Updates on www.geocities.com/nccg_concern: they keep sneaking in

It seems that we have come under the serious scrutiny of a cult-watcher of sorts at:

http://www.geocities.com/nccg_concern/

While this site avoids all the invectiveness and rudeness of the former Balaam's Ass who got quite upset about us, and is about 80% accurate, it does draw some rather startling conclusions based on some unfortunate misunderstandings of etymology as well as the usual misinterpretations. Though the layout is historical and quasi-academic it openly declares that it wants no input from the "cult members" (i.e. us) as presumably the facts would distort their selective fusion of various articles.

The external links supplied are full of errors, including one (which has been archived) by Davie Bowie (not the rock star) which I attempted to get updated, but in vain (it is now no longer on the net).

Anyway I wrote to the maker of the website and we will see if he is honest enough to seek the facts or not. Here is by email to him:

Please would you remove the image at:

http://www.geocities.com/nccg_concern/Kadesh-Plan.jpg

which is copyright material, as you have not sought or received permission to reproduce it. I asume you will do the honorable and Christian thing before we report this to MSN.

Though we realise you do not want any input from members of the "cult" I am bound to point out that whilst a good deal of the information you reproduce is accurate, there is some which is very distorted and misleading. If you are interested I would be more than happy to give you the facts as to what we actually believe "from the horse's mouth" and not from inaccurate deductions based on misunderstandings of terminology. I assume it is facts you after and what we believe in, and not what you think we believe in.

Whether you do or not (and this will be a measure of your intellectual intrity, or lack of it) will have to be a matter of your conscience between yourself and God.

Shalom

Christopher C. Warren

"Dangerous Cultic Leader"

Though I really don't have the time to go into the allegations, I will pick out one or two of the most glaring ones so that the truth is on record.

If anyone is concerned they are of course free to ask the "cultist" for explanations and clarifications.

Shalom

Christopher

Here are a couple of very serious allegations that need clearing up at once:

1. The Olive Branch is not NCCG's "Bible" - that is a blatant lie. The Olive Branch is just a collection of revelations and is very secondary to the Bible. Indeed it isn't even primary canon. We have often stated that we do not need it for our mission and that the Bible is sufficient in all matters of doctrine and faith, and is so treated.

2. The idea that the "meatier" doctrines is concealed and only revealed to those who have been lullued into a false sense of secutity would be laughable were it not such a serious allegation. ALL our beliefs, doctrines and practices are clearly stated on our website at www.nccg.org. The author admits there is a lot of material and that he was overwhelmed by it so that is probably why his picture of us is so patchy ... a bit like the way the Jehivah's Witnesses assemble their theology from scriptural ping-pong.

3. We do NOT renounce our biological parents or view them as being "satanic" (probably the worst misrepresentation of all). We honour our parents in Yahweh and teach our people to do the same - to love and cherish them and to set a good example to them if they are unbelievers. Obviously, where their parents are unbelievers, we spiritually parent them as all churches do (whether as priests, pastors, etc) and hold them to Biblical standards. The only parents we do insist that new members totally renounce are those who are satanists who have sexuallly abused and tortured them all their lives. However it seems that the author is one of those who does not believe that SRA is real - let him tell that to the many SRA victims who come to us for help because the likes of him will not believe them! He knows nothing of deliverance.

4. His diagram of NCCG leadership structure is shere bunkum and is really quite shameless:

The top of this tree is a pastor, not me, of which there are very many, and these pastors are overseen by a Bishop or Metropolitan Pastor. The Bishops are pretty much independent as for example our Bishop in India who runs many congregations. This he does with practically no interference.

NCCG is run overall by a Presiding Patriarchate consisting of three men and three women. Decisions are jointly made. And contrary to what he says, I have not always been head. The Church was led by Gunnar Mjølsvik at one time who maintains a headship position over me today as part of our authority checks and balances. These things the author has not researched eithert because he can't be bothered to read the material or because he is plain disonest. Matter affecting the whole Church are voted on by the whole Church in Conference.

5. We are misreported in our belief about marriage do, the author claiming that unless sanctions a marriage, it is not valid. He has not read our materials very carefully. We consider ALL marriages of consent valid for this life time. What we HAVE said is that marriages not of God do not continue into the eternities. No doubt he wants to accuse of of being marriage-busters which we absolutely are not. Our view is diamatrically the opposite.

There is tons more but these stick out as obviously false.

This is what happens when you don't ask the person concerned. By all means checvk up the writings afterwards to verfity/contradict it but make sure you study it all. After all, isn't that what we tell people to do with the Bible?

This man has much to answer for.

I take it that either the author him/her-self, or someone acting on his/her behalf, is in the Groups (whether Cyber, DFD or DFDR or all of them) here. I hope the informant will be honest enough to "own up" instead of hiding in a sneakey way amongst us. He or she is perfectly free to ask questions provided they are asked in a respectful way. Now that this thread exists, perhaps they can take this opportunity to come clean and demonstrate some integrity and honesty.

We have nothing to hide which is why we openly post about groups criticising us.

Obviously we expect Christian standards to be maintained.

My thanks to Leif who found this site for us today. We like out people to know what others say about us, however distorted.

These are the criteria that we are being measured against, almost all of them of which we agree with:

This might be the object of an interesting study as many of the assumptions here are cultural (Western democratic/protestant) rather than biblical.

As one astute Messianic writer wrote: "the Gospel is not so much about religion as government" (paraphrased).

In other words, who governs you and how are you governed? What are correct messianic government paradigms?

Almost everyone is calt cultic by someone else when they radically disagree with them. (Protestants and Catholics call each other cultists - e.g. http://www.catholic-legate.com/dialogues/protpickle-james.html , http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ281.HTM).

To see our views on cultism go to:

If you do an internal Google search of www.nccg.org you'll find many other materials that touch on this subject. Or if you do a wider net-based one you'll be surprised to find what diverse views people hold on this subject.

My own investigation into the "cult of cults-hunting" is that it is a dead-end, though to be sure there are some useful things that can be gleaned. I am sure that many of the great biblical figures, including Yahweh Himself, would be classified as cultists (if they were honest enough) by the Christian cult-watchers.

In my view, anyone who tries to keep people away from a personal relationship with Yah'shua and from obedience to Torah-truth is a cultist, but what would I know as a "cultist" myself?

The reviews (especially by granger@apologetique.org) are particularly interesting. Here is what he said:

Reviewer: granger@apologetique.org from The Hague, The Netherlands

After an introduction about what a cult is, this book is a collection of Bible verses followed by the "cultic misinterpretation (anything not compatible with calvinism) and a defense of the calvinist view, and with some indexes at the end.

I am a big "fan" of Norm Geisler, I like very much his works, I promote them and collect his out-of-print books. I have almost all his books. Rhodes has written some books about "cults". I also have a few books by Rhodes. I think that Geisler made here a major mistake with this book in collaborating with Rhodes, whom I understand to be rather fanatical (calvinist/fundamentalist), as I could also see from his site. I have much critic against this book although I am a conservative protestant (and was even myself a fundamentalist some years ago, but now I am intellectually responsible). The big problem with this book is that (Catholic) Christianity is defined as a cult,. as well as any religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, freemasonery, etc.) that does not interpret the Bible like Rhodes does. Now I grew up as a Roman Catholic (I am no more, but still in touch), my father was a grade 33 mason and Great Master (I am not freemason either) , and I also know enough about other religions like buddhism (and also some buddhists), etc. to see that it is deadly wrong to include Catholicism, freemasonery, buddhism, etc among the cults!! Let us look at the three kind of criteria retained (by Rhodes I assume) to define a cult:

1 doctrinal:

1. A. New Revelation: (something new besides the Bible): but Jews could do the same and claim that Christians add a new revelation and are therefore a cult! And the Hindu and the buddhists could just do the same. 1. B. Everything that does not interpret the Bible like protestant/calvinist do -- other Christians such as the Catholic and the Orthodoxes could also in the same manner qualify the protestants of being a "cult", because they do not interpret the Bible like they do!! 1. C And everything that denies the sole authority of the Bible: here any other religion could say the same of their own Holy Book and claim that Christians are cultists because they do not recognize the sole revelation (of the other religion)!! 1. D. Any other view on salvation besides the protestant one: but other religions could as well accuse protestant of having a different view on this! It is clear that that kind of criteria lead to qualifying any view as cultic: they are simply as absurd as the "presuppositional apologetics". They are destructive for Christians when applied from another view.

2. Sociology 2. A Authoritianism: but what about the authoritianism of Luther and especially Calvin (the latter having those who disagreed with calvinism burnt alive in Geneva...) 2. B. Exclusivism, Dogmatism, Close-Mindedness, Blind-Faith...: this applies much more to fundamentalism/calvinism than Catholicism, the later having room for inclusivism, debate, and rational, common-sense justification (thomism)!!

3 Abuse: 3. A. Legalism: this is often found in calvinism/fundamentalism! Besides, should someone who follows the laws of the state (for driving, etc.) also be called cultist? 3. B. Sexual and Physical Abuse: at least Rhodes is right here, fortunately (but what about Calvin having those who skipped Sunday service beaten many time with wooden stocks?) 3. C. Intolerance: I agree, here again (but what about Calvin burning alive dissidents in Geneva?)

Using Rhodes definition, anyone could define protestantism/calvinism as more cultic than some of the religions or included here!! Rhodes is definitely wrong, he should not have focussed at what diverges from protestantism/calvinism, but rather focussed on the abuse, this is the real ear-mark of cults: psychological abuse (brain-washing, etc.), sociological (separation from family and friends, strong integration with the cult, etc.), intellectual (interdiction to read critical materials, or incitement not to read/hear/consider anything contrary to the cult...), financial abuse, etc. all things he did not retain as criteria!!. My judgement is that Rhodes is not so competent about CULTS, albeit he may be competent in defending protestantism/calvinism as is does well in this book. This is not to say that the he is bad, I think he wrote a good book about the New-Age Jesus, he is simply very confused about what a "cult" is. I thought that W. Martin was already quite confused in classifying world religions as "cults", but Rhodes goes further in classifying Catholicism as a cult!

A couple of others have been looking at this material and pointed out to me that some of it isn't even NCCG but taken from posts from non-NCCG people, e.g.

This group is male chauvenistic; holiness standards for women enforced

This isn't even NCCG material but has been lifted from a post put in one of the groups for discussion purposes (even if we agree with much of it). For one pretending to quote NCCG sources this is very deceptive.

It is quite obvious that the author is anti-Torah and pro-Western culture.

I wonder if whoever put up this site understands and knows that if they are wrong and mocking that they do not mock you but Yahweh-Elohim? But if they do not trust Yahweh as El Elyon, then they are blind and do not know the Ruach haQodesh or Yah'shua, and they remain in their filth. Hopefully they catch on, a little, and like you said, their intellect can catch on that this is wrong.. I think it is funny how Yahweh can send demonic to torture those who are on their own side... ehh, it's on their heads if they don't repent. Prayerfully they do

One gets the impression that this writer only wants to hear from the anti's because by directly asking us what we actually mean might give clarifications that spoil his theories.

When people write biographies they always prefer the original source to secondary ones. It makes you wonder that this person's motives are and reminds me of an "anti" NCCG Yahoo or MSN Group that instantly expelled anyone who tried to correct what so-called witnesses were saying about us (they lied through their teeth and refused to indentify themselves ostensibly because it was too traumatic for them). They kept making the Griup public, then private, then public again as they7 couldn't make up their minds, and kept changing the moderators. The witnesses evenetually started contradicting themselves and make complete oafs of themselves when they tried to tear to shreds someone who wasn't NCCG and did believe everything we taught accusing him of being a wicked cultist (he was non-Messianic ex-Plymouth Brethren actually). The Group eventually folded up. I am glad I saved copies of the discussion because they are a typical example of a 'cultic anti-cult spirit'. Perhaps I should post their stuff in the humour section (we discovered that at least one of the 'witnesses' was probably a satanist)

What people will say in the name of holiness is quite astounding sometimes.

Our view is that the truth will protect itself and that these malicious slander sites eventually burn themselves our for lack of credibility.

Our friend seems to want to spread his "neutral" message far and wide:

Matt 18:7
7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
KJV

I notice that my copyrighted website image, which I asked him to remove because he had never asked me to use it, is still up on his site at:

So I am asking him again to remove stolen material from his website.

I hate to say this, but there is a copyright law in America where images of that nature are allowed to be used for purposes of commentary.

Well I live in the EU