricians?

In the same context, we also noted that the Ezzos “have claimed to have a ‘network’ of ‘hundreds of pediatricians’ who provide them with ‘expert medical advice,’ but they have refused to provide the list when asked” (19).

GFI responded by noting that they have just started printing a list of their “medical advisory board” in the latest editions of PFP and BABYWISE.⁶⁸ This is not the list of “hundreds of pediatricians” the Ezzos have claimed to receive advice from, however, but includes only 32 M.D.s, not all pediatricians,⁶⁹ whose familiarity with and input to the GFI materials has been questioned.⁷⁰

Class Rules That Limit Debate

Discussing the Ezzos’ rules that limit debate in class and initiation of discussion elsewhere, we quoted directly from the leadership tapes and provided GFI’s context for both. We also made it clear that parents are allowed to ask questions at the end of class (19).

Despite all this, GFI charged us with providing only partial quotes and not giving the context.⁷¹ They even went so far as to provide the very same context we mentioned, as if we had not already given it.

Questions Unanswered or the Questioner Attacked

Evaluating the Ezzos’ troubling responses to critics, we noted that “Ezzo has written to people who question him calling them ‘primitivistic,’ ‘marsupial,’ ‘prideful,’ ‘disgruntled,’ and ‘theologically naïve,’ among other adjectives.” We also quoted some disturbing comments Ezzo made in response to a letter from Joel and Kathryn Kuhlmann, a couple who — in anticipation of soon becoming parents — had written with questions about PFP (19).

Ironically, GFI responded to these very charges by attacking the Kuhlmanns further. GFI said the Kuhlmanns had “impure motives” and were not “genuinely seeking truth,” and they implied they were part of a conspiracy with others who are critical of the Ezzos.⁷² While it is true that the Kuhlmanns had contact with two Ezzo critics, this occurred only after they had already sent their letter to the Ezzos and because they had received unsatisfactory responses to some of their inquiries about GFI.⁷³

GFI attempts to support their conspiracy theory by saying they “found it unusual for a couple to be so insistent that Gary Ezzo respond personally to their letter,” especially since “Pastor Richard Encinias, one of our GFI state directors, gave the Kuhlmanns several hours of his time answering their questions.”

This comment is both misleading and inaccurate. Richard Encinias met with the Kuhlmanns because he was one of their pastors at that time, and even then he met with them only for one hour before they sent their letter. Ironically, it was Encinias who had suggested that the Kuhlmanns write Ezzo with their concerns in the first place.⁷⁴ (Kathryn Kuhlmann recalls that Encinias did this only after questioning the genuineness of her Christian faith and suggesting that she was probably an evolutionist, because she rejected the Ezzos’ materials and used the word “instinct” with regard to mothering.⁷⁵)

Finally, GFI dismissed the Kuhlmanns’ concerns, saying, “Much of what the Kuhlmanns wrote did not come directly from PFP, but rather it came indirectly from a compilation of misquotes and false statements circulating among La Leche League/attachment parenting internet bulletin boards.” Not only have the Kuhlmanns never had any involvement whatsoever with La Leche League, but also a full 34 percent of the text of their letter consisted of direct quotes from PFP!⁷⁶

Sadly, this additional and unsubstantiated attack on the Kuhlmanns and others cited in GFI’s response only further illustrates our concerns about GFI’s treatment of critics.

Mischaracterizing Terner’s Background

GFI responded to our article in a similar fashion. They said they agree with one reader that coauthor Kathleen Terner is “in support of demand feeding.” GFI further claimed that Terner has “functioned at least in part, as an activist for the La Leche League/attachment parenting philosophy of childrearing” and has “spearheaded an extensive writing campaign against the Ezzos utilizing many voices who share her bias.”⁷⁷ Such characterizations of Terner and her ability to write an objective article are grossly misleading.

First, we know of no professional organization dedicated to infant health or knowledgeable about breastfeeding that does not support demand feeding. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP),⁷⁸ International Lactation Consultant Association (ILCA),⁷⁹ World Health Organization (WHO),⁸⁰ and even the United States government⁸¹ support it. To require that a critic of the Ezzos not support demand feeding would be to effectively eliminate all challenges based on standard medical advice.

Second, Terner is not and has never been an activist for the La Leche League or the attachment parenting philosophy of childrearing.

Finally, the “campaign against the Ezzos” that GFI refers to was neither a campaign nor directed at them personally, but a letter of concern about GFI’s infant programs written to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), asking them to review and comment on GFI’s materials. This letter was reviewed and signed by over 100 health care professionals across the country, including the nation’s leading breastfeeding experts and 19 pediatricians who are Fellows of the Academy. GFI’s characterization of these events both grossly misrepresents Terner’s actions and inappropriately dismisses the concern, knowledge, credibility, and expertise of dozens of esteemed health care professionals around the country.

GFI seems unreasonably to require that critics have no previous concerns with their materials, regardless of how fact-based those concerns may be. Terner’s involvement with the letter to the AAP no more invalidates or detracts from her participation in the CRI article than her involvement with the CRI article would disqualify her from future writing on GFI. If anything, as she continues to research and write on the subject, the opposite is true.

EXCLUSIVISM

In addition to authoritarianism, our original article discussed the exclusivist tone of the GFI materials and the ministry itself: Parenting GFI’s way is “God’s Way,” GFI’s programs as well as the children it produces are considered superior, and GFI families are advised to “stay within your moral [i.e., the GFI] community” (27).

Would You Want a “Stevie”?

GFI challenged our comment that “parents are told that children raised on GFI’s system will turn out superior to those who are not” (27), saying, “That statement is never made in the Ezzos’ curriculum.”⁸² Though they may not use those words — and we did not claim that they do — this point is clearly made. For example, the extreme contrast between “Ryan,” a fictional child in the Ezzos’ material raised with GFI principles, and “Stevie,” a non-GFI child, leaves little doubt about GFI’s claim of superior children.

The GFI Community

We noted that this elitist attitude combined with GFI’s missionary zeal can result in division among Christians: “Countless parents have described feeling like outsiders in their own churches, being rejected by people who used to be their friends, and being made to feel less spiritual, all because they were not part of the GFI ‘community’” (27).

GFI responded first by saying it would have been impossible for us to interview “countless parents,” and then by claiming that they do not directly suggest families act in an exclusivist manner.⁸³ But our endnote clearly indicates the basis of our claim: “Three critics alone conservatively estimate receiving at least 550 unsolicited reports of such division over GFI programs” (45). Furthermore, our quote of Gary Ezzo immediately after our statement adequately demonstrated that the Ezzos have indeed directly contributed to this we/they mentality (27).

ISOLATIONISM

We noted that GFI also cultivates an isolationist attitude in several ways. GFI responded by pointing to a paragraph in both PFP and GKGW where parents are encouraged to evaluate other parenting philosophies. They also clarified that GFI’s recommended reading list is not exhaustive.⁸⁴ While it is true that they have suggested parents evaluate other philosophies, they have also structured their program so that it impedes parents from doing so. GFI advises parents of newborns to delay the timing of visiting grandparents; lists only six other parenting books on its recommended reading list, three of which are from the 1800s; gives mothers advice through GFI “contact moms,” who may have only one or two young children; and maintains an Internet forum discussion area “only open” to “like-minded” parents, where controversial messages have been deleted and nonlike-minded parents have been banned (27, 43).

Cult researchers are well aware that contradictory messages are a common practice in cultic movements. Leaders often state an acceptable principle but encourage different, less-acceptable behavior in a variety of ways — and followers respond to the “unspoken rules,” often without even realizing it. When challenged, leaders as well as followers simply point to the explicit directives, but more objective observers see the dichotomy.

Parents Are Given the Materials in Pieces

We also noted that GFI “shields its followers from up-front exposure to the materials themselves. They are not given them until the second week of class — after they have signed an agreement to attend for a set number of weeks. Even then they are only given one chapter at a time, after it has already been presented in class” (43).

GFI questioned the relevancy of our examples, stating that parents can order materials by phone and that other organizations also sometimes hand out materials one week at a time.⁸⁵ While this is technically accurate, GFI’s many isolationist practices are noteworthy and relevant because of their cumulative effect. This overall environment is not the norm by any means.

Grace Noted an Isolationist Attitude among GFI Followers

Perhaps most telling of all is that Grace — the church where the GFI materials were first developed and taught extensively by the Ezzos themselves for years — has publicly and repeatedly voiced concern about the isolationist tendency it has noted among GFI followers.⁸⁶ The most plausible explanation for this tendency is that it is at least subtly encouraged by the Ezzos themselves.

GFI did not question our accuracy in quoting Grace’s statement. In fact, their response seemed to support it. While claiming this isolationist attitude of GFI families toward other Christian families is “not a matter of whether or not the parent implements the GFI materials,” GFI also affirmed that “parents have a moral obligation to control the flow of negative influence and peer pressure on their children.”⁸⁷

PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL ENDANGERMENT

GFI also did not question our specific comments regarding the many health care professionals and organizations our article cited who have taken the unprecedented action of publicly and independently warning parents about GFI programs. These professionals have raised concerns about the lack of medical substantiation for GFI programs and about infant failure to thrive [FTT] cases associated with them (43).

GFI said only that our reporting in this area reflected Terner’s bias and that they are not aware of any failure to thrive cases associated with their program that they consider to be adequately documented.⁸⁸ They further asserted that “based on all the evidence,” it is “the extreme attachment parenting approach [that] may put children at risk for FTT and dehydration.” The source they cite for this extraordinary claim, however, is a book with a pro-abortion bent that they sell, authored not by a medical professional, but by a layperson who characterizes attachment parenting philosophy as a “cult.”⁸⁹

Inaccurate Representations?

GFI challenged our statement that, “While GFI’s infant program includes charts for parents to monitor wet diapers, they do not have instructions to check for stools, a key factor in determining if a baby is getting adequate nutrition” (43). GFI says they could have pointed us to the section in PFP that instructs parents to check for stools.⁹⁰ They also charged us with not doing our homework when we affirmed that their recommended infant feeding schedule is “every three to three and one-half hours” (43).⁹¹ In both of these cases, however, we accurately represented the fifth edition, fourth printing of PFP. GFI did announce that the sixth edition included “advancements,” and these changes appear in that edition, but it was not available until the month after our article was published. Furthermore, a number of health care professionals have long expressed concerns similar to ours.

Babies on the Ezzos’ Program Depressed?

Our original article noted that “Katherine West, a registered nurse and lactation consultant who has been working with GFI followers for 10 years, acknowledged that although many of the children [on GFI’s programs] turn out well, depression is not unusual.” The article then quoted from one of her public posts on Lactnet, an Internet discussion group for lactation professionals (44). GFI challenged the conclusion we reached, indicating that (1) the baby West referred to was not connected with their program, (2) the case was 10 years old, (3) we had not interviewed West, and (4) she did not agree with our conclusions.⁹²

To be charitable, we must assume that GFI has not seen the full post we quoted from, because it clearly supports our original statement and in fact does not support GFI’s claims. Another lactation consultant had indicated she had a problem case the week of 20 October 1997 involving a mother whose baby was not gaining weight well on four breastfeedings a day, but who liked her routine and did not want to increase the number of feedings.⁹³ Katherine West responded:

I’m ever so briefly out of the lurking shadows to share how I usually answer this kind of Ezzo mom (and I have seen my share). I learned a long time ago (10 years now I’ve been working with Ezzo parents) that these moms are not offended by a suggestion of ABM [artificial baby milk, or formula]… — once we add in the ABM the baby starts to gain, is far more content (nay, even full and satisfied) and is actually able to stay “on schedule.”.…I’ll lay dollars to donuts this baby is clinically depressed and somewhat withdrawn (has already learned that the world does not come when needed, so no longer cries when there are needs), yes? I’ve seen it too many times. This is the one time ABM is a blessing — once baby starts to get filled up at a feeding and gain weight, their depression lifts.⁹⁴

Note that West specifically refers to the mother with the problem baby as an “Ezzo mom,” that the case was only months old at the time we reported it and only days old at the time of West’s response, and that West clearly refers to both this baby and other babies on the Ezzos’ program who are not gaining weight well as depressed.

Contrary to GFI’s assertion, Terner did contact West (by e-mail) asking for an interview for the article, but West responded that she was too busy to comment. Nonetheless, West’s written, public observations clearly support our statement, and her Lactnet post did constitute a primary source. In addition, her extensive experience with mothers using the Ezzos’ materials made her comments that much more relevant.

Don’t Tell Children the Details of Sex, Even the Night before the Wedding

Finally, we also noted in our original article that the Ezzos teach, “Children are not to be told the details of sexual intercourse, even the night before the wedding, but instead are to be instructed in sex education using the diagram of a flower” (44). GFI says this statement is “fallacious,” apparently because they think our grammatical structure indicated that parents are to begin instructing children in sex education using a flower on the night before their wedding.⁹⁵ That is not what we said.

Our sentence made two points. The first, correctly incorporating an adverbial phrase, was that children are not to be told the details of sex, even the night before the wedding. This is clearly supported by Gary Ezzo’s comments in the tapes for GFI’s course Reflections of Moral Innocence (RMI) that we endnoted in our article.

Our second point was that children are to be instructed in sex education using the diagram of a flower. In their very critique of our article, GFI acknowledged that two to twelve-year-old children should not be told the details of sex and that they recommend parents “use a morally neutral object, such as a flower, to begin the process” of communicating this biological information.⁹⁶ This is explained in detail in RMI. Both points made by our statement are accurate and supported directly by the Ezzos’ own words.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER

It is clear that there is significant controversy surrounding GFI. We have provided a thorough response to GFI’s concerns about our original article. The conclusions we have reached are too well documented and have been shared by too many other respected Christian organizations and leaders simply to represent a bias on everyone’s part. Even the Ezzos must acknowledge that there is division in the Christian community surrounding their programs and actions.

Yet they have responded to us, as well as to many other critics, by questioning our motives (are we all really wicked, lying, attachment parenting fanatics bent on destroying GFI?), debating minutiae (does questioning the placement of the adverbial phrase “even the night before the wedding” really address the concerns we raised with their sex education program?), misrepresenting what we said (yes, we did provide the context for the Ezzos’ “no debate” and “do not initiate” class rules), and even making misleading and false statements (no, Focus is not neutral in its stance on GFI). These tactics obscure the real concerns raised in our article, and their response did nothing to allay those concerns; instead, it further demonstrated them.

With Whom Do the Ezzos Truly Need to Meet?

GFI has repeatedly and publicly suggested that the concerns addressed in the CRI article constitute a Matthew 18 offense that should be handled by private meetings between Gary Ezzo, Hank Hanegraaff, and Ken Sande of Peacemaker Ministries.⁹⁷ Yet our article was not about GFI and CRI but rather concerned GFI’s public teachings and their impact on the public.⁹⁸ Furthermore, a number of significant individuals involved with the Ezzo controversy have already attempted, without success, to resolve similar concerns with the Ezzos.

Phil Johnson spent hours in reconciliation meetings with Ezzo and Sande and says none of the substantive issues raised in the Grace Statements were resolved.⁹⁹

Eric and Julie Abel left GFI after they expressed concerns with the Ezzos’ lack of accountability, and the Ezzos refused to meet with them and an arbitrator as the Abels had requested.

Dirk and Cheryl Williams requested a meeting with the Ezzos and an objective third party on two separate occasions to resolve differences over the handling of GFI curriculum and the Ezzos dismissed their request.¹⁰⁰ They note that when “Mr. Ezzo finally was forced into [a Grace Community Church] elder’s inquiry, of the many charges we made, only one was settled and dropped. And yet, he tells others the matters were ‘resolved.’”¹⁰¹

GFI critic Kathy Nesper, president of a Christian parenting and childbirth education organization called Apple Tree Family Ministries, initiated correspondence with the Ezzos because she “sensed rising tension and division among all concerned” and “believed a call for unity was needed” (emphasis in original).¹⁰² Over the course of 11 months and 13 letters, Nesper proposed a meeting where the Ezzos and a group of their critics could all “lay the issues openly before several unbiased persons of godly reputation and respected integrity upon whom we agree, for their evaluation and counsel.…There can be no objection to accountability to unbiased godly counselors where there is a sincere commitment to follow biblical principles. I welcome it even if I am found to be at fault, so I can make it right.”¹⁰³ The Ezzos refused this attempt at mutual public accountability, accusing Nesper of duplicity and saying, “We have no interest in meeting with nine of your friends to talk about your views on attachment parenting theories, or GFI, or what you like or don’t like about our presentation.”¹⁰⁴

These concerned Christians have gone to extraordinary lengths to resolve the key problems noted by many GFI critics, yet to no avail.

What Next?

Although GFI has many good things to contribute to the subject of Christian parenting, without further action their cultic characteristics will continue to cause division in the Christian community. What is needed is a meeting like that proposed by Nesper, where the concerns of both sides can be aired, objective judgments rendered, actions suggested, and appropriate accountability to the body of Christ instituted and maintained for the future. The results should be made public for the sake of public accountability. Experience to date indicates that nothing less will be adequate.

It is our hope that our careful analysis of the controversy, as well as our response to GFI’s concerns about it, will aid in this process and better equip Christian parents and their pastors to evaluate GFI’s materials. It is our further hope that constructive change can actually take place within GFI. This would not only benefit GFI and its adherents but also is in the interest of Christian unity.

Until such change occurs, we believe further dialogue between GFI and CRI concerning our article would be unproductive. Readers may note that we focused this response on documenting our original article’s accuracy; in general, we did not respond to additional points raised by GFI. This is because such discussions become endless and increasingly petty, with whoever had the “last word” appearing most persuasive. In addition, some things are simply a matter of differing interpretation and may never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. We believe the results of our thorough investigation, now published in two issues of the Christian Research Journal, adequately demonstrate that we have been both careful and truthful and that GFI’s defenses against criticism are intentionally misleading and sometimes outright false.

At some point, readers need to consider how much evidence must be dismissed or explained away, and how many respectable critics must be doubted, in order to believe GFI. Unhappily, in this case, both sides cannot be telling the truth.

NOTES

¹Kathleen Terner and Elliot Miller, “More than a Parenting Ministry: The Cultic Characteristics of Growing Families International,” Christian Research Journal, April–June 1998, 12.²Page numbers in parentheses refer to our original article.³30 July 1998 GFI Internet posting.⁴In letters to Hank Hanegraaff dated 19 August and 17 September 1998, Gary Ezzo offered three alleged examples of errors in our original article pertaining to (1) GFI’s use of Matthew 27:46, (2) an aspect of GFI’s view of chastisement, and (3) an aspect of GFI’s view on sex-education. The first example repeated the very error we had noted in our article (see below). The next two examples merely alleged that we had misrepresented them without indicating how we had done so.⁵Gary Ezzo and GFI Administrative Staff, “The Community Perspective: A Special Report, A Response to the Christian Research Institute,” Internet publication, 26 October 1998 (hereafter Ezzo and GFI).⁶E.g., Ezzo and GFI, Introduction; Section Two: Examining Some of the Criteria and Examples CRI Used to Draw Their Conclusions.”⁷“A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International” (Grace Statement Two), issued 20 March 1998 by Grace Community Church (Grace), Sun Valley, CA.⁸“A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International” (Grace Statement), issued 16 October 1997 by Grace.⁹15 November 1998 e-mail from Phil Johnson.¹⁰13 August 1998 letter from John MacArthur.¹¹Statement received in a 16 November 1998 fax from Focus on the Family.¹²18 July 1997 letter from Kathy Eshleman.¹³To Every Man an Answer, 9 January and 21 September 1998, KWVE-FM.¹⁴Terner and Miller, 11, 44, and Ken McDuff, “What’s Wrong with Growing Kids God’s Way?” Group, July–August 1997.¹⁵23 November 1998 e-mail from Kevin A. Miller, Editorial Director.¹⁶Ezzo and GFI, Section One.¹⁷11 November 1997 letter from Mark Severance, Assistant to the Ezzos, and 25 November 1997 voice mail message from Severance (saved at CRI).¹⁸Ezzo and GFI, Section Three: “Examining the Veracity of Various Statements and Assertions.”¹⁹16 November 1998 interview with Paul Hetrick.²⁰Ezzo and GFI, Section One: “Examining a Sampling of Misquoted Sources.”²¹31 December 1998 and 1 January 1999 e-mails from Johnson.²²E.g., “Grace Church/GFI Ministry Status” (13 May 1998 document on GFI’s web site).²³Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, “In Response To: Grace Community Church ‘Statement’ Regarding the Ezzos and Growing Families International — Part Two,” 11 November 1997.²⁴Ibid. See also Ezzo and GFI, Section One; 29 July 1998 letter from Gary Ezzo to Hank Hanegraaff.²⁵17 November 1998 e-mail from Johnson.²⁶Ezzo and GFI, Section Three.²⁷Joint statement agreed to by three men who were elders at the time, as well as the founding pastor of the church, the head of one of the founding families, and one of the school’s teachers. (31 October 1998 e-mail from Michael Bemis, 28 October 1998 fax from Richard Moreau, 9 November 1998 letter from Ralph Perrino, 30 October 1998 e-mail from Tom Hightower, 29 October 1998 e-mail from Mike Catron, and 2 November 1998 e-mail from Alice Pinard.)²⁸E.g., 3 November 1998 e-mail from Catron.²⁹Ezzo and GFI, Section Three.³⁰13 November 1998 fax from MacArthur’s office, 27 May 1997 letter from MacArthur.³¹15 November 1998 e-mail from Johnson.³²Ezzo and GFI, Section Three.³³Letters on file at CRI.³⁴6 November 1998 e-mail from Eric and Julie Abel, 1 November 1998 e-mail from Dirk and Cheryl Williams.³⁵28 August 1994 letter from Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo.³⁶6 December 1998 interview with Eric Abel.³⁷17 May 1989 letter from the Office of the Attorney General, Charitable Trusts Section, Los Angeles, CA.³⁸14 November 1998 e-mails from Cheryl Williams and the Abels.³⁹1 March 1994 letter from Eric Abel.⁴⁰28 June 1994 letter from Eric Abel.⁴¹28 August 1994 letter from Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo.⁴²1 September 1994 letter of resignation from Eric Abel.⁴³26 April; 6, 11 May; 1 June 1993 letters from Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo.⁴⁴24, 25 February; 5, 9, 17, 30 May 1993 letters from Dirk Williams.⁴⁵16 November 1998 e-mail from Cheryl Williams.⁴⁶ Ezzo and GFI, Section One.⁴⁷5 November 1998 e-mail from Debra Baker. The Bakers were a family of eight at the time and hardly would have gone unnoticed.⁴⁸31 December 1993 Covenant Fellowship of Pennsylvania (CFOP) Donor History for the year.⁴⁹21 September 1993 letter from Dave Harvey and Alan Redrup of CFOP.⁵⁰16 October 1993 letter from Debra and Pat Baker.⁵¹18 October 1993 letter from Harvey and 3 December 1993 letter from Andy Farmer of CFOP.⁵²Ezzo and GFI, Introduction.⁵³24 November 1997 telephone interview with Debra Scherer.⁵⁴15 November 1998 e-mail from Johnson.⁵⁵Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁵⁶16 November 1998 interview with Hetrick.⁵⁷Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁵⁸Ibid.⁵⁹Ibid.⁶⁰Ibid.⁶¹Ibid.⁶²Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Growing Kids God’s Way: Biblical Ethics for Parenting (GKGW), 4th ed., 11th pr. (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International Press), 210.⁶³Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁶⁴See ibid., as well as the quote cited in our original article (16).⁶⁵Gary Ezzo, “Raising Biblically Responsive Adults,” Table Talk, March 1996.⁶⁶Section One and 28 October 1998 interview with Dunning.⁶⁷Joint statement agreed to in 15 November 1998 e-mail from Johnson, 3 November 1998 e-mail from Tim Peters, and 31 October 1998 e-mail from Lance Quinn.⁶⁸Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁶⁹Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, “Acknowledgments,” Preparation for Parenting: Bringing Order to Your Baby’s Day and Restful Sleep to Your Baby’s Night (PFP), 6th ed., 1st pr. (Simi Valley, CA: Micah 6:8, 1998).⁷⁰Katie Allison Granju, “Getting Wise to Babywise,” Salon, 6 August 1998.⁷¹Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁷²Ibid.⁷³2 January 1999 interview with Joel and Kathryn Kuhlmann. The Kuhlmanns wrote the Ezzos on 18 August 1996. Their first contact with Ezzo critics was by e-mail on 28 August and 4 October of that year. CRI has copies of both e-mails.⁷⁴3 November 1998 e-mails from the Kuhlmanns.⁷⁵9 July 1998 e-mail from the Kuhlmanns.⁷⁶13 November 1998 e-mail from the Kuhlmanns. The Kuhlmanns have a complete response to GFI at http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/CRI/Kuhlmann.⁷⁷Ezzo and GFI, Introduction.⁷⁸E.g., 20 April 1998 “Media Alert.”⁷⁹ILCA, Position Paper on Infant Feeding, 1994.⁸⁰WHO/UNICEF statement, “Protecting, Promoting, and Supporting Breastfeeding,” 1989.⁸¹Innocenti Declaration, WHO/UNICEF joint statement, signed by the United States in 1990.⁸²Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁸³Ibid.⁸⁴Ibid.⁸⁵Ibid.⁸⁶Grace Statement and Grace Statement Two.⁸⁷Ezzo and GFI, Section Two.⁸⁸Ibid.⁸⁹Peggy Robin, Bottlefeeding without Guilt (Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1996). Since being criticized for recommending this book, GFI’s web site posted an acknowledgment that the book is pro-abortion, but they still recommend “reviewing this book for its in-depth exposure of the philosophies of the attachment parenting movement” (25 August 1998 note on GFI’s Internet “Reading Resources” page).⁹⁰Ezzo and GFI, Section Three.⁹¹Ibid.⁹²Ezzo and GFI, Section One.⁹³20 October 1997 Lactnet post from Karen Foard.⁹⁴1 November 1997 Lactnet post from Katherine West.⁹⁵Ezzo and GFI, Section Three.⁹⁶Ibid.⁹⁷E.g., Ezzo and GFI, Attachments One and Two.⁹⁸See Elliot Miller’s discussion regarding public criticism, “From the Editor,” Christian Research Journal, July–September 1998, 3.⁹⁹15 November 1998 e-mail from Johnson.¹⁰⁰22 April and 5 May 1993 letters from the Williamses and 26 April and 6 May 1993 letters from the Ezzos.¹⁰¹14 November 1998 e-mail from the Williamses.¹⁰²22 December 1997 letter from Kathy Nesper to Gary Ezzo.¹⁰³18 September 1997 letter from Nesper to Gary Ezzo.¹⁰⁴1 December 1997 letter from Gary Ezzo to Nesper. The Ezzos previously offered to meet privately with Nesper or with her and their respective pastors (e.g., 18 August 1997 letter from Gary Ezzo to Nesper), but she refused and proposed other alternatives, explaining that she was representing a group of critics who should be involved; the concerns were public, not private; and she felt there should be a written record of their dialogue (e.g., 11 March and 18 September 1997 letters from Nesper to Ezzo). See http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/CRI/Nesper for more details.

Summary

Parenting programs authored by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo and promoted by Growing Families International (GFI), including Preparation for Parenting and Growing Kids God’s Way, are both wildly popular and highly controversial. The programs mix sound parenting advice with highly disputable ideas, but this does not fully account for the controversy. GFI has provoked unprecedented public censure from Christian leaders because, although it is not a cult, it has consistently exhibited a pattern of cultic behavior, including Scripture twisting, authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, and physical and emotional endangerment.

To say that Growing Families International (GFI) is controversial within the Christian community is an understatement.

The controversy surrounding GFI, which publishes parenting programs authored by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, has been reported in Christianity Today,¹ World,² The Wall Street Journal,³ and ABC World News Tonight,⁴ as well as numerous smaller media outlets.

GFI has been criticized by a multitude of Christian leaders as well as secular child development authorities. For example, according to a public statement, Focus on the Family (Focus) has received numerous reports of “failure-to-thrive in infants subjected to” the Ezzos’ program Preparation for Parenting (PFP), and does “not recommend the Ezzos’ material.”⁵ Grace Ketterman, M.D., a nationally recognized Christian pediatrician, child psychiatrist, and author, believes the program will lead to “a lot more rebellion, a lot more hurt and angry children,” and says “the lack of trust that emerges” from the program “is a foundation for family problems.”⁶ John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (Grace), where the programs got their start, affirms in a public statement that the Ezzos’ teachings demonstrate “a lack of clarity on certain fundamental doctrinal issues,” “confusion between biblical standards and matters of personal preference,” and “insufficient attention to the child’s need for regeneration,” as well as a “tendency to isolationism.”⁷

A child abuse prevention council’s religious task force (including evangelical Christian pastors) investigating GFI programs found that they were not developmentally and age appropriate. It further concluded that the programs did not consider individual temperament, have a balance of loving guidance and discipline, or foster parental discernment.⁸

GFI programs have repeatedly produced division among Christians. Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship, where the Ezzos now attend, took form essentially as a splinter group from Grace – because of controversy regarding Gary Ezzo. Grace has expressed concern over an “elitist attitude” associated with GFI “which has proved to be a threat to unity in several churches – including our own.”⁹ They publicly rebuked Gary Ezzo on several points “for the sake of other churches that are…also in danger of being divided.”¹⁰

Debra and Pat Baker were involuntarily “released from membership” and even barred from unofficial church functions after voicing concerns about PFP at Covenant Fellowship of Philadelphia.¹¹ Meanwhile, parents can’t baptize their infants at Christ Episcopal Church in Plano, Texas, unless they commit to attending the GFI program Growing Kids God’s Way (GKGW) as part of their baptismal covenant [but see 2012 update in endnote].¹² Other parents can’t send their children to the Country Oaks Baptist Church school in Tehachapi, California, unless they have completed the course.¹³

All three original key GFI leadership couples¹⁴ who worked with the Ezzos to develop, teach, and promote GFI’s programs (Eric and Julie Abel, Dirk and Cheryl Williams, and one other couple who asked not to be named) have decided to leave GFI at different points in time. The reason expressed by them all: strong concerns about the issue of integrity and the content and impact of the programs.¹⁵

Nevertheless, positive testimonials abound from parents who have used the programs to train their infants to sleep through the night or to raise children who are obedient and respectful of others. Dennis and Dawn Wilson, authors of Christian Parenting in the Information Age, compare the emergence of GFI’s programs to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.¹⁶

Such conflicting reports have helped make GFI one of the more frequently requested topics of information at the Christian Research Institute. Concerned parents wonder whether the organization is soundly Christian, doctrinally aberrant, or even a cult. After thoroughly reading a variety of GFI materials, interviewing people both inside and outside the GFI system, reviewing a plethora of internet discussions between GFI followers and advisers, speaking with past GFI leaders and followers, and discussing this subject with a variety of experts in child development, psychology, medicine, and lactation (milk production and secretion), we have reached several conclusions. We first of all can unequivocally state that GFI is not a cult. By this we mean that on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith the Ezzos’ teaching is orthodox. Furthermore, a number of the parenting ideas in GFI materials are sound and have benefited families who have used them. In fact, many parents using GFI’s materials and many leaders teaching the classes have not experienced the problems others have noted.

Our research has also convinced us that significant problems do exist. While we share many of the concerns about the Ezzo approach expressed by such observers as James Dobson’s Focus, John MacArthur,¹⁷ and Chuck Smith,¹⁸ as specialists in cult research it is our observation that controversy over parenting philosophy alone cannot account for all of the contention and division that have followed in the wake of GFI. Much of it rather stems from a pattern of cultic behavior exhibited proactively by the Ezzos and reactively by some (not all) of their followers. GFI is more than a parenting ministry- it is a cultic community. Explaining and documenting this observation will be the focus of this article. But first it is important to understand the historical development, size, scope, and teachings of GFI.

THE RISE OF THE EZZO EMPIRE

The Ezzos have been involved with ministry since at least 1979 when Gary Ezzo was one of the leaders at His Vantage Point church in Laconia, New Hampshire.¹⁹ Unfortunately, their impact in New Hampshire parallels the impact they would later have at Grace. When the Ezzos left New Hampshire to come to Grace in the early 1980s, the church (now called Lakes Region Bible Church) was divided due to controversy over Gary Ezzo, with the church accusing him of exhibiting authoritarianism and isolationist tendencies.²⁰

The Ezzos started teaching parenting classes while attending Grace in 1984. Their first mid-week class for young families was popular, and so more classes followed. The classes were held in a variety of places, from huge gatherings in the Grace sanctuary to various small groups in people’s homes.

The Ezzos were able to reach out across the country and around the world with their parenting philosophy through their connections with Grace. Pastors from all over the country attending Grace’s Shepherd’s Conferences were exposed to the Ezzos through parenting workshops and seminars led by Gary Ezzo and Fred Barshaw, then Grace’s Pastor of Family Ministries (a position later held by Gary Ezzo). Gary Ezzo contacted the directors of the Grace to You ministries in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and asked them to carry his tapes and books along with those of John MacArthur. He was able to use Grace’s employees, mailing lists, and tape duplicating equipment to provide these materials. The Ezzos began hosting a weekly radio broadcast first in Los Angeles and then on stations around the country. They also produced a Growing Kids God’s Way video that was first distributed in 1986 through Grace to You, then later through their home and also through Grace’s Bookshack.

In 1987 the Ezzos formed GFI as a nonprofit corporation along with five other Grace couples. In 1989 the Ezzos asked the other couples to dissolve the nonprofit corporation and GFI became a for-profit corporation.²¹

GFI programs are reportedly used in 93 countries, 17 languages, and over a million homes.²² Seventy thousand parents attend GFI classes at local churches around the world every week.²³ These classes are led by volunteers from within the churches, using GFI’s videotapes. Leaders are instructed on how to set up and lead a class in accordance with GFI rules and principles through a leader’s guide, leadership tapes, and leadership conferences. GFI has also developed an optional leader certification program to further educate and train volunteer class leaders.

GFI Programs

GFI programs are geared to Christian parents of infants through the teen years. GFI also markets secular book versions of the infant and toddler programs, called On Becoming BABYWISE (BW) and On Becoming BABYWISE – Book Two (BWII). The Wall Street Journal reported that BW was the most frequently requested parenting title at Ingram Book Co., the nation’s largest trade book distributor, the week before their 17 February 1998 article, while BWII was ranked sixth.²⁴

The purpose of GFI is described as helping “parents raise morally responsible and biblically responsive children.”²⁵ Their materials focus on such issues as infant and toddler eating, sleeping, and waketime behavior; the importance of the marriage relationship to family life; the need for children to respect nature, property, authority, peers, and parents; the need for first-time, immediate, and complete child obedience to parents; how and when to chastise (spank) and what to do afterward; Christian mealtime etiquette; and what terms and descriptions are acceptable when parents discuss sexuality with their children.

THE QUESTION OF CULTIC BEHAVIOR

Given the skyrocketing influence of GFI within evangelicalism and the culture at large, any cultic characteristics within the group should be a cause for serious concern. It is important first to differentiate between the terms cult and cultic. Evangelicals generally use theology as the primary criteria for identifying a cult, with behavior as a secondary criteria consequent to the first. Accordingly, the primary definition of a cult is a group that claims to represent true Christianity while denying essential doctrines of the historic, biblical faith.²⁶ It is also understood that out of these theological deviations flow behavioral deviations that vary from group to group but typically include authoritarianism, exclusivism, and isolationism.²⁷

Unfortunately, however, such cultic behaviors are sometimes found in groups that are genuinely Christian. These groups affirm the core doctrines of Christianity but are deviant at some other level of their theology (usually including their approach to Scripture and their own leaders), and thus the manner in which they operate mirrors that of the cults. Because of their true Christian profession, such groups should not be classified as cults, but they can rightfully be identified as cultic (cultlike).

While some are using the term cult to categorize GFI,²⁸ in our estimation this is clearly not warranted. Unfortunately, however, GFI’s behavior does parallel the characteristics of cults in significant ways, including the following:

1.) Scripture twisting and de facto assertion of extrabiblical revelation. Scripture is often used without regard to context to justify unbiblical or extrabiblical doctrines. Teachings not found in the Bible (on child rearing) are accorded the status of divine revelation (“God’s way”). Theological confusion and legalism follow from these abuses.

2.) Authoritarianism. The Ezzos’ word on parenting seems to close the matter irrespective of the evidence. Individual interpretation on that subject is not allowed. The Ezzos appear to be unaccountable to anyone outside their own group and to suppress any attempt to question them from within the group.

3.) Exclusivism. The Ezzos are considered virtually the only ones who are teaching biblical truth on their subject. Those who follow the Ezzo way are believed to raise morally superior children. Some esteem the Ezzo philosophy of child-rearing to be so essential that they treat it almost as though it were the gospel. It is promoted with missionary zeal, resulting in division among churches, families, and friends. In fact, Christian outsiders are sometimes viewed and treated as sub-Christian.

4.) Isolationism. Members of the GFI “community” have been shielded from teachings and opinions contrary to the Ezzo way. Full knowledge of GFI teachings has been withheld until after one becomes involved with the program.

5.) Physical and emotional endangerment. As an unintended but natural consequence of following GFI teachings, babies are sometimes left to cry for hours and some newborns are underfed and underdeveloped. Child development experts – many of them Christians – voice concern about the long-term effects of the program on children raised under it.

To keep things in proper perspective, we should reiterate that GFI has many good things to contribute to the subject of Christian parenting, such as teaching children to be responsible, obedient, and respectful of others (although, as we shall see, there are problems associated with their teachings even in these areas). The cultic tendencies in the movement, however, help actualize any potential weaknesses in the program. For example, scheduling infant feedings is practiced with apparent success by many parents, but when a scheduling program is followed religiously as “God’s order for your baby’s day,” the potential for injurious neglect of the infant is maximized.

Of course, it is one thing to allege that GFI has cultic characteristics and another thing to prove it. To this task we now turn.

Scripture Twisting and Extrabiblical Revelation

To say that GFI is guilty of Scripture twisting and asserting extrabiblical revelation is not to say that they are guilty of these errors on a level with the cults. If they were, then they themselves would be a cult (since this particular practice affects theology) and not merely cultic. We do contend that they teach extrabiblical doctrines as though they have the authority of Scripture. But nothing suggests to us that they would consciously and explicitly claim that they are receiving new revelations from God to be placed alongside the Bible. Furthermore, by comparison to the blasphemies of the cults, the unbiblical teachings of GFI seem almost trivial.

Why then make an issue out of less-than-heretical biblical deviations? First, our standard of comparison must be Scripture and not the cults. As we shall see below, some of GFI’s teachings affecting essential doctrines are troubling, albeit not heretical, and thus are far from trivial to doctrinally discerning Christians. Second, GFI’s apparent disregard for the context of Scripture (and thus for biblical authority) paves the way for other cultic characteristics. In other words, their belief that their own distinctive parenting philosophy is mandated by Scripture and is “God’s way” provides seeming justification for their authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, and physical and emotional endangerment.

The Reverend Lance Quinn, a second-year Ph.D. candidate in theology at the Evangelical Theological Faculty in Leuven, Belgium, was ordained at Grace and served there for 13 years, 10 as the senior associate pastor and personal assistant to John MacArthur. While developing GFI’s materials, Gary Ezzo worked directly under Quinn for five years. It is Quinn’s opinion that Ezzo “never approached his material first from a biblical, theological viewpoint.” Instead, according to Quinn, Ezzo “added Scripture to baptize what he would like to say.”²⁹

If the Father did it….Focus on the Family identifies this misuse of biblical texts as a “cause for serious concern.” They say the Ezzos have “repeatedly cited Matthew 27:46 – ‘…My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’- in support of their teaching that mothers should refuse to attend crying infants who have already been fed, changed, and had their basic needs met. ‘Praise God,’ writes Gary Ezzo on page 122 of Preparation for Parenting, ‘that the Father did not intervene when His son cried out on the cross.’ We see no way to make such an application of this verse without completely disregarding its original context and purpose.”³⁰

Sobermindedness vs. Maternal Instincts? Not only does GFI take Scripture out of context in an effort to lend biblical support to its own views, but also the views themselves are often controversial and potentially dangerous. For example, they teach that maternal instinct is an unbiblical concept and therefore imply mothers should ignore any intuitive alarms they may hear when following the GFI program (e.g., to pick up their crying babies when the program would tell them to let the babies cry).

It is perhaps natural to think that parenting is a talent or unlearned skill spontaneously acquired. That is true for animals, whose lives are regulated by behavioral instinct, but not so for people, who are given reason and truth….Reason and assessment, not feelings, are the basis of healthy parenting. Statements such as, “Do what your heart tells you,” “Follow your natural instincts,” and “Do what feels natural” sell an image of motherhood that is incompatible with Scripture. Those appealing but misleading clichés come from Darwin and Rousseau, not Jesus Christ. Scripture calls mothers to careful evaluation, not unchecked emotionalism.³¹

In the section, “What Should I Do When My Baby Cries?” the Ezzos write:

Mothering decisions without assessment are dangerous. Such noncognitive responses violate the Bible’s call to sobermindedness. (Biblical references to “sober-minded,” “sober,” and “soberly” are found in Acts 26:25; Romans 12:3; 2 Corinthians 5:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:6, 8; 1 Timothy 3:2, 11; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 6, 12; 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8.) Yes, even in parenting you must be soberminded.³²

None of the biblical references to sobermindedness cited by the Ezzos pertain specifically to parenting. In fact, none of them even set forth general principles that can rightly be applied to infant care. Rather than contrasting reason or assessment with feeling or intuition, they contrast soundness of mind or self-control with insanity or immorality.

Nonetheless, the Ezzos are surely right that in mothering, unchecked emotionalism and decisions without assessment are dangerous. It is appropriate for them to contrast sobermindedness with emotionalism, but not with emotions themselves. When the Bible calls us to sobermindedness, it is never to the exclusion of utilizing emotion, instinct, or intuition as sources for information and decision making.

The Bible does not deny the existence of human instinct, and the Ezzos’ suggested disjunction between the cognitive and the noncognitive is not found in Scripture. Rather, Scripture (e.g., Matt. 16:15-17; 2 Kings 5:25-27; Acts 5:1-5; 1 Cor. 14:24-32; Rom. 8:16; 2:14-15; Exod. 25:2, 35:21) and common experience alike confirm that human beings gain knowledge and make decisions from both rational and nonrational processes (whether the latter are attributed to direct impressions of the Holy Spirit or to the leadings of instinct, intuition, or emotion). The key is that all of this nonrational input must be tested against reason and Scripture. To set up a situation where following the GFI program is equated with “reason” while following a mother’s God-given sensitivities to her baby’s needs is equated with “unchecked emotionalism” is perhaps as or more dangerous than unchecked emotionalism itself.

Theological Confusion. One of the defining characteristics of the cults is that they preach a “different gospel” than that which is based solely on the redemptive work of Christ (2 Cor. 11:4). Although the Ezzos affirm the true gospel, their central emphasis on the redemptive role of “biblical chastisement” (a particular method of spanking) has led them into murky theological waters. To be sure, much of what they have to say about chastisement is biblically sound. But other things they proclaim on the subject seem to undermine biblical teaching on the sinfulness of man, the atonement of Christ, and the necessity of regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

The Ezzos speak to the felt need of Christians in our permissive society to raise disciplined, godly children. They stress the importance of training children to honor their parents’ authority by observing a standard of first-time, immediate, and complete obedience to parental directives. In cases where children deliberately disobey the standard, discipline must consistently follow, and the Ezzos dogmatically affirm that spanking is the appropriate form of discipline. Its claimed effect is both to cleanse the child of guilt and to instruct him (or her) in the way he should go.

Of the first benefit, the Ezzos comment: “A child knows when he has broken the rules, and his guilt continually reminds him of his violation. Guilt is the reminder of sin. Chastisement is the price paid to remove the guilt thus [sic] free the child from his burden. If the parents do not remove the guilt, the child lives under the weight of sin. When an offense calls for chastisement, parents should chastise. If they substitute a lesser punishment, the guilt remains, and the child will suppress it. That, in turn, leads to more antisocial behavior.“³³

Note that the indispensable and exclusive role of the blood of Christ in removing the guilt of sin (Heb. 9:14, 22; 1 John 1:7) is not mentioned. Neither are parents instructed to teach their children that their guilty consciences can be absolved only by accepting Jesus as their Savior and then regularly confessing their sins to God (1 John 1:9). Surely the Ezzos do not believe chastisement is the price paid to remove the guilt of a child’s sin in the sight of God. It seems more than coincidental, however, that they failed to qualify such a potentially misleading assertion.

Throughout their programs the Ezzos stress the responsibility of parents to instill in their children the moral fortitude necessary to live by Christian behavioral standards. Very little instruction is given on leading children into a saving relationship with Christ, where the Holy Spirit would become the guiding force of their moral development (using, but not limited to, their parents). The Ezzos’ focus is so strongly on what the parent must do to shape Christian character that when they do occasionally mention the role of God in the process, it comes across as an afterthought – unnecessary to their parenting philosophy but thrown in to maintain theological correctness. All of this can be seen in Gary Ezzo’s teaching on the second purpose of chastisement (instruction) in the audiotape companion to GKGW:

It is not the will of the child that is corrupt, but the nature that drives the will. It is the flesh that is corrupt. The will itself is morally neutral….Children are born autonomous, that is, self-legislating. By nature, they don’t have the moral capacity for right or wrong. But they are autonomous, which means they will make moral decisions. They are by nature self-willed, self-indulgent, self-directed. The weakness inherent at birth is the lack of moral fortitude that can bring fleshly impulses under control. The job of the parent is not to eliminate the child’s autonomy or break his will but help him become morally autonomous so he can properly exercise his will….What is your goal then? What are you trying to achieve? It is to help your child eliminate acts of self-rule guided by unregenerate flesh and replace it with acts of self-rule guided by moral principle, yes, ultimately, guided by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.³⁴

Within the Ezzos’ teaching, that which most Christians consider innocent (e.g., an infant’s total focus on having his or her needs met) is spoken of in terms of the “flesh” or human moral depravity, while that which many Christians consider depraved (i.e., the will) is spoken of in terms of moral neutrality. Thus at times when the Ezzos speak of the flesh they mean by it something different than most Christians would assume. Since for the Ezzos the child’s will is not corrupt, with proper parental training from early infancy on (e.g., teaching the crying infant that the world does not revolve around him or her by not responding to his or her cry; teaching the pretoddler proper “highchair manners” with “a light to moderate squeeze or swat to the hand”³⁵), the child can eventually learn to bring his or her “flesh” (natural human self-centeredness, with or without moral understanding) under subjection to biblical morality. This is why the role of the Holy Spirit in shaping Christian character truly seems nonessential (although certainly helpful) in the Ezzos’ system.

The Ezzos’ unbalanced emphasis on the parents’ role seems to flow out of their theology of the will. Coming from a Calvinist perspective, the Grace statement links their view with Pelagianism (while not calling it outright Pelagianism), a fifth century heresy that denied the doctrine of original sin and taught that man could be righteous by the exercise of free will alone.³⁶ Arminians, who believe in the freedom of man’s will, would probably not go so far as to compare the Ezzos’ view with Pelagianism. But Arminians also believe in man’s utter need of the gospel to be righteous, and so they too would likely find the Ezzos’ lack of emphasis on the grace of God disturbing.

Such disturbance would not necessarily be assuaged even when the Ezzos do teach on the grace of God. This is because of their stress on the necessity of human works to receive that grace: “To obtain for our children the spiritual and saving blessings comprised in the gracious promises of God’s Word, we must believe and be faithfully obedient. Without faith, we have no title to any blessings of promise. Without obedience, we cannot expect the favor of God and the communication of His grace on our children or on our efforts. God is not obligated to extend His grace to those who know to do right but fail to do so.”³⁷ Essentially the Ezzos are suggesting that if parents faithfully “grow their kids God’s way,” God will be obligated to save their children, for the parent can train the child to a point where he or she will be receptive to the gospel. This is a serious confusion of grace and works (Rom. 4:4-5; 11:6; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5).

This behavioristic implication that parental training can determine a child’s decision regarding Christ also ironically conflicts with the Ezzos’ apparent belief both in free will and the sovereignty of God. Overlooking the child’s own “autonomous” personality, other environmental influences besides the home, and the hidden purposes and workings of God, it seems to unreasonably place the entire burden for the child’s eternal destiny on the parents – a burden that committed Christian parents of unconverted children find grievous to bear.

Extrabiblical Revelation. While GFI takes Scripture out of context to prove that some of its teachings are from God, it does not shy away from according a similar divine status to other teachings that clearly have no biblical support whatsoever. On the one hand, GFI materials acknowledge that “God is silent on the topic of infant feeding”³⁸ and that “the Bible is not specific” on how to “produce a morally responsible child.”³⁹ On the other hand, their infant care book is subtitled “God’s Order for your Baby’s Day” and their child-rearing book is titled “Growing Kids God’s Way.” Contrary views – even those advanced by Christians – are labeled non-Christian.⁴⁰ The overriding tone of the books is dogmatic and authoritative. They are full of feeding, sleeping, and playtime schedules and rules and “non-negotiable mandates”⁴¹ for parents to follow. Issues that the Bible is silent on and that Christians generally consider matters of convenience or personal or cultural preference become matters of Christian morality: how well a child sleeps is discussed in terms of the parents’ spirituality;⁴² directing a pretoddler’s behavior in the high chair is called “moral training”;⁴³ an appendix in Growing Kids God’s Way teaches that a child’s behavior at the table is “an extension of Christian character.”⁴⁴

This appendix, titled “Christian Etiquette and Mealtime Behavior,” includes eight “General Courtesies” (e.g., “Do not lean on the table”⁴⁵), as well as “Specific Guidelines, Standards, and Principles” for five different mealtime situations (e.g., in a buffet-style dinner in one’s home, “The oldest guests go through the line first”⁴⁶). Although many of GFI’s standards seem reasonable or even commendable, there is nevertheless no biblical basis for suggesting they are God’s principles or Christian standards. To suggest that they are puts Christians under a legalistic yoke.

Aimee Natal, a previous follower of PFP, says, “It was the closest I’ve ever come to being in some form of bondage until I let up on it….When I tried implementing all the rules in their books (so detailed I had to keep several charts to remind me) I had to keep fighting with these ideas…I had to win, I had to have control [over the baby], PERIOD.”⁴⁷

The end result of making such claims for mere human teachings can be seen in the confession of Anne Marie Mingo, a mother from Japan: “It’s been a while since I’ve had a devotional because I don’t feel I trust my discernment any more. Any interpretation I get I question whether I understand it right…Instead of measuring against the Bible I’m measuring against GKGW.”⁴⁸

Authoritarianism

The Ezzos have faced challenges to their materials on every front – theological, medical, and child development – much of it from pastors, doctors, nurses, and lactation and child development professionals considered experts in their fields. (In fact, we know of no professional organizations within these fields that endorse GFI.) Yet the Ezzos have said there is “no basis”⁴⁹ for the concerns and have dismissed them as “unsubstantiated hearsay.”⁵⁰ The infant program they developed warns parents of the dangers of demand feeding,⁵¹ the infant feeding practice strongly recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.⁵² GFI describes the research supporting putting infants to sleep on their backs as “not conclusive, and the method of gathering supportive data questionable”⁵³ – despite the fact there has been no less than a 30 percent drop in the number of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States since the “Back to Sleep” campaign began.⁵⁴

The Ezzos describe themselves as “professionals”⁵⁵ and have said they are replacing others as the “authority” on child-rearing.⁵⁶ Yet they lack much of the background experience and education found in many of the very critics they are dismissing.⁵⁷ They have claimed to have a “network” of “hundreds of pediatricians” who provide them with “expert medical advice,”⁵⁸ but they have refused to provide the list when asked.⁵⁹ There is not one Internationally Board Certified Lactation Consultant on staff, though the materials give explicit breast-feeding instruction. These paradoxes may exist partly because of the Ezzos’ apparent lack of any true accountability to either church elders or a board of directors⁶⁰ and also because they actively discourage questioning both inside and outside the GFI system.

No Debate in Class. The Ezzos set up specific class rules that limit debate. The Ezzos’ tape “Starting a Parenting Ministry” discusses “four basic rules” for a GFI class. Gary Ezzo explains one: “We tell them that there are no debates in the class….We will not debate an issue in the class….We do not accept any debates in the class” (emphasis in original).⁶¹ He goes on, “Part of it has to do with the attitude of teachability….guide their questions but do not entertain debate because debates rob the people of time and it belittles the leadership” (emphasis in original).⁶² Anne Marie adds, “Be praying for people who have open and teachable spirits.”⁶³

Gary describes the next rule: “If they [class participants] commit themselves to the class, one of the rules…is that they will not initiate a conversation about the parenting principles they are learning in the class. That was do not initiate….This has to be an absolute guideline” (emphasis in original).⁶⁴ The Ezzos justify this with an explanation that others are often not open to parenting advice.

This poses a rather serious dilemma. Where are parents to debate the materials? Although GFI does allow questions after class, one wonders how much true questioning can go on before the parent is labeled “unteachable.” Indeed, Gary Ezzo advises class leaders to list as their goals for the class: “The coming together of new relationships as a result of meeting together for a number of weeks, the checking on each other and the high accountability and the likemindedness and the encouragement”⁶⁵ (emphases added).

Questions Unanswered or the Questioner Attacked. People requesting information from GFI have been told they could look up the information for themselves. GFI has questioned their belief system, ability to interpret Scripture, and need to know the information. Some have been told their concerns would be forwarded to an appropriate person or that they would receive something in the mail – but nothing followed.⁶⁶A journalist who asked for research citations was told in writing, “The research is available. But you will need to take the time to pull it together, if you are really interested.”⁶⁷

Ezzo has written to people who question him, calling them “primitivistic,” “marsupial,” “prideful,” “disgruntled,” and “theologically naïve,” among other adjectives.⁶⁸ After reading PFP thoroughly, Joel and Kathryn Kuhlmann wrote the Ezzos with questions, quoting liberally from PFP and the Bible. Their letter was returned with Gary Ezzo’s handwritten margin comments, including “silly conclusion” and “[makes] no sense to you but apparently has made plenty of sense to over half a million other parents.”⁶⁹ The Kuhlmanns wrote back, explaining there must have been a mix-up in his correspondence department since they didn’t get a regular letter back and his notes in the margins did not include “specific answers, as we requested.” Ezzo replied with another handwritten note, saying, “There was no mistake – this is the response. Your letter although I’m sure sincere was so badly flawed in its assertions that any other type of response was rendered useless….What follow [sic] simply lacked intellectual honesty.”⁷⁰

Exclusivism

GFI materials make it clear that the Ezzos’ parenting philosophy is superior to others. GFI’s programs are described as “God’s Way” and “biblical.” Christians with different parenting philosophies are said to be, in their thinking, “Christians up to a point.”⁷¹ When the Kuhlmanns wrote to Gary Ezzo about their belief that attachment parenting (a parenting philosophy practiced by many Christians that includes demand feeding) is “a viable parenting option for Christians,” Ezzo responded, “It’s not. It is word for word of what came out of humanistic writing of the 1940s.”⁷² In PFP he describes attachment parenting as “neoprimitivistic” and based on “superstition.”⁷³

Parents are told that children raised on GFI’s system will turn out superior to those who are not. The Ezzos demonstrate this by introducing fictional characters at the beginning of their books (GFI children and non-GFI children who are demand fed and attachment parented), stating that their differences in development are factual,⁷⁴ and then contrasting them throughout the material. For example, “Stevie,” a non-GFI child, will wake up twice a night for two years, shoplift, push children off swings, “grow up ill prepared for real life,” “have difficulty with siblings and peers,” and “suffer in school and at work.”⁷⁵ In contrast, “Ryan,” the child raised by GFI principles, will sleep seven to eight hours a night between the fifth and eighth weeks, obey his mother’s instructions at the grocery store, stand close to his parents’ side, be “prepared to respond according to principle,” and “learn to move in and out of new and expanding social relationships with flexibility and emotional comfort.”⁷⁶ Yet the Ezzos provide no legitimate research to support any of these claims.

Reaching the World? As we’ve stated, GFI materials clearly mention that salvation is through Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, the GFI program itself is granted missionary zeal. They describe taking or leading a GFI class as “reaching the world one family at a time.”⁷⁷ Their regional leaders, who “answer your questions on leading classes utilizing the GFI curricula, leadership training, and starting a parenting ministry in your local church,” are described as “faithful saints” who are “full-time missionaries, raising much of their own support.”⁷⁸ Gary Ezzo says of one family using his materials for infants, “They are one of us. We’re all proud of their testimony, and the strength of their resolve to do more than just tell the world about the wonderful grace of Jesus, but show the world His grace through biblical parenting.”⁷⁹ When this missionary zeal to plant GFI in churches is combined with their exclusive and elitist attitudes, it can easily result in significant division among Christians.

The GFI “Community.” Countless parents have described feeling like outsiders in their own churches, being rejected by people who used to be their friends, and being made to feel less spiritual, all because they were not part of the GFI “community.”⁸⁰ The Ezzos themselves have directly contributed to this we/they mentality. Gary Ezzo, in his Reflections of Moral Innocence (RMI) tapes, admonishes parents: “You Growing Kids God’s Way, you Reflections of Moral Innocence people, you ‘Prep’ and ‘Toddler’ people, you have the possibility of a moral community. Stay within your moral community….Take advantage of the subgroup you’re already in.”⁸¹

Some might think this would refer to other Christians, but the word “community” typically has a different meaning within GFI circles. The ministry newsletter of the Ezzos is The Community Perspective. The heavily restricted place to come meet “like-minded” GFI parents on GFI’s website is called “The Community.” The school founded by GFI that up until recently invited only GFI children to attend is called The Community School. A GFI follower was told that in order for a local community to be ready for a GFI Community School, “GKGW needed to be taught consistently for 5-7 years to develop the necessary level of like-mindedness.”⁸²

Others “of the World.” Kathy Eshleman, whose husband, Paul, heads the Jesus Film Project for Campus Crusade for Christ, explains why GFI followers sometimes distance themselves from other Christians within Campus Crusade for Christ: “These women have a very strong understanding that they are to avoid communication with people who have a different philosophical view of child rearing…they believe they are doing the best thing for their children.”⁸³ When another mother among these full-time Crusade staffers demand-feeds her children, “she is lumped into a category of people who are of the world.”⁸⁴

Isolationism

One of Grace’s key concerns pertains to the result of such thinking: “GFI parents tend to insulate their children from other children- including Christian children- who are not part of the GFI community.’…GFI parents have been known to sever all relationships with non-GFI families. To some degree, GFI teaching is directly responsible for encouraging this attitude.”⁸⁵

In fact, GFI even advises parents of newborns to delay the timing of visiting grandparents, saying such a visit “can be either a blessing or a curse, depending on your relationship and just how like-minded you are…A husband can help by shielding his wife, protecting her from unwelcome intrusions.”⁸⁶ This advice may predispose the new parents to distrust the opinions of those who suggest an alternative viewpoint to that of GFI – even the baby’s own grandparents.

A Closed System. Parents are also shielded from the advice of other parenting experts. Despite the vast array of books available from experienced, educated, and well-respected Christian parenting authorities, GFI lists only six non-GFI child-rearing books on its recommended reading list. The first three of these are from the 1800s, effectively narrowing the field in terms of competition for the Ezzos as parenting authorities.⁸⁷

While many Christian leaders recommend that mothers with questions seek out an older, experienced, “Titus 2″ woman in their church, GFI mothers often refer to GFI “contact moms.” GFI contact moms are mothers who use and understand GFI materials and are willing to advise other mothers on a volunteer basis, but they are not necessarily older, more experienced mothers. In fact, given the relative newness of GFI’s ministry, some contact moms have only one or two young children.

A Closed Forum. This isolation from a variety of parenting ideas extends into GFI’s Forum as well. Created for parents to participate in parenting discussions, the GFI Forum area on the internet is “only open” to those “likeminded” parents who have not only completed a GFI class but who also “agree with, and are actively applying” the material.⁸⁸ Controversial messages have been deleted,⁸⁹ and in several cases Christian parents have been permanently banned for not being “like-minded.”⁹⁰ As a result, participants are shielded from debate and the concerns of others.

Isolated from the Materials. In addition to limiting exposure to outside influences, GFI also shields its followers from up-front exposure to the materials themselves. They are not given them until the second week of class⁹¹ – after they have signed an agreement to attend for a set number of weeks. Even then they are only given one chapter at a time, after it has already been presented in class.

Physical and Emotional Endangerment

Another controversial aspect of GFI is an emphasis on parental control from infancy on- control that has been associated with infant failure to thrive cases and has raised concerns about the potential for hurt and angry children. A number of experts and professional organizations in the fields of medicine, child development, and lactation have taken the unprecedented action of publicly warning parents about the potential dangers of GFI programs.

A committee from the Division of Pediatrics at Forsyth Memorial Hospital in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, alarmed by a problem case in their hospital, outlined 11 areas in PFP that are inadequately supported by conventional medical practice and warned the local church teaching it.⁹² The Santa Clara Valley Breastfeeding Task Force (affiliated with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department) issued a letter to local Christian leaders voicing concern about GFI’s infant feeding program after becoming aware of several infants on the program who were experiencing problems associated with poor weight gain.⁹³ Pediatricians from seven states and Puerto Rico recently endorsed an AAP resolution that outlined concerns with PFP and BW, cited reports of failure-to-thrive, and asked the Academy to investigate PFP and BW and “alert its members, other organizations, and parents of its findings.”⁹⁴

Based on the assumption that “orderliness is a biblical virtue”⁹⁵ and that “order speaks of routine and scheduling,”⁹⁶ the Ezzos instruct parents to feed newborns every three to three-and-a-half hours (described as two-and-a-half to three hours from the end of a 20 to 30-minute feeding).⁹⁷ According to this feeding plan, called Parent Directed Feeding (PDF), parents are also instructed to enforce naptimes of one-and-a-half hours or more before feedings.⁹⁸

GFI does claim, “With PDF, a mother feeds her baby when he is hungry,”⁹⁹ and further qualifies, “There will be times when you may need more flexibility due to unusual circumstances….Consider the context of each situation.”¹⁰⁰ The examples of flexibility provided almost always relate to the convenience of adults, however, not the needs of the infant.

Unfortunately, the book also instructs that even a two-week-old baby who falls asleep during the middle of a feeding and wakes up hungry two hours later should not be fed: “Babies learn very quickly the laws of natural consequences. If he does not eat at one feeding, then make him wait until the next one….Do not feed him between routine mealtimes.”¹⁰¹ Lactation experts disagree. Pediatrician Marianne Neifert, author of the “Dr. Mom” parenting books, says, “Some babies…could handle the schedule. But a small baby with a mother who’s got a marginal milk supply….Those babies could be put in jeopardy on a schedule.”¹⁰² Lactation experts cite research explaining why such a schedule works for some babies, but not for others.¹⁰³

While GFI’s infant program includes charts for parents to monitor wet diapers, they do not have instructions to check for stools, a key factor in determining if a baby is getting adequate nutrition. One lactation consultant reported, “This week I had 2 Ezzo feeding problems come in….One baby is 2 mos. old – still at two week weight….The other…baby began vomiting at seven weeks…was 5 oz. below birthweight. She was immediately taken to the hospital and remained for 5 weeks due to intestinal [tract] shutdown. This baby came home this week and is on prescription formula and has a central line IV- came very close to death.”¹⁰⁴

Some might argue that the percentage of reported problems associated with GFI infants is low. Others correctly point out, however, that any cases associated with following the Ezzos’ advice are a cause for concern. Indeed, the occurrence of several professional organizations independently raising concerns about failure to thrive cases associated with GFI indicates that an unusual and significant problem exists.

Excessive Crying. Far more common are cases in which enforcing PFP‘s feeding and nap schedule results in excessive infant crying that overwhelms even the parents. One parent appealed for advice on GFI’s website because they were “desperate for answers,” saying, “From the day he came home from the hospital I have tried to have him fall asleep on his own. We have listened to him cry for an hour and a half at a time and then never fall asleep because I finally get him up for his next feed….It’s difficult to listen to him cry so much. If I felt it was accomplishing something- such as falling asleep on his own- I would be more able to listen to him and not feel quite so bad.”¹⁰⁵ The contact mom’s reply acknowledged that difficulty is not unusual: “Many of us have been where you are at one time or another. Sometimes the first few weeks are the PITS! But you need to get back to the basics with the PFP. It will not work any other way.”¹⁰⁶ She specifically admonished the parents to strive to feed no more often than every three hours with a one and a half hour nap minimum.

Hurt and Rebellious Children? A number of Christian child development experts have raised concerns about the emphasis in GFI’s materials on parental control and the materials’ insensitivity toward children’s God-given needs. They believe in some cases the program will produce outwardly compliant but inwardly angry or depressed children who see God as a Tyrant.

Dr. Bruce Narramore explains that

parenting needs to first be rooted in understanding and meeting our children’s God given needs. Controlling misbehavior comes second. When this order is reversed children may be well behaved – at least until they hit late adolescence and young adulthood, but they may be inwardly isolated, angry, or emotionally depressed. Since research indicates that there is a significant relationship between a child’s attachment to his/her parents and their experience of God, I am afraid that children raised by [GFI's] approach may have difficulty experiencing the love and nurturing of God and that they might experience Him more as someone who wants to control them.¹⁰⁷

Katharine West, a registered nurse and lactation consultant who has been working with GFI followers for 10 years, acknowledged that although many of the children turn out well, depression is not unusual. She said of a baby on the Ezzos’ program who was not gaining weight well: “I’ll lay dollars to donuts this baby is clinically depressed and somewhat withdrawn (has already learned that the world does not come when needed, so no longer cries when there are needs), yes? I’ve seen it too many times.”¹⁰⁸

Moral Innocence? A number of health care professionals have also raised serious concerns with Reflections of Moral Innocence, the Ezzos’ tape and video series that discusses how and what sexual information should be passed on to children. The Ezzos advise parents not to use exact or descriptive words for genitalia. Children are not to be told the details of sexual intercourse, even the night before the wedding, but instead are to be instructed in sex education using the diagram of a flower.¹⁰⁹ The Child Abuse Prevention Council of Orange County describes how such teaching will not only “encourage children to seek answers to their questions from outside the home” but also limit children’s ability to “protect themselves from sexual abuse or exploitation.”¹¹⁰

CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS

Although some concerned Christians have labeled GFI a cult, we have seen that it affirms the fundamental doctrines of historic Christianity. Furthermore, it teaches some biblical principles for raising children, and its followers mainly appear to be genuine Christians who are nobly attempting to raise godly children in an ungodly age. For all of this, GFI is to be praised. Unfortunately, however, we have also seen that GFI does indeed exhibit the five cultic characteristics outlined above. This fact goes a long way toward explaining the controversy and criticism that have dogged GFI almost since its inception. The only antidote to this chronic condition would be for the Ezzos and their followers to recognize and correct these cultic tendencies in their ministry. For their part, pastors and parents should pray, listen to the Holy Spirit, consult the Bible, seek wise counsel, and then make their own decisions about whether to use GFI materials.

Many parents relying on the Holy Spirit’s guidance have been blessed by using some of the good ideas in these materials. Parents and church leaders, however, need to be aware of the risks associated with a teaching environment where Scripture is used out of context, questioning is actively discouraged, rules and schedules become part of one’s “testimony,” even other Christians are considered “humanistic,” division results, and the leaders do not seem to be receptive to constructive criticism.

One of the key original leaders was accused after she left of being overzealous. Her response: “Why weren’t we corrected? And why were we exalted to leadership and teaching and used as examples?”¹¹¹ Some have blamed GFI’s problems on followers who take things too far, but it is clear that Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo must assume some responsibility.

Kathleen Terner, M.B.A., is a research associate of the Christian Research Institute and has been researching GFI’s materials for two years.

NOTES

1 Randy Frame, “Growing Criticism- Groups Back Away from Preparation for Parenting,” Christianity Today, 9 February 1998, 96-97.

2 Roy Maynard, “The Ezzos Know Best – Controversial Parenting Curriculum Is Sweeping the Church,” World, 25 May-1 June 1996, 18-19.

3 Barbara Carton, “Striking Behavior – The Ezzos Sell Parents Some Tough Advice: Don’t Spare the Rod,” The Wall Street Journal, 17 February 1998, A1, A8.

4 ABC World News Tonight report on Growing Families International with Peter Jennings and Peggy Wehmeyer, 11 July 1996; transcript.

5 Focus on the Family statement from Earle Morgan received via e-mail on 8 December 1997 (Focus statement).

6 30 October 1997 phone interview with Dr. Ketterman.

7 Quotes from “A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International” (Grace statement), issued 16 October 1997 by Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California. The Ezzos issued two website responses to Grace’s statement: “Grace Church and GFI – In Response” (Response One), 26 October 1997, and “In Response To: Grace Community Church ‘Statement’ Regarding the Ezzos and Growing Families International – Part Two” (Response Two), 11 November 1997. These statements can be persuasive until one reads the detailed response to them written by Grace elder Phil Johnson. ( “Questions about Growing Families International, Grace Church, and Gary Ezzo,” 11 December 1997.) Two examples: In Response One the Ezzos promised a “thorough examination” of the issues by their own elders at Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship. Response Two was “reviewed” and “approved” by those elders. None of the elders, however, even contacted Johnson, the author of the Grace Statement, to discuss Grace’s concerns. Also, in Response Two Gary Ezzo claimed to be “dumbfounded” by Grace’s citation of an e-mail he had written to a Grace donor. Grace cited the e-mail as evidence that Ezzo had made several accusations about Grace that were not “remotely true,” but Ezzo maintains that the issue had been “fully resolved.” Yet John MacArthur had warned Ezzo in a 1 September 1996 letter, “If you don’t act to set the record straight immediately, I will be forced to tell people the truth about these lies to protect them.” According to Johnson, Ezzo had apologized to MacArthur on being confronted about the issue, but never followed through with his commitment to set the record straight by apologizing to the people he lied about or admitting to the donor that the statements he made were lies.

8 “Religious Parenting Programs: Their Relationship to Child Abuse Prevention,” Child Abuse Prevention Council of Orange County [CA] (OCCAPCR), 14 May 1996.

9 Phil Johnson, “A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International,” released for distribution 20 March 1998.

10 Johnson, “Questions.”

11 21 September 1993 letter to Pat and Debra Baker and 3 December 1993 letter to Pat Baker from Covenant Fellowship of Philadelphia.

12 25 November 1997 telephone interview with Betty McClure, Baptism Coordinator at Christ Episcopal Church, Plano, Texas. 2012 update: CRI received the following clarification/correction from Steve Marr of Christ Episcopal Church in Plano Texas on January 5, 2012: “Our baptism class – and our Children’s Ministry in general – does not espouse any particular style or method of parenting. We focus on the admonition of Deuteronomy 6:1-9, which clearly places the responsibility of discipleship with the parents in the context of family. The baptism class covers two main topics: the theology of baptism and the call for parents to be faithful followers of Christ and teach their children to follow him as well. In the late 90s, only a portion of “Growing Kids God’s Way” was used in the baptism class, but not the full curriculum. The controversy around the program led to it being phased out quickly. The purpose of the class, in its past or present form, should not be misconstrued as a conditional barrier to prevent candidates from being baptized. Rather, the intent of the class is to provide candidates and sponsors with the meaning, history and ceremony of the baptismal service, as well as the responsibilities of those who sponsor a child for baptism. Also, this class does not constitute any part of the actual ceremony of the baptismal covenant. Baptism services are administered in accordance with the canons of the Anglican Church. In particular, our parish uses the 1979 Book of Common Prayer for all services, including sacramental rites.”

13 24 November 1997 telephone interview with Pastor Andy Walker of Country Oaks Baptist Church, Tehachapi, California.

14 Five couples formed GFI with the Ezzos in 1987. These three were given the lion’s share of responsibility.

15 1 and 18 November 1997 e-mails from the Abels, 4 and 11 November 1997 and 16 April 1998 e-mails from the Williamses, and 25 November 1997 e-mail from the third key original leadership couple. All three couples agreed to this joint statement during telephone interviews between 11-13 December 1997.

16 Dennis and Dawn Wilson, Christian Parenting in the Information Age (West Jordan, UT: TriCord Publishing, 1996), 204-5.

17 In a 7 November 1997 interview with journalist Jay Grelen, MacArthur said, “I know exactly what the [Grace] statement says and I agree with it. Every elder to a man agrees.”

18 On his daily Southern California radio program (KWVE-FM), To Every Man an Answer (9 January 1998), Chuck Smith began a five-minute negative response to a caller’s inquiry about GFI by affirming, “I not only don’t support it, I’m against it. I think that it’s wrongly named. I don’t think that what they advocate is really ‘growing kids God’s way.’ I believe that God’s way is the way of love. And they seem to have a very strict, legalistic kind of regimen in the growing of kids, and your child almost becomes your enemy.”

19 5 March 1998 letter from James Rhodes, a member of the church who began attending in 1979.

20 (10 March 1998 letter and 19 and 21 November 1997 telephone interviews with John Wentzel. Also, 5 March 1998 letter from James Rhodes.) The split was sparked when John Wentzel, currently a Deacon and the Minister of Education at Lakes Region Bible Church, had asked a teacher from another church to volunteer at the church’s school. He says Ezzo “wanted us to be a church of its own…almost no outsiders.” In response to Wentzel’s decision, Ezzo attempted to close the church down, but the church held a meeting and voted him out as a pastor. The result, Wentzel said, was a “scattering of the people…some of the people believed that it was wrong to remain here…some people don’t even go to church [at all] any more.”

21 1 December 1997 e-mail from Eric Abel.

22 Information derived from 12 November 1997 printout from Leader to Leader on GFI Forum, GFI brochure, and GFI 16 February 1998 website response to the 9 February 1998 Christianity Today article.

23 Mike Aquilina, “THE FAMILY – Do the Ezzos Know Best?” Our Sunday Visitor, 5 April 1998, 7.

24 Carton, A1.

25 GFI brochure.

26 See, e.g., Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Anniversary Edition, Hank Hanegraaff, gen. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997), 17; Norman L. Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997), 10-11.

27 See, e.g., Geisler and Rhodes, 11-13.

28 E.g., 18 and 19 April 1998 posts on AOL Christianity Online Message Boards; 25 December 1997 post on Usenet alt.support.breastfeeding area; GFI is classified under “Family Living Cults” at Balaam’s Ass’s website: http://www.balaams-ass.com/journal/warnings/helthclt.htm.

29 14 December 1997 e-mail from Lance Quinn.

30 Focus statement.

31 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Preparation for Parenting: Bringing God’s Order to Your Baby’s Day and Restful Sleep to Your Baby’s Night (PFP), 5th ed., 4th printing (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International, 1993), 139-40, 51.

32 Ibid., 151. See also 179-80, where the Ezzos reject the concept of mother-infant bonding because it would suggest that instinct exists in “rational man” as well as in the animals.

33 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Growing Kids God’s Way: Biblical Ethics for Parenting (GKGW), 4th ed., 11th printing (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International Press, 1996), 212.

34 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Growing Kids God’s Way: Guidelines for Chastisement (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International, 1994); audiotape.

35 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Preparation for the Toddler Years (5-12 Months), 4th printing (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International Press, 1994), 51. In GKGW (16) the Ezzos instruct, “Right from the start, train your children in the precepts to biblical morality….The fact that a child has no moral understanding as to why food should not be intentionally dropped from his high chair does not mean we hold back instruction and restriction….Children first learn how to act morally and then they learn how to think morally.”

36 Grace statement.

37 GKGW, 214.

38 PFP, 26.

39 GKGW, 18.

40 E.g., “Women who demand feed say they love their children because they tend to their every need. That is not biblical love; it’s idolatry.” (Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Preparation for Parenting: A Biblical Perspective, 3d ed. [Northridge, CA: Growing Families International Press, 1990], 67.) They declare demand feeding is based on “an existential philosophy that denies man is made in the image of God and now exists in the condition of depravity” and “the theory of evolution”; it “de-sanctifies the message of Christian motherhood” because “a Christian woman [cannot] testify to biblical motherhood while parenting with secular philosophies that are the antithesis of biblical truth”; and it “works off the hedonistic drives of the child by supporting ongoing immediate gratification.” (Ibid., 66-67.) Though these statements- which provoked widespread criticism- were revised in following editions, they set the tone for the movement and have never been retracted. Rather, in the introduction to subsequent editions the Ezzos clarify: “We assure you that the changes in this edition are merely practical, not theological or philosophical. Our guiding premises did not change because God’s character does not change.” (PFP, 5th ed., 11; emphasis added.)

41 GKGW, 89; PFP, 120, 135.

42 PFP, 49.

43 GKGW, 26-27.

44 Ibid., 305.

45 Ibid., 301.

46 Ibid., 304.

47 E-mail from Aimee Natal, 21 July 1997.

48 E-mail from Anne Marie Mingo, 31 October 1997.

49 GFI 26 October 1997 website response to Grace statement.

50 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo in a 3 December 1997 letter to Paul and Kathy Eshleman responding to a 10 February 1997 Letter of Concern to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

51 PFP, 55-61, 66-70, 76.

52 American Academy of Pediatrics, Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk (RE9729), Pediatrics 100 (December 1997): 1035-39.

53 PFP, 184.

54 25 March 1997 e-mail from Dr. James McKenna, SIDS researcher.

55 PFP, 50; GKGW, 66.

56 Carton, A8.

57 The Ezzos do have some relevant training and experience, but it simply does not match their lofty claims. The covers of GFI materials claim Anne Marie Ezzo has a “background in pediatric nursing” but provide no details. Although Anne Marie’s nursing license is current, the hospital where she claims to have worked in pediatrics can confirm only that she worked there about three years and left in 1977 – over 20 years ago. ( 5 March 1998 phone interview with Loretta McAdams in Human Resources, Concord Hospital, Concord, NH.) GFI materials also refer to Ezzo as a “graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary.” This is true, but his degree is an M.A. in Ministry that gives credit for life experience, does not require study in the original biblical languages, and requires no previous college degree. (10 December 1997 interview with Marilyn Heiman in Talbot’s registrar’s office.) As for his undergraduate education, although Ezzo did take “several classes” at Mohawk Valley Community College in New York, the registrar’s office there stated that they do not even have an associate’s degree on record for him. (18 and 19 November 1997 interviews with Rosemary Spetka.)

58 Gary Ezzo, “The War against Moral Truth,” GFI website response to 11 July 1996 ABC World News Tonight report.

59 Reporter Kelly Griffith asked Gary Ezzo in writing, “If you had a list of [medical] advisors, will you provide that?” Ezzo responded, also in writing, “Can you have our list? No, these people are too important to be bothered with the trivia served up by the critics.” (Kelly Griffith, “Raising Babies ‘God’s Way’ May Not Be the Right Way,” Bradenton Herald, 26 April 1997, Well Being section, 9-10.)

60 The Ezzos have claimed they are “under the care and guidance and spiritual authority of the elders” at Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship – Nick Carter, Dave Maddox, and Jim Dunning. (26 October 1997 GFI website response to Grace statement; 3 November 1997 interview with Dave Maddox.) Yet Carter is on the GFI payroll as Vice President of Operations and International Ministry Support and reports to the Ezzos’ son-in-law. (28 October 1997 GFI “Meet the Staff” web page; 8 November 1997 e-mail from Eric Abel.) Maddox has worked for GFI and at the time of Ezzo’s statement was still listed on GFI’s “Meet the Staff” web page. (3 November 1997 interview with Maddox.) While Dunning does not work for GFI, in the past he has admitted his inability to hold Ezzo accountable. (11 December 1997 e-mail from Phil Johnson.) The Ezzos are not accountable to a board of directors either. GFI is a for-profit corporation and its only officers and directors are Gary Ezzo; his son-in-law, Robert Garcia; and his wife, Anne Marie. (State of California Statement by Domestic Stock Corporation.) A small portion of the Ezzos’ business falls under their not-for-profit arm, GFIES (Growing Families International Educational Services). The only officers for GFIES are Gary Ezzo; his son-in-law, Robert Garcia; and his accountant, Bob Gaby. (State of California Statement by Domestic Nonprofit Corporation.) An 11 November 1997 e-mail from Julie Abel describes Gaby as the accountant for both GFI and GFIES.

61 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Starting a Parenting Ministry (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International, 1994); audiotape.

62 Ibid.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Helps for Your First Night of Class (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International, 1994); audiotape.

66 Letters and e-mails on file at CRI.

67 Griffith, 9.

68 Correspondence between Gary Ezzo and various concerned parents, on file at CRI.

69 18 August 1996 letter from Joel and Kathryn Kuhlmann with Gary Ezzo’s handwritten notes.

70 22 September 1996 letter from Joel and Kathryn Kuhlmann with Gary Ezzo’s handwritten note.

71 PFP, 21.

72 18 August 1996 Kuhlmann letter with Ezzo’s notes.

73 PFP, 44, 48.

74 PFP, 15; GKGW, 13.

75 PFP, 58, 25, 32-33.

76 PFP, 67, 33; GKGW, 44-45, 51-52.

77 The Community Perspective (TCP; GFI’s newsletter), Summer-Fall 1997, 2.

78 TCP, Spring 1997, insert.

79 TCP, Summer-Fall 1997.

80 Three critics alone conservatively estimate receiving at least 550 unsolicited reports of such division over GFI programs.

81 Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, Reflections of Moral Innocence (RMI) (Chatsworth, CA: Growing Families International, 1995); audiotape, session five.

82 Post on GFI Forum, 8 July 1997.

83 29 October 1997 phone interview with Kathy Eshleman.

84 Ibid.

85 Grace statement.

86 PFP, 185.

87 See “Recommended Reading List,” Growing Families International.

88 6 September 1997 e-mail from Jeff Hathaway, pastoral advisor, GFI Forum.

89 E.g., 20 November 1996 e-mail from Kate Hallberg, a mother who describes instances where her posts and those of other mothers were deleted. Jeff Hathaway explains: “We monitor our Forum very closely to insure the integrity of the Forum with regard to accomplishing its purpose.” (1 September 1997 e-mail.)

90 E.g., 6 September 1997 e-mail from Hathaway, 31 July 1996 e-mail from Frank York at GFI.

91 Growing Kids God’s Way Leader’s Guide (n.p., n.d.), 21.

92 “Preparation for Parenting- Reviewed by Division of Pediatrics,” Forsyth Memorial Hospital committee report, 22 January 1997.

93 23 January 1998 letter from the Santa Clara Valley Breastfeeding Task Force.

94 AAP Resolution no. 22T (98), “Investigating the Ezzo Program and the FTT Infants Associated with It.” Endorsed by AAP District 4 on 8 February 1998.

95 PFP, 57.

96 Ibid., 54.

97 Ibid., 113-16.

98 Ibid., 133-35.

99 Ibid., 49.

100 Ibid., 120.

101 Ibid., 194.

102 Claire Martin, “‘Let ‘Em Cry’ Technique Criticized by Doctors,” Denver Post, 14 September 1997, sec. D.

103 Lisa Marasco, BA, IBCLC and Jan Barger, MA, RN, IBCLC; Examining the Evidence for Cue feeding of Breastfed Infants (unpublished paper, 1997).

104 E-mail from Debby Kearney, IBCLC, 17 April 1997.

105 Post on GFI Forum, 7 July 1997.

106 Post on GFI Forum, 8 July 1997.

107 7 November 1997 e-mail from Dr. Bruce Narramore.

108 1 November 1997 public post to Lactnet (internet discussion group for lactation consultants).

109 RMI, session seven.

110 OCCAPCR, 13.

111 25 November 1997 e-mail.

Two and one-half years ago the Christian Research Journal published an article outlining the cultlike characteristics of Gary Ezzo’s Growing Families International (GFI): Scripture twisting, authoritarianism, exclusivism, isolationism, and physical and emotional endangerment of children.¹ The organization, established in 1987, reaches over 1,500,000 parents around the world through church-based Christian parenting programs such as Preparation for Parenting and Growing Kids God’s Way and secular materials such as the top-selling On Becoming Babywise.

In the past, Ezzo has denied the validity of our concerns as well as similar issues raised by others, including Focus on the Family and John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. He credits such concerns to bias or misperception² — a point addressed in a follow-up Journal article on GFI.³

In the past year, however, Ezzo has faced new challenges. Several former supporters of his ministry have broken off their ties with him, citing character-related concerns.

Ezzo Excommunicated, Declared Unfit for Public Ministry. On 30 April 2000 Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship (LHEF), a church Ezzo had been a member of for years and that had previously stood by him,⁴ excommunicated Ezzo. The elders’ statement asserts that Ezzo had a “pattern of sin,” making excommunication necessary:

When it comes to himself and other matters that reflect upon the question of his integrity, there is a pattern in Gary of struggling with the truth. Rather than waiting on God’s provision, when confronted in his sins Gary readily sets aside integrity and seeks to protect himself by a rejection of the very spiritual authority God placed over him for his own spiritual welfare. Furthermore, by the fruits of his life, especially his words, Gary has manifested a lack of Christian character essential to leadership in the church.⁵

The statement adds, “As Gary’s elders we believe he is biblically disqualified from all public ministry.” Ezzo left the church several weeks before the excommunication was finalized.⁶

In a public response to LHEF, Ezzo states that “while at Living Hope, no accusation of wrongdoing or suggestion of misconduct was ever presented to us in writing, in person, by email, or phone, let alone the commencing of a church discipline process.”⁷ He says that LHEF brought forward charges against him only after he voiced concerns with them and “quietly” left the church.⁸ Ezzo’s comments contradict those of his former elders, who state that they confronted Ezzo with his sins, pleaded with him to repent, and excommunicated him on the “basis of facts established by biblical process.”⁹

Ezzo points to two committees he commissioned to look into the charges. Both committees “continue to affirm” Gary Ezzo, his wife Anne Marie, and their ministry. One committee is made up of GFI Regional Representatives and the other one Ezzo says is “independent of GFI organizationally,” but he has not named its members.¹⁰

Ezzo’s current pastor, Ron Seidel of Granada Hills Community Church, has also dismissed LHEF’s charges against Ezzo.¹¹ He and the two committees Ezzo commissioned expressed frustration at LHEF’s unwillingness to meet with them to discuss Ezzo’s situation.¹²

Key Ezzo Staff Members Leave. Soon after Ezzo’s excommunication, several of his key staff members and associates resigned their positions. Not all would comment publicly on their reasons; those who did communicate with the Journal indicated that concerns about Ezzo played a role. Bob Gaby, a nine-year board member for Ezzo’s nonprofit organizations, resigned as Chairman of the Board of Christian Family Heritage (CFH) on 16 August 2000. Gaby expressed concern over Ezzo’s public response to the actions of LHEF, where Gaby is a member.¹³ Two days after Gaby’s resignation, CFH board secretary Sharon Nelson, a medical doctor who has endorsed Ezzo’s books, resigned.¹⁴ Laurie Moody, a visible GFI “contact mom,” resigned the same week, saying that Ezzo’s response to LHEF played a role in her decision.¹⁵

Two high-profile GFI employees resigned without public comment: Mark Severance, a frequent GFI spokesman and assistant to Ezzo,¹⁶ and Paul Luedke, Ezzo’s son-in-law, who had been at GFI for five years.¹⁷

MacArthur: Ezzo’s Problems Represent a Pattern. LHEF was not the first church to raise concerns about Ezzo’s character. John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (Grace), where Ezzo had served as pastor of family ministries and developed his parenting programs, publicly rebuked him in October of 1997 for lacking accountability and truthfulness,¹⁸ the same issues raised by Living Hope.

On 25 July 2000, after LHEF excommunicated Ezzo, John MacArthur issued a new statement: “This has clearly become a pattern of behavior with Mr. Ezzo….It appears rather obvious on biblical grounds that Mr. Ezzo’s refusal to heed his own church’s discipline disqualifies him from Christian leadership or public ministry in any context. After all, the first and most important qualification for those who would lead the church is that they be above reproach.”¹⁹

The church that Ezzo had been a part of before coming to Grace had also raised concerns about him, asking him to resign his positions due to his “authoritarianism, exclusivism, and division.”²⁰

Ezzo responded to MacArthur’s more recent comments, stating that it was he who had voiced concerns before leaving. He referred to the “integrity of the church staff and elders,” and said MacArthur’s “newest claims…once again reminded [us] of the reasons we left Grace Church.”²¹

Accounting Firm Terminates Its Relationship with Ezzo. During 2000 Ezzo also lost the support of his accountants. In February Ezzo’s accounting firm of more than nine years, Hamilton, Boynton, & Speakman, terminated its relationship with Ezzo. While the firm itself will not comment publicly, Chris Hamilton, a partner at the firm and a long-time friend of the Ezzos, states that Ezzo lied to him regarding an embezzlement investigation at GFI.²²

Ezzo had requested the investigation in August 1999, but in February 2000 he reversed himself, telling Hamilton that the money in question was a loan to his son-in-law Robert Garcia and less than the amount Ezzo had previously stated;²³ yet, Garcia himself has said he misappropriated funds.²⁴ At Garcia’s request, Hamilton also verified that money had been, in his opinion, “embezzled.”²⁵

Dan Busby, a Vice President at the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, explained that “embezzlement itself is not typically reason enough for an accounting firm to terminate a relationship with an audit client,” but an attempt to mislead auditors might be.²⁶

When asked by Christianity Today about the misuse of funds at GFI, Ezzo responded that if there were any offense it was against him and his wife: “It has not had an effect on public ministry, and therefore it’s not something for public dialogue.”²⁷

Lack of Repentance. The matter of public discussion is something about which Ezzo and his former elders disagree. The statements from both Grace and LHEF referred to 1 Timothy 5:20 and pointed to a pattern of sin and lack of repentance that made public rebuke necessary. “Scripture demands that unrepentant sin in cases such as this should not be covered up or handled in secret,” noted MacArthur.²⁸

The elders at LHEF stated, “Though it grieves us to speak of our brother’s failings, our greater commitment to God’s glory, the authority of Scripture and the purity of the flock which God has entrusted to us to shepherd compel us to bring public rebuke when a public minister continues in sin.”²⁹

Ezzo’s Future. Ezzo’s vision for his future also seems to differ with his past associates. While three churches over almost 20 years have deemed Ezzo unfit for Christian leadership, Ezzo himself sees no need to step down as head of GFI. In a Christianity Today interview Ezzo asserted, “We have no reason to change anything….[We] have no unresolved conflicts in our lives, relational conflicts that impair our public leadership.”³⁰

Rather than accepting personal responsibility, Ezzo portrays the character-related concerns as a spiritual attack stemming from his ministry’s positive impact. He responded to LHEF: “Do we get tired with all this stuff? We certainly do. It robs all of us of precious ministry time and resources….There is one who loves to sow confusion among the brethren. Satan is not happy with the message of God-directed parenting and the restoration of the Christian family….He is the father of lies and sadly he weaves his work even among God’s people.”³¹

NOTES

1. Kathleen Terner and Elliot Miller, “More than a Parenting Ministry: The Cultic Characteristics of Growing Families International,” Christian Research Journal 20, no. 4 (1998): 10–19, 27, 43–45.

2. E.g., Gary Ezzo and GFI Administrative Staff, “The Community Perspective: A Special Report, A Response to the Christian Research Institute,” Internet publication, 26 October 1998; final draft of 3 December 1997 letter from Gary Ezzo, on file at CRI.

3. Kathleen Terner and Elliot Miller, “A Matter of Bias? Examining the Response of Growing Families International to Criticism,” Christian Research Journal 21, no. 2 (1998): 32–42.

4. E.g., GFI’s 11 November 1997 response to Grace Community Church’s 16 October 1997 public rebuke of Ezzo was “submitted to, reviewed, and approved for distribution by the elders of Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship.”

5. “Elders’ Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo’s Church Discipline” (LHEF Statement), Living Hope Evangelical Fellowship, Granada Hills, CA, 30 April 2000.

6. Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, “A Special Letter from Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo to Ministry Friends and Associates” (Ezzo Response to LHEF), 14 July 2000.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. LHEF Statement.

10. Ezzo Response to LHEF.

11. 16 May and 25 July 2000 interviews with Pastor Seidel.

12. Ezzo Response to LHEF.

13. 21 August 2000 e-mail from Bob Gaby.

14. 19 August 2000 e-mail from Sharon Nelson.

15. 22 August 2000 e-mail from Laurie Moody.

16. 24 July 2000 phone call with Kim Meier at GFI confirming Severance no longer worked for the company; 23 October e-mail from Chris Hamilton confirming Severance was not fired but resigned.

17. 31 July 2000 e-mail from Paul Luedke.

18. “A Statement Regarding Gary Ezzo and Growing Families International,” issued 16 October 1997 by Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA.

19. John MacArthur, “Gary Ezzo and GFI” (Grace Statement 2000), Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, 25 July 2000.

20. Terner and Miller, “A Matter of Bias?” 34.

21. 26 July 2000 letter from Gary Ezzo addressed to “Friends and Ministry Associates.”

22. 10 August 2000 e-mail from Chris Hamilton.

23. Ibid.

24. 23 May 2000 telephone interview with Garcia; 11 August 2000 e-mail from Garcia.

25. 10 August 2000 e-mail from Chris Hamilton.

26. 10 August 2000 e-mail from Dan Busby.

27. Kathleen Terner, “Unprepared to Teach Parenting?” Christianity Today, 13 November 2000, 72.

28. Grace Statement 2000.

29. LHEF Statement.

30. Terner, 72.

31. Ezzo Response to LHEF.

As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming bronze. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures….Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures, one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction: their appearance was like the gleaming of a chrysolite….And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them; and when the living creatures rose from the earth, the wheels rose. (Ezek. 1:4–5, 15–16, 19; RSV)

When Ezekiel saw these other-worldly wheels and creatures up in the middle of a sixth-century b.c. sky, it’s likely he never imagined they would become corroborating evidence for the existence of flying saucers and extraterrestrial life.

The current interest in other worlds actually dates back to 24 June 1947 when Kenneth Arnold, a civilian pilot, reported seeing shiny objects flying in saucerlike fashion in front of his airplane near Mount Rainier, Washington. Coinage of the term “flying saucer” quickly followed, fueled by reports of similar sightings.¹ Capitalizing on postwar fears, George Adamski’s books, published in the 1950s, included alleged conversations in the California desert with Orthon, a humanlike being from Venus. Literary support for the Venusian message drew heavily on occult references, including the Theosophical writings of Madame H. P. Blavatsky.²

Extraterrestrial fascination, however, predates the twentieth century. In 1758, Swedish scientist Emanuel Swedenborg detailed his own interplanetary trips. His related spiritual teachings were decidedly at variance with those of orthodox Christianity.³ A long line of other mystics followed in the late 1800s, including French medium Helene Smith. She recounted her trip to Mars and even developed a Martian language (similar to French). Polish-born American Thomas Blot purportedly entertained a Martian in his home.⁴

It was after Adamski, however, that UFO sightings markedly increased, as did tales of alien encounters and abductions. Also on the increase were new religious movements with their own unique UFOlogies. One of these, the International Raëlian Movement (a.k.a. Raëlian Religion), has recently attracted worldwide attention, not because of its allegedly otherworldly origins, but because of its open attempt to clone the world’s first human being.⁵ That effort can be best understood and evaluated by taking a closer look at the movement as a whole.

Raëlian Beginning

The founder of the Raëlian Movement is Claude Vorilhon (b. 1946), a former French racecar driver, sports magazine editor, and resident of Quebec, Canada, headquarters for the movement.⁶ On 13 December 1973, Vorilhon allegedly encountered a saucer-shaped UFO hovering over an extinct volcano near Clermont-Ferrand, France. He described the occupant that emerged as a pale green humanlike being, approximately four feet tall with black hair, a beard, and almond-shaped eyes.⁷ The tiny extraterrestrial informed Vorilhon about the true origins of humankind and gave him a new name: Raël, meaning “light of God” or “ambassador.” He commissioned Raël to spread his “Messages” throughout the world, a duty befitting Raël as the “last of the forty prophets.” According to “The New Commandments,” Raël is also the “shepherd of shepherds,” and “the one whose coming was announced in all the religions by the ancient prophets.”⁸

Raël has taken his prophetic calling seriously. Two of his books have been translated into 25 languages; he claims over a million copies have sold.⁹ The content mainly consists of reinterpretations of major biblical doctrines, all with an extraterrestrial spin. Familiar Old and New Testament narratives are supposedly demystified in Raël’s writings, and then scientized. The Genesis Flood, for example, was allegedly caused by exploding nuclear missiles. Noah’s Ark was a spacecraft “lifted above the Earth”(Gen. 7:17).¹⁰ The Tower of Babel was a rocket, designed for the conquest of space.¹¹ The crossing of the Red Sea was made possible by a repulsion beam parting the waters.¹² Ezekiel’s creatures were wearing antigravity suits with small jet engines attached for directional purposes.¹³ The healing miracles of Jesus were performed at a distance with concentrated laserlike beams.¹⁴

The official Raëlian Web page contains the disclaimer: “We are not ufologists.”¹⁵ UFOland, the movement’s elaborate theme park near Montreal, makes this a questionable claim. In one sense, however, UFOs are peripheral to the message of Raël’s UFO messenger.

Doctrines of God, Creation, and the Nature of Human Beings

According to the Raëlian interpretation, humans were created, not by divine fiat or the random process of evolution, but intentionally and scientifically by Beings known as the Elohim, or “those who came from the sky.” Raël claims the original Hebrew word “Elohim” has been wrongly translated as “God” (singular). There is, claims Raël, no personal creator God, but there is a plurality of Elohim Creators, also known as “the fathers.”¹⁶

The means by which the Elohim created humans lends new meaning to the twenty-first-century argument of intelligent design. According to Raëlian reinterpretations of Genesis 1–3, the Elohim are technologically advanced Beings from another solar system. In fact, they created all life forms in laboratories about 25,000 years ago in what is now Israel from the synthesis of chemicals and their own imported DNA while drawing on their superior knowledge of genetics and cell biology. Humans were created in the image of the Elohim, who themselves were created by an even more technologically advanced society.¹⁷

Raëlian cosmology even has an extraterrestrial version of the Fall of Adam. Humans were to live in ignorance of their scientific origins, but they developed an aggressive streak and were expelled from their Edenic laboratory. According to Raël, the cherubim guarding the garden entrance with flaming sword (Gen. 3:24) were soldiers with atomic disintegration weapons, preventing humans from stealing scientific knowledge and becoming intellectually equal to their creators.¹⁸ Ever since their eviction, the primary task for human beings has been to raise their level of collective interplanetary consciousness to the point where they are scientifically and politically mature and technically ready for an earthly reencounter with the Elohim.¹⁹

Who Is Jesus Christ?

Jesus plays a role in Raëlian cosmology as the 38th prophet, followed by Joseph Smith of Mormon fame. Jesus was a product of Mary’s artificial insemination by the president of the Council of the Eternals, that is, Yahweh, the chief Eloha. Raël was similarly born of the union between a human mother and Yahweh, making him half-brother to Jesus. Raël justifies this interbreeding with reinterpretations of Genesis 6:1–4, noting the Elohim had normal carnal desires and passions. The Jews today are supposedly descendants of these couplings.²⁰ The Raëlians also have a scientific explanation for the resurrection of Jesus. It was, they say, a “resuscitation” and type of cloning, performed by the Elohim using a single cell preserved prior to Jesus’ crucifixion.²¹

Eschatology and Life after Death

Most UFO cults place great stress on end-of-the-world scenarios. The Raëlians are no exception. Unlike many UFO cults, however, Raëlians see no immediate need for an otherworldly escape plan. Raël teaches we are now living in the “Age of Apocalypse,” a Messianic age of revelation ushered in by the Hiroshima bombing, the creation of the United Nations (a unified planetary body), and the establishment of the state of Israel.²² There is a related Raëlian teaching that humanity may someday destroy itself; nonetheless, the future is more bright than bleak if you’re a Raëlian.²³ What is now coming to an end is the world and the work of the church. Raël’s understanding of church, however, is quite limited and primarily equated with Catholicism.²⁴ He decries the wealth of the Vatican and calls for an end to “stupid rules,” “meatless Fridays,” and people “who want to make us believe in original sin and who want to make us feel guilty.” Raël also urges an end of belief in such entities as guardian angels, the devil, and an omniscient, omnipotent “Heavenly God.”²⁵ Raëlians anticipate the Elohim will return to earth to officially sanction Raëlianism as the dominant world religion and, if necessary, take followers of the religion to their own planet. A primary goal of the movement is to build an embassy in Israel to welcome the foreign delegation of the Elohim.²⁶ If Raëlians die prior to this event, eternal life can be experienced on the planet of the Elohim, provided their earthly balance sheet tallied up more positives than negatives on a universal computer. It is also essential that a piece of forehead bone be sent to the Guide of Guides after death for a person’s eventual recreation through the mechanism of cloning.²⁷ If people’s negatives outweigh their positives or they don’t provide for bone retrieval, Raël insists they shouldn’t worry. Death, after all, is nothing to be feared; it’s just an endless sleep. If the “terrible event” of suffering (either physical or mental) should accompany the dying process, suicide is recommended. Raël also notes that euthanasia should be offered to those whose suffering “remains incurable.”²⁸

clonaid

The road to eternal life on earth, according to Raëlian doctrine, is paved with DNA, and cloning is the key to immortality. Raël teaches there is no such thing as an individual human soul, but each person has a genetic code capable of technological reincarnation.²⁹ Ethical implications related to Raëlian teachings, specifically their claim to be able to clone a human being, have recently thrust the movement into both public and scientific arenas. In 1997, Raël and a group of investors created Valiant Ventures, Ltd. (now known as Clonaid) from an offshore biotechnology company located in the Bahamas.³⁰ Clonaid’s director is Brigitte Boisselier, a Raëlian Guide, who holds a Ph.D. in physical and analytic chemistry. Until April 2001, Boisselier was also a visiting assistant professor at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. She is now Supervisor of Raëlian Scientific Projects.³¹ Raël claims 10,000 people are expected to avail themselves of Clonaid’s services in the future. Beneficiaries will be couples with fertility problems, couples who have lost a child, couples who want to preserve samples of a living child’s cells for future cloning should that child die, and homosexual couples desiring to have a child who would be a genetic replica of one of the partners. For $50,000, human cells can be sampled and stored through a service called Insuraclone.³² Some have dismissed the Raëlians as a fringe movement whose promise to clone may not translate into the ability to actually do so, ³³ but the movement’s claims cannot be so easily dismissed. Raël and Boisselier both testified on human cloning before the U.S. Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on 28 March 2001.³⁴ The Raëlian entry into the cloning race has raised one primary issue: the need for some form of government regulation in the private sector. The subcommittee hearing was hailed in some corners as being a major step in government efforts to totally ban any and all attempts at human cloning.³⁵ Prior to the hearing, the FDA had sent a letter to Clonaid, warning that the company would be violating federal regulations if human cloning experiments proceeded without government approval.³⁶ Boisselier vowed they would clone anyway; if not in the United States, then in some other country where regulations are more lax. She strongly implied that the first stage of cloning had already been completed.³⁷ The first to be cloned by Boisselier’s team was to be a 10-month-old child, who died unexpectedly during a surgical procedure. Funding for Clonaid’s first experimental year ($500,000) comes from money the child’s parents received from a malpractice settlement with the hospital. $200,000 is the going rate for future clones.³⁸ A cloned human infant is just one elementary step for the Raëlians in a larger program of genetic engineering that bears resemblance to “transhumanism,” a movement afoot particularly in the halls of science and academia (see sidebar). The Raëlians’ primary goal is the direct cloning of older humans with the transfer of memories and personality into new and more youthful bodies in the ultimate eschatological experiment.³⁹

Religious Status and Growth

The government of Quebec has granted religious corporation and tax free status to the Raëlian Church, a curious ruling for a movement that claims to be atheistic.⁴⁰ According to Raëlian teaching, there is no god but science.⁴¹ There is much conceptual fuzziness, however, with respect to their doctrine of the existence and nature of divinity. Raël has written that those religions are correct that understand God to be a concept without identity.⁴² The Raëlian worldview is similar to classical Hinduism in that it is basically monistic: humans are believed to be part of the omnipresent, eternal, impersonal Infinity, where everything and everyone is “linked.” Like Buddhism, however, Raël teaches that there is no such thing as a soul. After death “there is nothing”; one’s personal energy simply blends with all the other energies of the universe. Raëlians reject traditional beliefs in karma and reincarnation, though cloning itself may be a form of genetic reincarnation for those who find the notion dismaying that one’s personal life really amounts to a sum zero with a dispersion of one’s constituent atoms at death. In Raëlianism, “material spirituality” substitutes “god and goddesses” with an awareness of “the unity of mind and matter.”⁴³ There is even more conceptual fuzziness with respect to the nature of the Elohim, who appear to have many godlike capabilities, though Raël insists they are merely an intellectually superior form of humanity.⁴⁴

In most areas, Raëlians play fast and loose with Scripture, but they lean toward biblical literalism in the area of economics: tithing is one of the five Raëlian command­ments. At least one percent of a person’s net annual income is to be given directly to the Guide of Guides of the movement (currently Raël) in order to spread the Elohim message and support his family. When the embassy is built (with servants and a swimming pool), it will become the new family residence. The only inheritance people are to leave their children is their family dwelling; everything else is to be legally willed to the Guide of Guides or, if the possibility exists that a family member might contest the will, given over to the Guide of Guides before the person’s death.⁴⁵

The Raëlian movement has grown considerably since 1973, and its numbers show no signs of dwindling. According to Raëlian statistics, there are 55,000 converts in 84 countries with Canada (Quebec), France, and Japan leading the world in membership.⁴⁶

Raëlian Sexuality

Sociologist Susan Palmer has written that the movement “appears to be one of the rare examples of a new religious movement (NRM) which promotes in its members a tolerance for sexual ambiguity and encourages homosexual expression.”⁴⁷ She notes that experimental and individualistic approaches to redefining sexuality abound and, in fact, may be one of the reasons for the movement’s growth, particularly in French-speaking and predominantly Catholic Quebec.⁴⁸ Although 85 percent of the people of Quebec are Catholic, only 15 percent attend church with any regularity, and spirituality has turned to the “flaky and esoteric,” with 800 sects and religions in Montreal alone.⁴⁹ Cloning may be the issue that has brought the movement national notoriety, but it appears to be the encouragement of multiple forms of sexual expression that is a primary drawing card for those seeking spiritually sanctioned sexual adventures.

The Pleasure Principle

According to a Reuters News Service report, masturbation and communal orgasm as well as sexual freedom and pleasure are foundational behaviors and attitudes encouraged by the Raëlian religion.⁵⁰ In fact, they are taught the techniques of “sensual meditation” in annual worldwide Awakening Seminars.⁵¹ The aim is to decondition and uninhibit the self and broaden tastes and ways of thinking, maximizing the body’s ability to experience pleasure “without the paralysis of society’s guilt.” According to Raël, we are “born for pleasure.”⁵² Raël claims the Elohim recommend freedom of choice with respect to sexual tastes or experiences, including homosexual and bisexual partners. Marriage is discouraged and considered “useless.” The key to societal transformation is personal development of sensuality.⁵³ Sensual education is also advocated for children. Parents are encouraged to awaken children’s minds by awakening their bodies. The thrust of this education appears to be teaching children to use their sexual organs for pleasurable rather than utilitarian purposes.⁵⁴ The Raëlians’ distribution of 10,000 condoms to students at a high school in Montreal in 1992 prompted considerable commentary by the press.⁵⁵

Philosopher-Kings or Master Race?

Sexuality is not the only aspect of the Raëlian Movement that is controversial. In July 1991, the Montreal Gazette noted that the French government had conducted a “series of raids” on homes owned by Raëlians. Shortly thereafter, Raël left France.⁵⁶ Suspicions focused on the Raëlian teaching of “geniocracy,” a political system reminiscent of Plato’s “Republic,” where only geniuses (people with an intellectual capacity at least 50 percent above average) govern the country.⁵⁷ A one-world humanitarian government that rents land to its tenants is also advocated along with a new worldwide currency and a new universal language.⁵⁸ The ghost of Hitler’s master race was also evoked in the choice of the official symbol for the Raëlian Movement, the Star of David with a Swastika in its center, the latter considered by the Raëlians to be an image of the infinity of space and time and the emblem of the Elohim. In 1992, Raël publicly apologized to the Jews for insensitivity to the holocaust and revised the emblem, substituting a swirling galaxy for the Swastika. This appeared to be a strategic move, given the desire to secure a plot of land in Israel to establish their embassy.⁵⁹

The Future of the Raëlian Movement

What the future holds for the Raëlian Movement is unclear. New regulations and legal action may well stop their effort at cloning in its tracks.

In any case, the charismatic leadership of Raël and the appeal of the movement to both sensuality and science may well continue to draw yet another generation seeking a life of ecstasy, courtesy of sensual meditation, or life eternal, courtesy of science and technology. According to the Raëlians, the Elohim have landed, and offer both.

Sharon Fish Mooney is completing her doctoral studies in nursing at the University of Rochester and is a freelance writer and conference speaker.

NOTES

1 Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World (New York: Random House, 1995), 70–71.

2 Robert S. Ellwood, “Spiritualism and UFO Religion in New Zealand: The International Transmission of Modern Spiritual Movements,” in James R. Lewis, ed., The Gods Have Landed: New Religions from Other Worlds (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995), 167-86. See also George Adamski, Inside the Space Ships (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955), and George Adamski and Desmond Leslie, Flying Saucers Have Landed (London: Werner Laurie, 1953).

3 Emanuel Swedenborg, Earths in Our Solar System (Boston: B. A. Whittemore, n.d.).

4 See J. Gordon Melton, “The Contactees: A Survey,” in The Gods Have Landed, 1–13.

5 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning: Eternal Life Thanks to Science, trans. Dr. Marcus Wenner (n.p.: The Raëlian Foundation, 2001).

6 Raël, The True Face of God (n.p.: The Raëlian Religion, 1998). (Note: The True Face of God is a compilation and revision of two other books, previously published in French under the name of Claude Vorilhon. Book One is The Book Which Tells the Truth [1974], 11–110. Book Two is Extra-Terrestrials Took Me to Their Planet [1976], 111–205).

7 Ibid., 13–14.

8 Ibid., 17, 84, 162.

9 Ibid, 206.

10 Ibid., 25–27.

11 Ibid., 28–29.

12 Ibid., 32.

13 Ibid., 46.

14 Ibid., 62.

15 See www.rael.org.

16 Claude Vorilhon Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers from Space: They Created Humanity in Their Laboratories (Tokyo: AOM Corporation, 1986), 1–3. Trans. from the French: Accueillir Les Exra-Terrestres (n.p.: Fondation Raëlienne, 1979).

17 Ibid. See also http://www.rael.org/int/english/summary/summary.html.

18 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 3. See also Raël, The True Face of God, 25–27.

19 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 136.

20 Ibid., 3–4. See also Raël, The True Face of God, 26 and Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 113-16.

21 Raël, The True Face of God, 152.

22 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 117–37; Raël, The True Face of God, 75–76. See also Tages-Anzeiger, “UFO Sect Calls for Suicide,” German Scientology News, 19 June 1999. This reporter believes Raël has suicidal tendencies and advocates suicide to his followers.

23 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 125–36.

24 Vorilhon acknowledged his worldly father was Jewish and his mother was Catholic. See Raël, The Face of God, 72.

25 Ibid., 72–75, 77–78.

26 Ibid., 160. See also http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html.

27 Ibid., 176.

28 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 44–45; Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 89–90; Raël, The True Face of God, 177.

29 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 44.

30 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 87–88. See also www.clonaid.com.

31 Ibid., 89. See also Jeane MacIntosh, “Upstate Prof Quits to Clone Humans,” www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/28091.htm, April 2001.

32 Ibid., 37. See also “Raël Creates the First Human Cloning Company,” 10 March 1997 press release (www.rael.org/int/english/press/clonean).

33 Bioethicist Arthur Caplan, University of Pennsylvania, stated, “The Raëlians are nuts, and I don’t think they can do it.” (Quoted in Adam Pasick, “Religious Sect Vows to Honor Alien Forebears by Cloning Humans,” www.foxnews.com/science/101800/ clone.sml, 19 October 2000.)

34 Rick Weiss, “Scientists Testify on Human Cloning Plans,” Washington Post, 29 March 2001.

35 See Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 157–60 for a transcript of the testimony. See also “Raëlians, Ethicists Face off on Cloning,” Montreal Gazette, 29 March 2001.

36 MacIntosh., 2. See also Weiss, 2001.

37 See Nancy Gibbs, “Baby, It’s You! And You, and You…,” Time, 11 February 2001, 7 (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,98998,00.html).

38 Rick Weiss, “Human Cloning’s ‘Numbers Game,’” Washington Post, 10 October 2000, sect. A. (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/health/specials/genetharapy/A39671-2000Oct9.html). See also http://www.rael.org/int/press_site/english/pages/ press_releases.html for a February 2002 press release about Clonaid’s plans to clone a terminally ill man.

39 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 36–37 and 101–12; Raël, The True Face of God, 209.

40 See www.rael.org.

41 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 81.

42 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 42–45; Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 82.

43 Ibid., 82; The True Face of God, 142–44.

44 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 1–5.

45 Ibid., 13; Raël, The True Face of God, 162–63.

46 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, back cover.

47 Susan Jean Palmer, “Women in the Raëlian Movement: New Religious Experiments in Gender and Authority,” in The Gods Have Landed, 105–35.

48 Ibid.

49 Taras Grescoe, “Raël Love: A Gorgeous Group of Alien Spawn Hones a Hedonistic Hankering for Sex,” www.salon.com/travel/feature/2000/03/08/raelians/index/html, 8 March 2000.

50 Reuters News Service, 6 August 1997. Cited by Marty Butz in “Profile: The Raëlian Religion,” http://www.watchman.org/profile/raelianpro.htm.

51 Claude Vorilhon Raël, Sensual Meditation: Awakening the Mind by Awakening the Body (Tokyo: AOM Corporation, 1986).

52 Raël, Yes to Human Cloning, 11.

53 Raël, Let’s Welcome Our Fathers, 64–65; Raël, The True Face of God, 175.

54 Ibid., 68, 77–81; Raël, Sensual Meditation, 129–30. See also Raël, The True Face of God, 170–72.

55 Jan Wong, “Clone Artist,” The Toronto Globe and Mail, 7 April 2001.

56 The Montreal Gazette, 22 July 1991. Cited by Butz.

57 Raël, The True Face of God, 85–87.

58 Ibid., 87–93.

59 Ibid., 206–10.

The Branch Davidians- How It All Began

The way David Koresh’s cult came into existence is a long and sometimes complicated story. It began with a man named Victor Houteff, who in 1929/30 was disfellowshipped from a Los Angeles Seventh-day Adventist church for sharing “divergent views” with other church members.¹ Houteff, a self-proclaimed messenger of God,² responded to the expulsion by crystallizing his “divergent views” and presenting them to the public in The Shepherd’s Rod Vol. 1 (published in 1930) and The Shepherd’s Rod Vol. 2 (published in 1932).³

The purpose of Houteff’s first book was “to reveal the truth of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7” and “bring about a reformation among God’s people.”⁴ He described his second volume as “a complete symbolic revelation of the entire world’s history, both civil and religious.”⁵ These two works served as the basis of Houteff’s theology, hence, the original name of his group — the Shepherd’s Rod Seventh-day Adventists.

In 1935 Houteff led 12 of his followers to Mt. Carmel, Texas in order to set up what was suppose to be only a temporary gathering place for the 144,000, their ultimate destination being Palestine, where they believed they would not only direct the final work of the gospel prior to the second coming of Christ, but also assist in establishing the new Davidic kingdom.⁶

Although the Shepherd’s Rod tried for many years to remain affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventists, Houteff in 1942 decided to make a clean break from the mainline denomination by officially forming the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists Association “complete with membership certificates and ministerial credits.”⁷ The name “Davidian” came from Houteff’s belief that he was the antitypical “David”⁸ (When something in Scripture is referred to as a “type,” that means it is a foreshadow of something in the future. An “antitype” is that future thing itself. For example, the sacrificial systems of the Old Testament served as a “type” for the sacrificial death of Christ [the “antitype”].)

The Davidians ended up staying in Mt. Carmel for 20 years during which time the sect reached their largest membership of approximately 10,000 worldwide,⁹ with as many as 125 living at the Mt. Cannel headquarters.¹⁰ In 1955 Houteff died and the mantle of prophetic leadership fell to his wife Florence.

The Branch Davidians- The End of Houteff’s Davidians

The beginning of the end for Houteff’s group occurred when Florence made an official call for the faithful to gather at Mt. Carmel during the week of April 16 to April 22, 1959. According to Florence, April 22 would mark the end of the 1,260 days mentioned in Revelation chapter 11¹¹ as well as the beginning of the judgments listed in Ezekiel chapter 9.¹² The day was also suppose to witness God’s clearing out of all the Jews and Arabs from Palestine,¹³ the ushering in of the Davidic kingdom,¹⁴ and possibly the second coming of Christ.¹⁵

In response to Florence’s announcement more than 1,000 “true believers” sold all their possessions, gave their money to the church, and gathered at Mt. Carmel. Their only reward was to see April 22 come and go.^l6 The result of Florence Houteff’s failed prophecy was the disillusionment of many believers who either left the Davidian movement altogether, or joined one of the several factions that broke off from the main sect. By the late 1960’s Houteffs original group had, in effect, ceased to exist.

The “Branch” Davidians

The largest faction resulting from the disintegration of Houteff’s sect remained near Mt. Carmel and was led by a man named Benjamin Roden, who claimed that his arrival at Mt. Carmel on April 22 was the “sign” Houteff’s followers had been waiting for.¹⁷ Roden named his faction the Branch Davidians and declared himself to be the one sent by God to deliver the message of the fifth angel spoken of in the Book of Revelation.¹⁸

When Ben Roden died in 1978, Branch Davidian leadership was assumed by Ben’s wife Lois (the one who would deliver the message of the sixth angel of Revelation).¹⁹ When Lois passed away in 1986, George Roden (son of Lois and Ben) took over.

George Roden, like his parents, believed himself to be a divinely appointed messenger of God, the one, in fact, who would deliver the message of the apocalyptic seventh angel.²⁰ According to George, he had inherited what he called “the divine seal and crown” and his message would be a last warning in the final days — one directed to a world on the brink of seeing the fulfillment of God’s judgments as proclaimed in Ezekiel chapter 9.²¹ George eventually claimed he was the messiah²² and the son of Christ.²³

The Rise of Vernon Howell (a.k.a. David Koresh)

Vernon Howell (hereafter referred to as David Koresh) arrived at the Branch Davidian compound in 1981 after being disfellowshipped from a Tyler, Texas Seventh-day Adventist church. Although well received by nearly everyone at the Davidian commune, Koresh did not get along with George Roden, some saying that conflict between the two started as early as 1983²⁴ (the year Koresh first claimed to be inspired of God).²⁵

The Davidian commune soon began to experience internal strife due to the rivalry between Koresh and Roden. Then Koresh suddenly left the commune and settled in Palestine, Texas, where he was joined in 1985 by Branch Davidians who had been run off of the Branch Davidian compound at gunpoint by Roden. Koresh and his followers remained in Palestine for nearly 2 years, living in scarcely more than cardboard and plywood shacks until late 1987 when the conflict between Koresh and Roden culminated in a gunfight.

The heavily publicized shoot-out occurred when Koresh and several armed men made a night raid on the compound where Roden was still living. Koresh and seven of his followers were subsequently arrested and charged with attempted murder because Roden claimed that Koresh and the others were trying to kill him. Koresh maintained that he and the other men were there only to take a photograph of a body that Roden illegally exhumed. Roden had apparently challenged Koresh to resurrect the body, stating that whoever could resurrect it would be the prophet of the group.²⁶

The bizarre trial that resulted from this incident ended with Koresh and his cohorts walking from the courtroom as free men. Roden, on the other hand, was given a six-month jail term²⁷ for filing a legal brief in which he threatened to call AIDS upon the justices of the Texas State Supreme Court.²⁸

When Roden began serving his sentence in January of 1988, Koresh and his disciples were handed a long-awaited opportunity to take over the Branch Davidian compound, the site of their bloody 1993 clash with the law. (For an overview of Branch Davidian history, see the chronological chart at the end of this statement.)

The Branch Davidians- Doctrinal Beliefs

Branch Davidian doctrines fall into three basic categories: first, those which seem to be a result of the cult’s Seventh-day Adventist roots (these came through Houteff); second, those originating with the Rodens; third, those that came through David Koresh (by either “divine revelation” or misinterpretation of the Bible).

The first category would include:

1 — sabbatarianism (the belief that the seventh-day Sabbath must be observed).²⁹

2 — vegetarianism³⁰ (although not all Seventh-day Adventists are vegetarians).

3 — abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and non-medicinal drugs.³¹

4 — an excessive preoccupation with prophecy.

Although number four above cannot technically be considered a doctrine, it is an important aspect of the mindset of Branch Davidian members. Furthermore, since Branch Davidian membership is largely made up of former Adventists, it would probably be safe to assume that the Davidian cult’s obsession with prophecy is in some way directly linked to the mainline denomination’s affinity for, and occasional overemphasis on, prophetic passages of Scripture.

Doctrines originating with the Rodens include:

1 — Christians must keep the feast days of Old Testament Israel, including Passover, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement (although no sacrifices are made), and the Feast of Tabernacles.³²

2 — The Holy Spirit is female.³³

3 — Lois Roden was the incarnation of the Holy Spirit.³⁴

The teachings of David Koresh caused the beliefs of the Branch Davidian cult to withdraw even further from the realm of orthodoxy. The following doctrines came from Koresh:

1 — The King James Version (KJV) is the only true and uncorrupted translation of the Bible.³⁵

2 — Koresh is the only one who can interpret Scripture.³⁶

3 — Koresh is the antitypical David.³⁷

4 — Koresh is the antitypical Cyrus (Koresh is Hebrew for Cyrus) of Isaiah 45, and so everything Koresh does is led by God (based on the KJV rendering of Is. 45:13).³⁸

5 — David Koresh is the Lamb of Revelation 6.³⁹

6 — All females in the commune belong to Koresh, including all married women (this was a 1989 revelation).⁴⁰ Some of his “wives” have been as young as 12 years old.

7 — Koresh is Jesus Christ.⁴¹

Obviously, the Branch Davidians have departed radically from the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. In fact, Koresh’s heretical teachings actually number far too many to list in this brief statement. Even the very nature of the godhead has been perverted by Koresh in a most unusual way. According to Koresh, God is not a triune being (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but is a foursome (Father, Mother, Son, and Daughter). The Mother of the godhead is the Holy Spirit. The Daughter of the godhead is the Holy Ghost (KJV) who will be incarnated as Koresh’s eternal perfect mate when he is glorified (she will come out of his side like Eve came out of Adam).⁴²

Given the above facts, Koresh’s Branch Davidian group easily fits the theological definition of a cult. It also fits the sociological definition, given the stories told by ex­-members who claim to have seen the following (all of which represent classic marks of a cult from a sociological perspective):

1 — extreme child abuse (e.g. physical beatings until child is bruised and bleeding, and isolation).⁴³

2 — beatings of disobedient members.⁴⁴

3 — severe food deprivation as punishment.⁴⁵

4 — outside family ties severed.⁴⁶

5 — sleep deprivation of members.⁴⁷

6 — the use of fear and intimidation against members who disagree with Koresh.⁴⁸

7 — isolation from ex-members.⁴⁹

The Branch Davidians- Conclusion

The Branch Davidian cult proved to be an extremely destructive group when nearly 100 of its members died in a fire that consumed their compound on April 19, 1993. Numerous individuals involved in it had already been subjected to beatings, sexual abuse, emotional trauma, mental torture, and spiritual ruin. Whether or not the events of 1993 in Waco, Texas will entirely mark the end of the Branch Davidian cult remains to be seen. Consequently, CRI will continue to closely monitor the activities of those who survived the tragedy that took place.

Chronological Chart of Branch Davidian History

DATE EVENT

1929/30 Victor Houteff is disfellowshipped from a Seventh-day Adventist church in Los Angeles.

1930 Houteff publishes The Shepherd’s Rod Vol. 1.

1932 Houteff publishes The Shepherd’s Rod Vol. 2.

1935 Houteff leads 12 of his followers to Mt. Carmel, Texas

1942 The Shepherd’s Rod Seventh-day Adventist group becomes the Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Association.

1955 Victor Houteff dies, and his wife Florence becomes the group’s leader. Soon afterwards, Florence issues a prophecy marking April 22, 1959 as “the end.”

1959 More than 1,000 Davidians gather at Mt. Carmel Texas between April 16 and April 22. On April 22 nothing happens and Houteffs group begins to disintegrate. One break-away faction is led by Ben Roden who names his group the Branch Davidians.

1977 Lois Roden allegedly has a vision which reveals to her that the Holy Spirit is female.

1978 Ben Roden dies and Lois Roden assumes control of the Davidians.

1981 Vernon Howell (David Koresh) is disfellowshipped from a Tyler, Texas Seventh-day Adventist church and moves to the Davidian compound.

1983 Koresh claims to be divinely inspired and friction continues to develop between him and Lois Roden’s son George.

1984/5 Koresh leaves the commune and moves to Palestine, Texas.

1985 Numerous Branch Davidians are run off the Branch Davidian compound at gunpoint by George Roden.

1986 Lois Roden dies and George takes over the compound and claims leadership of all Davidians world-wide.

1987 A shoot-out takes place between Roden and Koresh.

1988 Koresh and others involved in the 1987 gun battle are acquitted of all charges. Roden is imprisoned, allowing Koresh and his disciples to take over the compound. Koresh is now the undisputed leader of the Branch Davidians.

2/28/93 Lawmen and Branch Davidians engage in a 45-minute gun battle.

4/19/93 The Branch Davidian compound burns to the ground, killing nearly 100 cult members including David Koresh.

Notes

1. Statement by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 3/2/93, p. 1

2. J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, p. 565

3. Ibid.

4. Victor Houteff, The Shepherd’s Rod Vol. 1, Introduction

5. Victor Houteff, The Shepherd’s Rod,Vol. 2, p. 10

6. J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, p. 565

7. Ibid.

8. Statement by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 3/2/93, p. 1

9. Dallas Morning News, 11/15/87, p. 47A

10. J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, p. 565

11. Ibid.

12. Statement by ex-member Marc Breault, 5/27/91

13. J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, p. 565

14. Ibid.

15. Dallas Morning News, 11/15/87, p. 47A

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Waco Tribune-Herald, 4/26/88, p. 8A

23. Waco Tribune-Herald, 4/14/88, p. 1C

24. Waco Tribune-Herald, 1/17/93 p. 8A

25. Statement by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 3/2/93

26. Waco Tribune-Herald, 1/17/88 p. 8A / Confirmed by ex-Branch Davidian member David Bunds, interviewed 3/4/93

27. Waco Tribune-Herald, 4/14/88 p. 1C

28. Waco Tribune-Herald, 1/17/88 p. lA

29. Dallas Morning News, 11/15/87, p. 47A

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Statement by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 3/2/93, p. 2

33. Ibid.

34. Statement by ex-member David Bunds, interview 3/5/93

35. Statement by ex-member Marc Breault, 5/27/91, p. 13

36. Statement by ex-member Marc Breault, 5/27/91, p. 16

37. Statement by ex-member Marc Breault, 5/27/91, p. 11

38. Statement by ex-member Marc Breault, 5/27/91, p. 11-12

39. Statement by ex-member David Bunds, interview 3/5/93

40. Ibid.

41. Statement by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 3/2/93, p. 4

42. Statement by ex-member David Bunds, interview 3/5/93

43. Statement by ex-member Marc Breault, 5/27/91, p. 18-19

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Statement by ex-member David Bunds, interview 3/5/93

49. Statement by ex-member David Bunds, interview 3/5/93

This legitimate question may be answered by keeping the following biblically-based theses or principles in mind. While it may be that an occasional exceptional cultist may, for reasons perhaps unknown to us, actually be saved, our presumption should be that any member of a cult is in darkness and needs to be reached with the light “of the glory of God in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). Our only assumption in what follows is that the Bible gives us absolutely reliable information on this and any other subject it addresses.

THESIS #1: Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as Lord will be saved.

This principle may be derived directly without commentary from Jesus’ own words in Matthew 7:21. Thus, we should not fall into the mistake of thinking that if a cultist acknowledges that Jesus is his Lord, then he is saved. Two reasons why a person might be unsaved who acknowledges Jesus as Lord can be imagined. One is that their acknowledgment does not go beyond lip service, as demonstrated by their refusal to obey Him as Lord (Luke 6:46). The other is that what they understand by the meaning of calling Jesus “Lord” is so different from the biblical meaning that their acknowledgment is not what the Bible means by confessing Jesus as Lord. This leads us to our second thesis.

THESIS #2: Many who claim to acknowledge Jesus actually believe in another Jesus, and are either deceiving or deceived.

Again, we have the simple words of Scripture to prove that this is the case, in 2 Corinthians 11:4. Evidently, the apostle’s meaning is that many will speak of faith in “Jesus,” but their understanding of who and what Jesus is differs so much from reality that in truth they do not have faith in the real Jesus at all. Some of these individuals are no doubt insincere, and Paul warns of “deceitful workers who disguise themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13). Yet, Paul also tells the Corinthians that he is concerned that some of them might actually be “led astray” (2 Cor. 11:3b) by such deceivers. Thus, it is possible for sincere people, even people who were a part of the fellowship of true Christians, to be deceived into following “another Jesus.” Not that they are not to blame and are perfectly innocent; rather, they are like Eve, who though deceived by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3a), was guilty of sin and held accountable by God (Gen. 3:1-6, 13-16).

THESIS #3: Zeal in religious matters, such as the pursuit of a right standing with God or the

winning of others to one’s beliefs, does not guarantee or prove that one is or will be saved.

Two texts of Scripture in particular bear on this point. In Romans 10:2 Paul says of his Jewish brethren who rejected Jesus, “they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge.” Zeal, of course, implies what we call sincerity — that is, the mental state of believing that what one is promoting is based on truth. The Jews who rejected Jesus were for the most part zealous, and therefore sincere; but they were still lost (9:1-3; 10:1). Their zeal was in particular for a right standing with God; but they sought it on the basis of their own works rather than the righteousness which was available in Christ (10:3-4), and as a result were lost. The second text that bears on this point is Matthew 23:15, which graphically illustrates the truth that zeal in seeking converts does not prove that one’s beliefs are correct or that one is saved.

THESIS #4: No human being truly seeks for God unless God’s Spirit draws that individual;

therefore, those that appear to seek for God but do not come in God’s way are not seeking for God at all.

In Romans 3:11 Paul quotes Psalm 14:2 to the effect that “there is none who seeks for God.” In context, Paul is speaking of the universal hold that sin has over the human race; and his point is that sin has so perverted our desires that none of us, by our own wishes, is looking for God. This is because “the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God” (Rom. 8:7). Of course, some people do seek for God, otherwise God would not call upon us to seek Him (Isa. 55:6, etc.). But when people seek God, it is only because God has first sought them and drawn them to Him by His grace (Luke 19:10; John 6:44; 15:16). Therefore, when people appear to be “seeking God” — when they study the Bible, attend meetings, pray, change their lifestyles, attempt to obey the commandments, even speak of their love for God and Christ — yet worship a false God or honor a false Christ, or follow a false way of salvation, we must conclude that they were not really seeking God. Rather, they may have been seeking spiritual power, or security, or warm relationships, or knowledge, or excitement, or anything other than simply God. And in saying this, we are not claiming that all genuine Christians on the other hand were seeking purely and simply after God. No, our testimony must be that we were following our own divergent path, when God sought us and stopped us in our way, and led us up a new and narrow path leading to salvation in Jesus Christ (Matt. 7:13).

THESIS #5: Any member of a cult who truly desires to know the truth

about God and His way of salvation above all else can and will be saved.

Jesus promised that “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). However, we must come to the true Jesus, and on His terms. Judas came to the true Jesus, but he did not come on Jesus’ terms, and was lost (John 17:12). The cost of leaving a cult is great — the loss of friends, the embarrassment of admitting error, the threat that all who leave the cult are lost. For anyone who puts truth and the One who is truth above these things, however, salvation is available.

The biblical pattern for successful witnessing to those trapped in the cults is especially encouraging to Christians who have loved ones or family members ensnared in one of the myriad cults thriving on spiritual deception. Although the anguish and fear we experience for our loved one is sharp, God has given us effective means to bring the light of the gospel in the midst of religious darkness. While most Christians are not called to a career of sharing the gospel with cultists, every Christian has the obligation to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet. 3:15). For many Christians, this responsibility is especially acute because we have loved ones who are cultists.

Cult Mind Control- PRINCIPLES FOR PARENTS

Of course, we would prefer that our loved ones never join cults. Even if they do, God can give us an effective antidote through His Word. We will consider that later, but for now we will consider the principles for prevention. How can we guard our children against cult recruitment?

It all boils down to meeting the emotional and spiritual needs of our children with the nourishment provided by the Word of God. Children will not need to seek fulfillment in a cult if they have grown up fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Our experiences over 25 years of cult evangelism ministry and 20 years of parenthood have shown us that there are five important steps to producing children secure from the temptations of the world and the cults.

First, you must practice a cohesive and consistent Christian view of life (2 Cor. 10:4–5). This means that your actions should reflect your Christian commitment. Paul said, “And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ — to the glory and praise of God” (Phil. 1:9–11).

A favorite complaint against “Christendom” by the cults is that Christians are hypocrites — they teach one thing and do another. By maintaining a consistent Christian walk and openly facing the challenges of the world with the truth of God’s Word (2 Cor. 5:16–17), your family need never give your children occasion to see such a criticism leveled at themselves, their parents, or their family.

Even when you stumble in your Christian walk, God can use the experience to bring the focus back to His perfection manifested in Jesus Christ, instead of your own imperfections. When children protest that their parents have not acted like Christians, they are showing that they know how Christians should act. This can be a constructive experience when the erring parent admits his or her fault, agrees with the child’s grasp of biblical conduct, and focuses on the forgiveness and reconciliation available in Christ.

Second, provide your children with a sound Bible background. A close familiarity with the Bible will prepare your children before the cults challenge their faith. By learning proper Bible study and interpretation at home, children are protected from the cults’ replacement of Bible study with biased cultic literature and unsound cultic interpretations of the Bible. It is especially important that your children learn to study the Bible for what it says, noting context, language, history, and sound argumentation. When they become familiar with understanding the Bible, they will not be satisfied with cultic interpretations that depend on secret meanings, subjective experiences, or autocratic pronouncements.

Third, be sure you are aware of your children’s emotional needs and that you are fulfilling those needs in accordance with God’s will, as revealed in the Bible. Children need love, discipline, respect, comfort, joy, and all the other kinds of nurturing that help shape an adult with a well-developed personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Don’t let your children starve for spiritual nourishment so that even the toxic diet of the cults is appealing to them.

Fourth, don’t neglect your children’s objective spiritual needs. Many well-intentioned people join cults because their desire to serve God and feel close to Him has been frustrated at home and in their traditional churches. We have a close friend (who now helps people get out of the cults) who first joined a cult because he wanted to serve God but didn’t see anyone around him working zealously for God — except the people in the cult he joined. Provide your children with the spiritual instruction, discipline, and practice they need, and also provide them with opportunities to be used by God in reaching other people. It is frustrating to want to do something for God but then have everyone tell you that you are not old enough. By allowing your children a place in ministry, you reinforce their relationship to God and strengthen your family’s defenses against the world.

Fifth, commit your family to a church that practices the New Testament functions of the body of Christ. Christians need one another; God did not intend for us to live our Christian lives apart from our fellow believers. Paul warned that those who are not grounded in the church are in danger of falling to false teachings:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Eph. 4:11–16)

Your family needs the strong support of a church committed to biblical principles of discipleship and evangelism.

Cult Mind Control- WITNESSING TO CULTISTS

Sometimes, despite our best efforts, people we love join cults and seem hopelessly lost in heresy. Often we understand at least some of what might have lured them away from Christ, but we feel ill–equipped to rescue them. What they say and do can hurt us more than any false pronouncement of a cult.

Although it might take less effort to ignore the problem, our love for them and our obedience to Christ should compel us to speak the truth in love and to persevere in bringing the light of the gospel to the darkness they have entered. While it is true that many people who convert to cults as adults lose their enthusiasm and become inactive within five years, your loving intervention all along will give such people the light of the true gospel, which alone can satisfy our deepest human need for reconciliation with God.

First, and perhaps most important, love the cultist with the love of Christ. Love “is not rude, it is not self–seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:5–7). Although your loved one’s defection to the cults hurts you and you fear for his eternal destiny, and his spiritual blindness frustrates you, remember that God’s love for him should flow through you with the same mercy and grace God showed you in Christ. Romans 5:8 reveals this unconditional love: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” You can love him by the grace of God even though you clearly disagree with what he has been taught.

Sometimes the result of such biblical commitment reaps blessings far beyond what was originally envisioned. Many years ago, a Jehovah’s Witness talked with us on the phone, and we invited him to stay with us (he lived 3,000 miles away) when he came to our area to visit. He couldn’t believe we were willing to open our home to him, a Jehovah’s Witness, when our occupation was to combat the teachings of the Watchtower and other cults. We spent hour after hour with him on the phone and kept reassuring him of our love for him and our desire to communicate truth to him. As a result of our continued work with him, and the work of other committed Christians, he left the Watchtower and committed his life to Jesus Christ. Sharing the gospel has become second nature to him. God has opened opportunities for him to share the gospel in mainland China, Japan, and other Pacific nations. He knows from firsthand experience that the love of Christ works miracles!

Second, let your life be an example to your loved one of what a difference Christ can make. Your loved one who has joined a cult has probably been told that all of “Christendom” is hypocritical, and that she was lucky to get away from her family with its surface–level commitment to God’s cause. If you maintain a consistent Christian life, your loved one won’t be able to agree with what she is being taught. Let your life prove the cult wrong.

Don’t despair if you have strayed from Christ in the past, or if your own spiritual commitment has been inconsistent. Keep your focus on Christ. Commit yourself to following Christ every day and point your loved one to the perfection that is in Christ despite your own shortcomings. As she hears you sharing the Scriptures and sees your life changing by the power of the Holy Spirit, she will gain a new respect for you and she will listen more openly when you share your concerns about her cultic beliefs.

Third, in a loving and nonaggressive way, share with your loved one information on the cult and its heretical teachings. Don’t shove anticult literature down his throat. Lovingly ask if he would help you understand his beliefs and how they relate to the Bible. Share with him your concern that he make responsible decisions about what he is being taught. Express to him your confidence that the truth expressed in the Bible is the standard by which all beliefs, ideas, and practices are to be judged — including the cult’s. There are many cultists who don’t know the implications of what they believe or the true teachings of the Bible. Help get them on the road to a responsible personal choice concerning their beliefs.

Fourth, show your loved one that her emotional and spiritual needs (which probably drew her to the cult in the first place) can be met truly and permanently in a personal relationship with the Jesus of the Bible. She doesn’t need an organization or leader mediating between her and God. “We have one who speaks to the Father in our defense — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1).

Fifth, pray for your loved one in a cult. Your family should pray for him. You should be part of a church that is regularly and specifically praying for him. Prayer is powerful, and God uses our prayer as part of the orchestration of His plan. Not only will prayer prove effective for your loved one, but it will also strengthen you. As David said, “When I called, you answered me; you made me bold and stouthearted” (Ps. 138:3).

It is possible for your loved one to leave the bondage of the cults and to enjoy freedom in Christ Jesus. Jesus can reach your loved one and draw him or her to salvation and away from cultism. Thousands of ex–cultists are testimony to the power of God working through His people in the Body of Christ.

Bob and Gretchen Passantino direct Answers in Action, an apologetics, cult evangelism, and discipleship organization in Costa Mesa, California.

During this time, I did not know my religion was a cult, or that it was not considered Christian. I was convinced Christian Science had the truth — that God is Infinite Mind and all is mental. I believed that Jesus was simply a human being who demonstrated the “Christ Truth,” just as you and I can when we become as spiritually advanced as He was. Jesus was not so unique, I thought; He was simply a Way-Shower.

In 1969 I went (alone) to hear Billy Graham preach in the Anaheim Stadium in California. I was curious about him because he was so famous. I don’t know why I did it, but at the end of the service I went forward and received prayer.

After I sat back down, an evil pres­ence came to me. It told me I would be dead before the night was over. I nearly panicked. I asked God to forgive me for my being there and for my disloyalty to Christian Science. The evil thing left me, and I blamed it all on Billy Graham. After that, I forgot the whole affair.

Since my religion was supposed to be based on the Bible, I tried to read the Bible and understand it, but I found much of it too difficult. Then, in 1975, it occurred to me to form a Bible study group using Christian Science materials. I proposed this to my church, but noth­ing came of it.

By this time I was old enough to be a grandmother, yet I had never been invit­ed to a Bible study. So I was pleasantly surprised when two women, whom I did not know, knocked on my door one day and invited me to a home Bible study with the Christian Women’s Club. I later learned that God had prompted these two women (separately) to go door-to-door in my neighborhood. I was the only one to accept their invitation.

After many months of study, I started seeing verses in my Bible that I had read and yet had never really been aware of. My conception of God and His plan for man started to change. It began to dawn on me that Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder and leader of Christian Science, had taken the place of Jesus for those involved in her religion.

In the Christian Science Church Manual, Mrs. Eddy had said she was the only one to be called Leader. In Matthew 23:10 (NAS), however, Jesus said He was the only one to be called Leader. I was faced with two different individuals — both claiming to be my only leader.

I had been taught that Christian Science was the “Revelation,” that Mrs. Eddy was the “Revelator,” and that we cannot know the Revelation unless we know the Revelator. And, of course, we have to know the Revelation in order to know God. What this ultimately meant was that the only way we could know God was by going through Mrs. Eddy.

Contrary to this, I saw in my Bible study that Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). So, Mrs. Eddy and Jesus both claimed to be the way to God.

One day during our home study, we came to Matthew 16:15 where Jesus asked His disciples who they said He was. The disciples answered, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” But Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16). Jesus responded, “This was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven” (v. 17).

After the women in the home Bible study left, those words kept ringing in my mind. It was as though Jesus was asking me personally. “Who do you say I am?” He seemed very stern about it. Poring over Mrs. Eddy’s statements, it became clear that she denied that Jesus is Christ (see, for example, her book entitled Miscellaneous Writings, p. 84). But Jesus said He is Christ. Jesus was asking me in my heart, Do you believe her or Me?

At first, I didn’t know. I cried. I threshed it about in my mind. I came to the decision that if Jesus could do the miracles He did, He certainly should know who He is. I concluded that Jesus must be the Christ.

The Holy Spirit also revealed to me through Scripture that Jesus, far from being just a man (as Christian Science teaches), is, in the Incarnation, God in human flesh. John’s gospel proclaims, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….[and] The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1, 14). In the Incarnation, Jesus was perfect humanity and perfect deity.

After Jesus was crucified for our sins and gloriously resurrected from the dead, “doubting” Thomas put his hand in Jesus’ side and called Him, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). If Thomas had been wrong in his assess­ment of Jesus’ true identity, Jesus cer­tainly would have corrected him. Thus, through my Bible study, I had learned that Jesus is the Christ, and that He is God — something that is denied by Mrs. Eddy.

Another issue I had to grapple with is the Christian Science teaching that man is perfect and sinless. When a per­son dies, Christian Science teaches, only his belief of matter dies. Man is spiritual, and at “death” he goes on doing whatever he was doing, for death is simply an illusion. Moreover, since all is “mind,” hell and heaven are only states of mind.

The Bible, however, repeatedly affirms that all men are sinners. They cannot come to God without a blood atonement. And, according to Scripture, Jesus — the Lamb of God — became the perfect and final blood sacrifice for the atonement of man’s sins (Matt. 20:28).

If man is sinless, like Mrs. Eddy taught, then Jesus suffered on the cross for nothing. In fact, it would appear as if Jesus was too stupid to know why He died. I read in my Bible, however, that when Jesus was eating with the disciples, He took a cup and handed it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). I cannot believe that Jesus was either stupid or a liar. He knew what He was saying and He meant it.

I also read in Hebrews 9:27 that “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” So death is real, and sinful men will one day appear before God at the judgment seat and be judged for sins and cast into eternal damnation (hell) — unless they trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 16:31).

I hated the thought of anyone going to hell. As a Christian Scientist, I didn’t think it could possibly be true. But as disturbing as I felt it was, I now realized that Jesus Himself had taught it. I also realized that if it were true, it would be even more disturbing if Jesus didn’t warn people about eternal damnation. Though I had had trouble believing that a good God could allow such a condi­tion to exist, I also realized that I didn’t make the rules and God didn’t ask me my opinion. As God said in Isaiah, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways” (Isa. 55:8).

I came to see more and more clearly that Christian Science flatly contradict­ed what Jesus said about the state of our existence after we pass on from this life. Up until now, I had always read past Jesus’ words about hell, thinking that He was speaking in a parable, and that Mrs. Eddy’s spiritual interpretation explained it all. It suddenly occurred to me, as chills ran up and down my spine, that maybe the Bible actually meant what it said.

From a human viewpoint, some of Mrs. Eddy’s ideas may sound appealing (e.g., there is no sin, no death, no judgment day, and no hell). But a study of Scripture shows that her teachings are permeated with error. The more I stud­ied, the more I found this to be true.

I had been believing in Mrs. Eddy to guide me for my eternal life, and I came to see that she didn’t know any more (really) than I did. She was only another mortal. Moreover, when she died, her body stayed in the grave. She didn’t come back. Therefore, she can’t really testify as to what goes on after death because she had never been there when she wrote her book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Jesus had been to the grave and back; He resurrected from the dead. To me, that gives Him a lot more credibility than Mrs. Eddy.

Mrs. Eddy had said that she based her teachings on revelation, reason, and demonstration. Her “revelation” was Christian Science, which I discovered to be neither Christian nor scientific. She didn’t “demonstrate” very much because she didn’t overcome death (like Jesus did). As for “reason,” Isaiah 55:9 says, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my (God’s) ways high­er than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” I would not want to gamble my future in eternity on one woman’s reasoning.

I read in the Bible that in the end times false prophets and false Christs would arise (Matt. 24:23-28). Mrs. Eddy had denied that Jesus is the Christ and put herself in His place as being the only Leader and the only way to God. So, I concluded, Mrs. Eddy was a false prophet.

I resigned from the Christian Science church. As a result of my Bible study, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and my God. He is the only way to salvation. (And let me emphasize, He did not come to show the way; rather, He is the way.) I will confess Him and Him alone as Lord and Savior.

There is so much more to say. But I pray that the Holy Spirit will use this brief testimony to show people involved in the Mind Sciences — whether it be Christian Science, Religious Science, Divine Science, Unity, or one of the others — that Jesus is truly God come in the flesh, and that He died for us on the cross. If we do not believe in Him, we will not spend eternity with God; rather, we will be cast into outer dark­ness (2 Pet. 2:17; Jude 1:13).

I now belong to a group of ex-­Christian Scientists who are all born again Christians. We have a ministry called “Christian Way.” Our primary goal is to share the salvation message with those in the Mind Sciences. If we can help you, please don’t hesitate to write.

Carolyn Poole may be contacted by writing to Christian Way, P.O. Box 1675, Lancaster, CA 93539.

The cases — six of them in all, including three in California — represent the largest assault in history against Christian Science reliance on prayer instead of medical treatment to cure dis­ease, according to Rita Swan of the Sioux City Iowa-based orga­nization, Children’s Health-care is a Legal Duty (CHILD).

Christian Science began in 1875 with the publication of Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health. About the same time the organization of “Chris­tian Scientists,” an association of Mrs. Eddy’s students, formed to learn the finer points of her mind cure techniques. In 1879 the organization incorporated under its official name — The Church of Christ, Scientist.

Although 44 states have enacted laws to prevent prose­cution of Christian Scientists on the basis of religious beliefs, a growing number of prosecutors are going after parents on the basis of child abuse statutes. Child abuse is not directly allud­ed to in most of the statutes pro­tecting Christian Scientists.

The Massachusetts law pro­tecting Christian Scientists passed by the state legislature in 1971 is similar to that of other states. Prosecutors argue that although it shields parents from charges of child neglect, it does not deal with child abuse. It reads: “A child shall not be deemed to be neglected or lack proper physical care for the sole reason that he is being provided remedial treatment by spiritual means alone.”

One of the two most publicized cases in recent months is taking place in Massachusetts. It involves Nathan Talbot, the top legal and public relations official working out of the church’s worldwide headquarters in Boston. Talbot allegedly advised Christian Science parents David and Ginger Twitchell to not give their dying boy medical treatment. This case was recently highlighted on the CBS program “60 Minutes.”

According to the “60 Min­utes” report, Robin Twitchell, 2, died on April 3, 1986, after suffering for five days from a congenital bowel obstruction. Consequently, his parents were charged with manslaughter.

On “60 Minutes” Mr. Twitchell said he blamed him­self for his son’s death, not for failing to seek a doctor, but because he “failed” in his “belief”. He said he prayed over his baby every night.

But District Attorney New­man Flanagan takes a dimmer view of the parents’ actions: “They’ve lost a child,” he said. “But that child had an awful, awful death….When parents act wanton and reckless and allow their child to die it’s a crime and they’ll be prosecuted for it.”

David Rodman of the Suf­folk County (Boston) District Attorney’s office said the case will not be decided for some time; motions are scheduled to be filed by mid-March, and a long trial could follow.

The other highly publicized case involves charges of third-degree murder and child abuse. William and Christine Her­manson of Sarasota, Florida, are accused of killing their dia­betic daughter by denying her insulin injections.

Amy Hermanson, 7, died in September 1986. She had been ill for eight days and her dia­betes worsened before an anonymous complaint alerted authorities. A local Court ordered medical intervention, but the girl was dead by the time paramedics arrived at the Hermansons’ home.

In December the Hermanson’s tried to block their prose­cution on grounds of religious freedom by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. But Jus­tice Anthony M. Kennedy denied the emergency request without comment. The case is scheduled to be tried before Sarasota Circuit Judge Alan Dakan, and is expected to be heard in the upcoming months.

The door for the above and other cases to be prosecuted was opened by a recent ruling by the California Supreme Court involving the three active cases in its jurisdiction. The same ruling also opened the door for potential legal action generally against religious groups accused of child abuse. That recent ruling stated that Christian Science parents who attempt spiritual healing and fail to the loss of life can be tried for manslaughter. In all three cases the children involved died of the same ailment — bacterial meningitis; and the parents were all charged with felony

child endangerment and invol­untary manslaughter.

The parents charged includ­ed Laurie Walker of Sacramen­to, whose four-year-old daugh­ter Shauntay died in March 1984; Elliot and Lisa Glaser of Santa Monica, whose 16-month son Seth died in March 1984; and Mark and Susan Rippberger of Santa Rosa, whose 8-year-old daughter Natalie died in December 1964.

The most recent case to be publicized is perhaps the most gruesome. Elizabeth Ashley King died of bone cancer near Phoenix, Arizona, on June 5, 1988. At the time of her death, the 12-year-old girl, who had been out of school for seven months, had a 42-inch-round tumor on her leg that had eaten through her bones and genital area.

Elizabeth’s parents, John and Katherine King, were charged with child abuse for let­ting her die. Prosecutor K. C. Scull said he recommended that manslaughter charges also be filed against the Kings, but the county Grand Jury would not go along with it after hear­ing tearful testimony from them. “Were not prosecuting them to attack their religion,” said Scull in a telephone interview. “But when your beliefs contra­dict or come into conflict with the child’s right to live, we think it’s the government’s responsi­bility to intervene.”

Scull expects a trial to take place within the next six months.

Rita Swan, the co-founder of CHILD, is a former Christian Scientist who watched her 15-month-old son Matthew Swan die of bacterial meningitis in 1977. She said she is “encour­aged” by the increased willing­ness to prosecute over unneces­sary deaths.

“When my son died nobody cared,” she said. “There wasn’t even an obit in the paper. Mentally I thought that wasn’t right. In those days that’s the way it was whenChristian Science children died — there was no press coverage and autopsies were seldom ordered. The deaths were all swept under the rug.”

She added that after her son died she and her husband, Dou­glas, began to realize that their church was partially responsi­ble. They withdrew from membership and eventually formed CHILD to oppose groups whose doctrines or practices endanger children’s mental or physical health.

Since then, disillusioned church members have left the cult in droves and the ranch headquarters shut down its construction department, printing shop, food processing plant, and farm and ranching oper­ations, according to the 4 April Detroit News. Cleirbaut announced, “We’re getting rid of everything that doesn’t focus on our mission of spreading the teachings of Mrs.

Prophet” (ibid). Even though these changes may be, in Cleirbaut’s words, ‘guiding [the church] away from survivalism” (4 April Orange County Register), the cult still faces difficult times. Mrs. Prophet’s health and family problems contribute to the cult’s decline.

Church Universal and Triumphant is a second-generation offshoot from the I AM movement started by Guy and Edna Ballard in the 1930s. Mark Prophet, Church Universal and Triumphant’s founder, split from an I AM sect in 1958 and formed what was called Summit Lighthouse. In 1961, he married Elizabeth Clare WuIf. Church Universal and Triumphant promotes mystical teachings from “ascended masters” — also known as the “Great White Brotherhood”— the spirits of wise people from previous ages. This is in direct contradiction to Isaiah 8:19-20, which forbids us from consulting mediums and spirits.

The Prophets taught, “All of life is God. All of being is God. All of consciousness is God.” This panthe­ism is contrary to the Bible in which God declares, “I am the Lord, who has made all things,… who fails the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners” (Isa. 44:24-25). They taught a distinction between Jesus the man and the impersonal “Christ consciousness,” contrary to the apostle John’s warning that the antichrist denies that Jesus and Christ are one and the same (l John 2:22). Denying the gospel, the Prophets taught that “God the Father did not require the sacrifice of his son Christ Jesus… nor is it possible according to cosmic law for any man’s sacrifice to balance either the original sin or subsequent sins.” The apostle Paul declared that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). In contrast to Scripture, the Prophets taught karma instead of atonement, reincarnation instead of resurrection, and secret wisdom instead of revelation.

After Mark Prophet’s death in 1973, Elizabeth assumed his role as sole representative of the ascend­ed masters. The group moved from California and eventually centered operations in Montana. Her person­al life seems to parallel the decline of the cult. In 1989, one of Prophet’s daughters began publicly accusing Church Universal and Triumphant of exercising mind control. Eventually all four of Mrs. Prophet’s adult children left the group.

Last year Mrs. Prophet’s fourth marriage ended in divorce after her husband left her for their nanny. According to Cleirbaut, Mrs. Prophet’s epilepsy is getting worse, and she is suffering from a disease that attacks her memory.

One of those arrested was Edward Francis, the husband of sect leader Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Francis was sen­tenced on December 15, 1989 to one month in jail and three months’ house detention for his role in a conspiracy to buy enough weapons and paramil­itary supplies to arm a 200-member church army.

Law officials say they broke up the plot on July 7 when Vernon Hamilton, the former chief of the church’s Cosmic Honor Guard (i.e., its security), was arrested in Spokane, Washington after purchasing weapons under a false name. He was apparently planning to ship them to the sect’s 33,000-acre encamp­ment in Park County, Mon­tana. According to the December 10, 1989 Sunday Oregon fan, police found “about $28,000 in cash and gold Krugerrands, 15 military-style assault rifles, two pistols, and 120,000 rounds of tracer and armor-piercing ammuni­tion in [Hamilton’s] pickup and a storage garage. Seven of the rifles were .50-caliber semiautomatic Barretts, which fire 6-inch cartridges that can penetrate light armor.” He was sentenced to three years’ probation for using false identifi­cation and fined $1,000. His weapons and money were confiscated.

Later, on October 13, Church Universal and Triumphant staff member Frank Black was arrested transporting two more Barrett semiautomatic weapons to Montana. Authori­ties say the purchase was ille­gal because Black had given a false address. Charges were later dropped against him, but his weapons were confiscated.

Although Mrs. Prophet and Church Universal and Triumphant officials claim they didn’t have anything to do with the attempted weapons purchases, published reports — and state­ments by Francis — make clear that it was Mrs. Prophet’s “revelations” of a coming nuclear war with the Soviet Union that incited the attempted purchases. In recent months, many sect members have been moving to the sect’s compound in Paradise Valley, Montana (which is near the North Entrance of Yellowstone National Park), where they have been busily engaged in building $300,000 bomb shel­ters and stockpiling large food supplies.

But in mid-November, the church succumbed to media pressure and gave reporters a tour of one of the underground shelters. Ten of them, capable of holding about 1,400 peo­ple, were nearing completion, according to the November 19, 1989 Seattle Times.

Mrs. Prophet, often referred to as “Guru Ma” by her esti­mated 150,000 followers, has had difficulty pinpointing the date of the supposed apoca­lypse. According to Mrs. Prophet’s doomsday scenario, the U.S. will be victimized by an all-out Soviet nuclear attack, followed by an inva­sion. The two dates she is said to have associated with the event — October 2, 1989 and December 31, 1989 — have both failed.

According to published reports, Mrs. Prophet arrived at the October 2 doomsday date through “El Morya,” one of many “ascended masters” (superhuman entities inhabit­ing a higher dimension) that are said to speak through her. When that date came and went, Mrs. Prophet said the prayers of sect members had postponed the event, and December 31 was the new date. But she added an imme­diate qualifier, according to the November 3 Billings Gazette: “Prophet emphasized she was not predicting war or any other catastrophe for that date — it was just a deadline for preparedness.”

All the talk of weapons and doomsday has further galva­nized local residents against the sect; some have com­pared Church Universal and Triumphant’s presence in the area to the building of Jon­estown in Guyana, or Rajneeshpuram in Oregon. And recently the residents gained a new ally in their nearly decade-long battle with the sect: Moira Lewis, Prophet’s 21-year-old daugh­ter, who left Church Universal and Triumphant last year. Lewis has begun to publicly denounce her mother as a cult leader and has charged Church Universal and Triumphant with being a potentially dangerous organization that exercises mind control. On September 12, she appeared on the “Oprah Winfrey” show and debated her sister, Erin Prophet, 23, who has become a Church Universal and Triumphant spokeswoman.

Church Universal and Triumphant bought the 12,000-acre Forbes Ranch from recently deceased multimil­lionaire Malcolm Forbes in 1981, and in 1986 moved its headquarters there from Mal­ibu, California. Meanwhile the church has purchased more land in Paradise Valley (see the Summer 1989 CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL for more details).

In 1879 Mary Baker Eddy founded the First Church of Christ, Scientist (also called the “Mother Church”) in Boston and established her book, Sci­ence and Health with Key to the Scriptures, as its “pastor” along­side the Bible. On the basis of her own healing experiences, and influenced by metaphysi­cian P. P. Quimby, Eddy devel­oped a meditative healing tech­nique that entails renouncing the very existence of disease — a technique Eddy called “Chris­tian Science.” Today her follow­ers are estimated at 150,000 worldwide.

In the mid-1980s the sect’s board of directors decided to move into 21st-century commu­nications in a big way. Building on the reputation of the daily Christian Science Monitor, its Pulitzer Prize-winning newspa­per, they launched a 24-hour news, culture, and public affairs cable network called The Moni­tor Channel; WQTV, a Boston UHF television station; a monthly news magazine, World Monitor and a shortwave radio system, The World Service of The Christian Science Monitor.

But by 1988 this ambitious expansion had taken an increas­ing financial toll, forcing the last in a series cutbacks on the Chris­tian Science Monitor and prompting the departure of more than 60 people, including the paper’s senior editor and three associate editors. Each year thereafter, the church has had to draw upon restricted funds to subsidize its media expansion, with some total estimates reach­ing as high as $500 million.

The sect’s most expensive venture by far was the Monitor Channel, which reportedly cost more than $125 million to oper­ate during its 11-month lifespan. Christian Scientists expressed as much concern about the net­work’s direction as they did about its cost: since the channel’s only religious program was a five-minute broadcast at 5 A.M., many worried that their church was becoming “secularized.”

Another crisis began unfold­ing in 1991 when, to qualify for a $97 million bequest, the church decided to publish The Destiny of the Mother Church by Bliss Knapp as “authorized Christian Science literature” and prominently display the book in “substantially all” of its 2,600 reading rooms (see the Winter 1992 CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL). But according to historian Stephen Gottschalk, the publication of the controversial book, written in the 1940s, demonstrates “a crisis of author­ity” since it “virtually deifies Mrs. Eddy,” placing her on a par with Jesus. Because Eddy herself rejected this notion on several occasions, many church mem­bers question the decision to publish and distribute Destiny, which seemed to put money above principle.

Soon after Knapp’s book was published the four editors who jointly produce the sect’s reli­gious periodicals resigned, issu­ing a terse public statement: “In good conscience, we are unable to continue serving as editors under present board policies.” Worse still, on Febru­ary 24 Stanford University and the Los Angeles County Muse­um — the bequest’s default beneficiaries — obtained a 90-day delay in hopes of demon­strating that the sect has not lived up to the terms of the will.

Historically, the Mother Church has certain “restricted” funds, such as endowments, which Christian Science offi­cials have repeatedly said were not used for the church’s day-today opera­tions. However, on December 31, 1991 the church ran out of general oper­ating funds and elected to bor­row from these restricted funds to meet its operating ex­penses. After borrowing $5 million from the Trustees Under the Will of Mary Baker Eddy and $21.5 million dollars from the pen­sion fund in January and early February of 1992, the board bor­rowed an addi­tional $20 million on February 28 to repay an earlier loan from the Christian Science Monitor fund. The $41.5 million in transfers from the pension fund reduced it to just over $60 mil­lion — half the $120 million it contained only three years ago.

Almost immediately an unnamed church official leaked the news of the pension fund transfers to the Boston Globe, a disclosure which brought tremendous pressure upon the board of directors. Many church members expressed shock and disappointment on hearing news of the highly irregular loans. Amid questions sur­rounding the transfers, Harvey W. Wood, a 15-year member of the five-person board, resigned as chairman and was replaced by board member Virginia S. Harris. Simultaneously, the Monitor Channel — then losing about $4 million a month — was put on the market, with plans to dissolve the network on April 15 if a buyer was not found. The church’s bureaucra­cy was also reorganized in a return to the cabinet-style gov­ernment used in its early years.

Despite the church’s financial turmoil, spokesman J. Thomas Black expressed confidence that Harris is fully capable of bring­ing the movement through this difficult period. “Everyone who knows her sees her as intelli­gent, gracious, and very much a listener, but also very decisive and authoritative,” he said.

Nevertheless, it is doubtful that any change in leadership will reverse the sect’s general decline. Not only has its news­paper’s circulation dropped (from 240,000 in the 1960s to 100,000 today), but church membership itself has plummet­ed from an estimated 268,000 in the 1930s to some 150,000. (According to the March 14, 1992 New York Times, “There are more Roman Catholics in North Dakota than Christian Scientists in the United States.”) And beyond concerns of dwin­dling membership and financial pressures, many Christian Scien­tists feel their church has not dealt with its underlying identity crisis, fearing that the recent leadership shuffle hasn’t altered a much deeper trend towards secularization.

Some former Christian Scien­tists view the current leadership shakeup as a watershed in the movement’s history. “I think this is the beginning of the end of institutional Christian Science as we know it,” said Randall Childs of Boston. “These media projects will die, one by one — the daily Monitor last of all. Eventually we will see a corpo­rate implosion, and we will see a small, aberrant cult, no longer prestigious, a shadow of its for­mer image.”

It’s funny because I had been brought up in the church. Born and raised in Western Canada as a Mennonite, my earliest memo­ries were of my parents’ faith through good and bad times, church activities, and visits to our home by preachers and missionaries.

By the time I reached my teens, my childhood faith gave way to insecurity and doubts. In my confusion as a teenager, I was continually “losing my salvation” and des­perately getting “resaved.” I wondered where the vitality, unity, and purpose of the believ­ers in the book of Acts was today.

When the hippie movement dawned with its communal living and “love and peace,” I thought I might have found the purpose, acceptance, and camaraderie I was looking for. During my time in this movement, I turned over some pretty strange rocks as I looked for God in all the wrong places — including the teachings of Mao, drugs, and music gurus.

Over a year in the hippie lifestyle, by then fast going sour, I met some exuberant ex-hippies who had been radically “set free” through Jesus. “He is relevant today,” they said. So I rededicated myself to Jesus and started an exciting life of service with a “Jesus People” group called “The Jesus People Army.” There followed a fulfilling year of witnessing in Seattle, Washington and then back to Vancouver.

In the summer of 1971, our Jesus People leader took a trip to California where he met the “Children of God.” At his invitation, we were invaded by what we thought was an even more radical fringe of the Jesus People movement. I was ready for what I thought was the next step in more dedication and greater service to the Lord. So, along with many other Jesus People, I joined the Children of God in August, 1971.

My fifteen-year odyssey in the Children of God began. They said the book of Acts was the “blueprint for the church,” and that they were the only ones living it. Finally, I thought, I had found what I was looking for.

Having worked on the Jesus People newspaper, I moved into the Children of God’s publications department. This took me to Seattle, Dallas, and then England where I met Mary Lou. She became my wife in 1973.

Mary Lou’s upbringing in El Paso, Texas was the picture of stability. Her’s was an Anglican, middle-class family. After graduating from college with honors, search­ing for direction in life, she spent a year in VISTA, the domestic Peace Corps, and then dropped out altogether. She became “house mother” to a communal group of drug addicts and runaways in Knoxville, Tennessee.

A year later, in the aftermath of an abor­tion and disillusioned with her lifestyle, Mary Lou was at a vulnerable point in her life. She was soon approached by the Children of God who invited her to “receive Jesus” and live for Him with them. In des­peration and relief that her search was over, she readily joined.

At the time we joined the Children of God (hereafter “COG”) in the early 1970s, we weren’t aware of David Berg (also known as “Moses” or “Mo”) and the tight control he exercised on COG members through his Mo Letters. It was only as the months and years went by that distinctive COG doctrines — such as Berg being “God’s End-time Prophet” and the COG being “God’s elite avant-garde witnesses for the Last Days” — were revealed. Other doctrines that surfaced include the teaching that “all things are lawful,” the supremacy of the COG group over marriage and the family, sexual freedom, and the use of sex in proselytizing (“flirty fishing”). All these were backed up by the twisting of Scripture, all the while adhering strictly to the King James Version!

Almost everything we had learned before “in the system,” Berg said, was wrong and he was going to re-educate us. We were like the Children of Israel and he was our “Moses,” leading us out of “Egypt.” Our modern-day “Mo” began to write letter after letter from his secluded hideaway, and these were printed and sent to his “children” around the world. Everything from politics, economics, sex, child care, health, car repair, camping, and the Bible was “explained” to us and its true meaning shared with us “for­tunate few.” By 1973, these Mo Letters became the main thrust of our witnessing as we left our Bibles at home and passed out his provocatively illustrated ramblings and ravings to the unsuspecting masses in return for a donation to “help our work with youth.”

We felt blessed to be right in the center of it all, working at headquarters where it was all happening. We were appointed news editors for COG publications and worked directly under Berg’s supervision.

After eight years as news editors, we received word from Mo that we were all fleeing the doomed northern and western countries of the world and going south and east. Berg instructed us to pick a mission field, take a few months off, and do some personal witnessing. Then, he said we’d regroup somewhere else in the world and resume our jobs.

We were excited to be able to openly witness on a mission field. We chose India. But after four months there, we received an impersonal Xeroxed note stating that we were being relieved of our jobs as news edi­tors. Our jobs were being given to single people, as we had too many children.

We were hurt and felt cast aside without even a personal word of thanks. We had been told that children were a “blessing.” We had gone along with Mo’s stand against birth control, and now we felt penalized for our obedience.

Disillusioned but still committed, we and our four children spent almost five years proselytizing for the COG in southern India where our fifth child was born. It was an eye-opening experience in more ways than one! For it was in India that the cult doc­trines and policies became too incredible and absurd to be swallowed anymore. We began to become more and more disheartened with the dictatorial control that governed every aspect of our lives. We became dissatisfied with the erratic whims of a leader that broke up marriages, separated children from par­ents, and generally inflicted mental and emo­tional torture.

Finally, it was mutually agreed on by us and the local leadership that we take a “fur­lough.” With the help of my father and sis­ters who provided air fare and a place to “land,” we arrived back in Canada in May, 1986.

So here we were — I, my wife, and our five young children — setting up camp in my sister’s spare bedroom. We were extremely disoriented, trying to grasp onto some reality, struggling to relate to the Western world after over four years in India and the “real world” after fifteen years of cloistered cult life. And now we were going to my sister’s church!

That first Sunday was unforgettable! Though many of the worship songs were unfamiliar to us, the presence of the Holy Spirit drew us in and we began to sense a whole new dimension of entering into God’s presence through praise and worship. Here was a congregation of believers who obvious­ly had deep devotion, great thankfulness, and a sensitivity to the majesty, holiness, and awesomeness of God — something distinctly lacking in our cult experience.

When the pastor gave the sermon, the Word became alive. There were no “greater revelations,” no explaining what it “really” meant, and no “better translations” like we had been used to. It was just the pure Word of God. It was so refreshing!

I found myself moved emotionally to tears many times during those first few months. After having been fed contaminated and poisoned spiritual food for so long, it was almost unbearable to get a healthy serving of the pure Word and true Spirit.

After the service that first week, my sis­ter introduced us to the pastor and some oth­ers. We were expecting people to shrink back in horror when they found out we had been with “an evil cult.” To our surprise, they reached out to us in genuine concern.

About a year later, we asked our “home group” in the church to pray for us to help heal us from our past. As we publicly renounced it and asked forgiveness, we knew the Lord was taking us step by step to spiritu­al wholeness.

Our recovery process is a continuing one. We were fortunate to be together and have all our children with us, to have a supportive family who helped us set up house, and a pas­tor who ministered God’s grace and truth to us. But it’s taken a long time to be free from the hold the COG doctrines and lifestyle had on us.

For a while, we went through a stage where we were searching for an “infallible” leader and prophet to replace our former cult leader. We’d read books or listen to the radio ministry of some evangelist, subconsciously hoping to find the one with all the right answers, only to be disappointed when he’d write or say something we disagreed with. Or we’d look around for a substitute min­istry, thinking that if the COG was not per­fect then there must be another one that is.

But we’re learning that true Christianity is not a program but a Person, that our worth is not based on what we do for God but what God has done for us through Christ. Through our experience, we have discovered the depths of God’s loving grace and mercy, and are rebuilding our relationship with Him.

On that basis, we founded a support group for ex-Children of God called “No Longer Children.” Other ex-COG members with whom we came into contact have echoed the need for such a support group.

When someone leaves an all-encom­passing cult, it’s a major upheaval — not only to find a job, a house, start a career, and make friends, but also in struggling spiritual­ly to overcome months or years of mental programming and conditioned patterns of thinking. There is also an emotional struggle with feelings of bitterness, loneliness, and hopelessness.

The goal of “No Longer Children” is to help ex-cult members overcome bitterness toward God and the people in their past, and to renew their relationship with God and His Word. The support group encourages them not to turn away from God, but to work through their negative feelings and confu­sion, and to depend on the grace and strength of the Lord as they rebuild their lives. We seek to help them change their perspective — from one of being a victim to one of being a victor in Christ. We also publish a newslet­ter that features testimonies of ex-COG members.

We’re grateful for the support of our pastor, Barry McGaffin, who is on our Board of Directors. We thank God daily for the truth of His Word and His ever-enduring grace. He is our unfailing support.

To contact the Hieberts, write c/o No Longer Children, Box 415, 8155 Park Road, Richmond, B.C. Canada, V6Y 3

But now, faced with the loss of $92 million in potential rev­enue, the church has changed its mind. The book in question The Destiny of the Mother Church by Bliss Knapp, a Chris­tian Science lecturer who died in 1958 — elevated church founder Mary Baker Eddy to the status of a biblical prophet. Until this year the 260-page book, which was written and privately published in 1947, was on the church’s “incorrect literature” list.

Stephen Gottschalk, an authority on Christian Science and a leader in a growing dissi­dent movement within the church, said in the October 2, 1991 Los AngeIes Times that the book “comes close to deify­ing Eddy.” Similarly, former church archivist Lee Z. Johnson, who was fired in January, 1991, told the October 14, 1991 Philadelphia Inquirer that the book is blasphemous” because it gives Eddy the same stature as Christ and that the church is publishing it “because it is des­perate for money.”

Mrs. Eddy, who founded the church in 1879, actively discour­aged her followers from elevat­ing her to the status of prophet, the Inquirer article states.

According to published reports, under the condition of the wills of the author, his wife, and his sister-in-law, if the church published the book as “authorized” church literature and displayed it prominently in “substantially all” Christian Sci­ence reading rooms (which number about 2500) within 20 years after the death of the last of the family, the church would get about $92 million left in trust. If they didn’t publish it the money was to be divided between Stanford University and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

The last of the family died in 1973, which meant that in order to receive the money the book had to be published and displayed by May, 1993.

According to a church offi­cial quoted in the Times article, the church decided to publish the book and mail copies to the reading rooms in late September 1991 as part of a series of 15 biographies of Eddy. But within the church this decision is being debated due to growing opposi­tion from some reading rooms to carrying the book.

Many church observers sug­gest that the decision to publish the book was related to the church’s declining financial condition, the church treasurer quoted in the Inquirer article said that it would have been “fiscally irresponsible” for the church’s board not to consider publishing it.

The article noted that in the past five years the church’s total available funds have dipped from $208 million to $117 mil­lion. Operating expenses have more than doubled from $54 million to $115 million. Addi­tionally, the church has been losing members — a reported slide from 270,000 in the 1930s to about 150,000 today.

The church has also been fac­ing a handful of highly publi­cized government prosecutions under child abuse and manslaughter statutes related to deaths that some say could have been prevented. (See the Win­ter/Spring 1989 CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL.) A hall­mark of Christian Science teach­ing is that all disease can be cured by prayer rather than through medical treatment.

At the same time the church has been increasing its media outreach at a high price. In addition to publishing the Chris­tian Science Monitor the church in recent years has gotten into television, shortwave and public radio, and began publishing a monthly international news magazine. In May 1991 the church launched what the Inquirer called “their biggest undertaking of all — a 24-hour, advertiser-supported cable tele­vision network called the Moni­tor Channel.”

2 JOHN 10- Home or Church?
2 John 10 is not a prohibition against letting cultists into one’s home in order to witness to them. It is a prohibition against letting cultists into the church in order to give them a platform for their teaching. I remember Walter Martin used to say, “I wouldn’t give anyone 10 seconds in the church to proclaim their heresies.”

2 JOHN 10- The House Church
In order to see this, one needs only to recall that most first-century Christian churches met in house-churches. Thus, when John says, “do not receive him into the house,” he is almost certainly referring to a house-church. Some translations say “your house,” which makes it sound as if John is talking about people’s private homes, but the truth of the matter is the word “your” is not even found in the Greek text.

2 John 10- An Alternative Explanation
Another interpretation which is possible is that John is forbidding Christians to let cultists stay in their homes and use their homes as a base of operations from which to spread their poison and their false gospel. This fits the common practice in the first and second centuries of letting preachers stay in one’s home while they preach unhindered by material concerns. Obviously, we shouldn’t let cultists use our homes in this manner, that would be ridiculous in the extreme.

2 JOHN 10- Conclusion
The bottom line is that Christians should not allow their churches or their homes to become a base of operations for false teachers. For example, we certainly do not want to let cultists into our door and then allow them to teach their heresy to our children. And by the way, there are many people that want to prohibit this by simply slamming the door on them, and that isn’t the solution, we ought to invite them in. But there is nothing wrong with inviting cultists into our home in order to preach the truth to them. We want them to hear the message of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.On inviting cultists into the home, that’s the CRI perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

WITNESSING TO CULTS- No Canned Approaches
In dealing with cult members, we need to be aware that there’s no “canned” approach to witnessing which applies to any and all circumstances. We must also realize that witnessing to cultists demands commitment and of course dedication. You see, first, we must develop our knowledge and understanding of biblical doctrine. And second, we must become familiar with the cult or cults confronting us.

WITNESSING TO CULTS- No Showing Off
We should never see witnessing as a chance to “show off” our intellectual acumen or for that matter, our biblical knowledge. Rather, we should view it as an opportunity to lead someone to faith in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit — and there is nothing as exciting as that. Thus, our approach should be Christ-centered. We can point to the cult’s internal inconsistencies with the Bible, but the discussion has to culminate in determining who Christ really is and what must be done to be saved. And remember, defining terms is extremely important as well because the cultist has an unbiblical concept of both Christ and salvation.

WITNESSING TO CULTS- Prayer and Sincerity NEEDED!
Most importantly, before every single encounter, we need to spend adequate time in prayer. And remember during the encounter to just be yourself. Sincerity is important and believe me your attitude will clearly reflect on your actions. Also, while we should clearly reject the false teachings of the cults, we need to be gracious toward the people who are caught in their web of deceit. Get them to think about their beliefs, and try to discover their individual needs. Be prepared to diffuse hostile reactions and attempts to change the topic of discussion, both of which, by the way, show that you’re touching delicate areas of their lives. Be sure to respond firmly but sensitively, pointing out that your comments are aimed not at the person, but at the organization or teaching which enslaves them.On witnessing to the cults, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

The devil always hides behind a mask; and he seldom carries an ID card. If this statement is true, it is of utmost importance for us to discern a cult when we see one.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Scripture Twisting
The first mark of a cult is its manipulation of Scripture. The Bible is twisted to fit the leader or group’s interpretation. Private interpretations are forbidden because the leader of the cult is the only one, of course, who is able to understand God’s voice properly. Their teachings distort the historic, orthodox claims of Christianity.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Mental Manipulation
Second, many times cults manipulate people’s minds. There is little concern for individual thought and development. Education is usually discouraged while the convert is bombarded with the cult’s doctrine and literature. Members are called to leave or neglect their old family and life-style for a brand new one.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Time Manipulation
A third characteristic is the manipulation of time. Since salvation comes exclusively from the teachings of the group, in many cults members spend much of their time working for their organization. Family, school, leisure, sleep, and even food are most often neglected.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTS- Manipulating Reality
Finally, cults typically manipulate reality. They tend to have an exclusive “us”/“them” mentality in which society and old associates are all out to get them. Anyone outside of the group is suspect.

If a religious group exhibits one or more of the marks mentioned above, that group may well be considered a cult. Jesus Christ said that in the last days many false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matt. 24:11,24). To avoid the deception of the cults, we should be rooted in the teachings of the historic Christian faith, and receive Jesus Christ, God the Son, second Person of the Trinity, as Lord of our lives.

On the characteristics of cults, that’s the Bible Answer Man Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

Hay dos maneras de definir una secta. La primera manera de describirla es muy popular con los reporteros seculares. En este punto de vista, una secta es una organización religiosa o semi-religiosa en la cual sus miembros son controlados complementamente por un individuo o una organización.

Este clase de secta es usualmente manipuladora, demandando lealtad y sometimiento total de parte de sus miembros. Sus convertidos usualmente se apartan de todas sus actividades, incluyendo sus familias. Los Hare Krishna, los “Niños de Dios” o la Familia de Amor dirijida por “Moses David” Berg, Sun Myung Moon y la Iglesia de la  Unificación son buenos ejemplos de este clase de secta.

La segunda manera de describir a una secta es la más popular entre los círculos cristianos evangélicos.  Esta perspectiva, dice que una secta es cualquier grupo que se desvía de las doctrinas fundamentales del cristianismo como la Trinidad, la deidad de Cristo, y la salvación por gracia solamente. Algunas sectas que caen bajo esta definición son los Mormones, los Testigos de Jehová, Ciencia Cristiana y la Escuela Unida del Cristianismo.

Casi todas estas sectas reclaman ser cristianas, y aún consideran que la Biblia tiene la autoridad final. Pero manipulan las Escrituras para servir sus propias creencias.  Aunque dicen que sirven a Jesucristo, y aún cuando usan términos ortodoxos, sus definiciones son vastamente diferentes.

Estos grupos no predican al Cristo de la Biblia, si no a otro Jesús y otro evangelio (2 Cor. 11:1-4;  Gál. 1:8, 9).  Por lo tanto, debemos refutar estas doctrinas y “contende ardientemente por la fe que ha sido una vez dada a los santos” (Judas 3). Y, claro está, recordarnos que la Biblia nos advierte hacerlo con mansedumbre y con respeto.  Recuerde, debe presentar el mensaje del evangelio, pero tiene que comprender que es sólamente la obra del Espíritu Santo la que cambia los corazones.

Soy Hank Hanegraaff.

PARA MAS INFORMACION

Para mas informacion, visite nuestro sitio del Web www.equip.org o escribenos en P. O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271-8500.

Tenemos una variedad de recursos relacionados con las sectas, incluyendo el artículo “Una guía bíblica a la ortodoxia y a la herejía” (DO080SP).

Para los precios corrientes y/o para la información sobre el envío, para poner una orden de la tarjeta de crédito, o para recibir una copia de nuestro listado del recursos, por favor llame gratis nuestro centro del recursos a (888)7000-CRI.

WHAT IS A CULT- Definitions
There are two ways to define a cult. The first way to describe a cult is popular in the secular media. From this perspective, a cult is a religious or semi-religious sect whose members are controlled almost entirely by a single individual or by an organization.

This kind of cult is usually manipulative, demanding total commitment and loyalty from its followers. Converts are usually cut off from all former associations, including their own families. The Hare Krishnas, the Family of Love led by Moses David Berg, and Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church are some examples of this kind of a cult.

The second way to define a cult is popular in evangelical Christian circles. From this perspective, a cult is any group that deviates from the orthodox teachings of the historic Christian faith being derived from the Bible and confirmed through the ancient ecumenical creeds.

WHAT IS A CULT- Psuedo-Christian Cults
These groups deny or distort fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. Some cults that would fall into this category are the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, The Way International, and the Unity School of Christianity.

Most of these cults claim to be Christian, and even consider the Bible to be authoritative. But they manipulate the Scriptures to fit their own beliefs. Although they may claim to serve Jesus Christ, and may even use the same terminology orthodox Christians use, their definitions are vastly different.

WHAT IS A CULT- The Dangers of False Teachings
These groups do not lead to the Christ of the Bible, but to another Jesus and another gospel (2 Cor. 11:1-4; Gal. 1:8,9). We must therefore reject these false teachings, and “earnestly contend for the faith which was once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). And, of course, remember the Bible also goes on to admonish us that we must do this with gentleness, and with respect. Remember, you must present the message, but you need to recognize that it is only the Holy Spirit that changes the heart.

On the cults and answering the question “What is a cult”, that’s the Bible Answer Man Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.