The next characteristic of spiritually abusive systems is that a misplaced sense of loyalty is fostered and even demanded. We're not talking about loyalty to Christ, but about loyalty to a given organization, church, or leader. A common way this is accomplished is by setting up a system where disloyalty to or disagreement with the leadership is construed as the same thing as disobeying God.

Questioning leaders is equal to questioning God. After all, the leader is the authority, and authority is always right. Once again, this makes the wall around the system thicker and makes it more difficult to leave.

Leadership projects a "we alone are right" mentality, which permeates the system. Members must remain in the system if they want to be "safe", or to stay "on good terms" with God, or not to be viewed as wrong or "backslidden".
We have counseled many Christians who, after deciding to leave their church, were told horrifying things. "God is going to withdraw His Spirit from you and your family." "God will destroy your business." "You and your family will come under a curse." This is spiritual blackmail and it's abuse. And it does cause people to stay in abusive places.

- Excerpt from The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse
by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen

Just because Moses made a pronouncement didn't mean it was automatically authoritative. His authority came from the fact that he truthfully and clearly told the people exactly what God told him. If God had given him something to say and Moses had turned it around, somehow making it different, he would not have had authority. The only legitimate authority that Moses had was when he spoke exactly what God told him to say.
What does this mean? It means that the authority was in the truth, not in Moses.

Though people may honor us with a position of leadership, we do not have authority in God's eyes simply because we are named the pastor, the elder, or the chairman. We are going to have to speak the truth to have authority.

- Excerpt from The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse
by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen

But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner––not even to eat with such a person. I Cor. 5:11

justlookn wrote:one word for the people who heard it and believed..GULLIBLE

icdalight228 writes:

I can't believe how the scriptures have been taken so out of context to instill fear and conjure up false character of pastor Vicary.
I couldn't finish listening to all of it.. I started to switch of when he mentioned Korah. I remember as a new convert my pastor would preach so much on Korah and I would always wonder way do they preach so much on this man?.... This is thier way at justifying the cutting off of "rebels" by basing "Rebels" from potters house on the story of Korah.
I remember my then Pastor once went as far as to preach a sermon on a "rebellious" pastor who had left the fellowship and a few years later died (I can't rememebr how he died- I think he got stabbed or something) but my pastor was connecting the two together, the fact that he had left and so called backslid contributed to his death... I remember being a new convert thinking "Oh my gosh, Id better make sure I don't leave potters house otherwise something bad could happen to me"...
Man, that was pure manipualtion

Renae writes:

I just listened to the first 13 minutes....

what a trip!!! (can you say amen?) He was picking scriptures out here and there and joining them together with his own (well, pastor mitchell's) interpretation...
Of course, if you take those scriptures for what they are, they don't say or mean anything like that!!!

A text taken out of context becomes a pretext!

Darren writes:

I listened to the rest of the mp3 this morning. I have to say in some parts this study by Payne is very significant of fellowship doctrine and I'll be thinking of a way to present this on youtube at some stage.

Anyone can go to the bible and prove that its wrong to rebel against God, so what? In the historical context where all scripture is we can identify the good guys and bad guys, so what? Yet Wayman and Payne will come along and nominate themselves as the good guys and those whom question them or refuse to follow them as the "bible" bad guy rebels/devils. But how many times do we need to say it, that is not theology to make modern comparisons according to their own opinions. Using the bible and nominating yourself as the rightful picture of Moses is utterly absurd.

And Korah's question is valid, who put you in to rule over us? What are your "ruling" credentials?? See the "ruling" Moses was fulfilled in Christ NOT a pastor. Jesus said in the church no one will rule over the other, something fellowship pastors don't seem to want to face up to. Where does Wayman EVER historically get the credentials to "rule" over anyone? Repeating over and over that God put your pastor over you doesn't prove anything. The credentials for the office of pastor IF they are called are in the pastorial epistles, Timothy and Titus, they are the only valid credientials in the bible, you don't go to exodus, or to Samual. God did not establish Wayman to be the king of the fellowship just because the bible tells the story of David or Moses. That is an example how stupid fellowship doctrine becomes, when your pastor proves God established him (or Waymn) to rule because Moses ruled in the desert and David ruled Israel, so what? Means nothing to you and I 3000 years later but people hear that crap and believe it.

The other interesting thing is rebellion never applies to the Wayman. Payne talks about the advice Mitch gives him in dealing with rebels but no one ever says, "but Wayman, aren't you a rebel yourself??" Payne also talks about how rebels need to be judged. Did you ever notice that rebels are always made out to have nothing legitimate to say? Payne also puts words in Korah's mouth such as "I don't like the way you do things Moses", "I have my own opinion Moses". Notice Korah never says "The doctrine of headship isn't in the bible so why are you teaching it?", "Why are entire churches forced to pay tithes to Prescott?", "Is it christian for Wayman to reject his own daughter and family and treat them as if they don't exist?", "Is it right to tell a wife to divorce her husband on the basis the husband no longer attends a fellowship church?", "Where does the bible teach that members of a church must stay where they are saved?", "where does the bible teach that members are commanded to unquestionably obey the pastor even if the pastor is wrong, especially doctrinally?"....etc Payne teaches as Mitch does that having a difference of opinion is rebellion, what a clown. I feel sorry for people that believe that rubbish.

Payne also said in the Q & A that "WE" knew Vicary had rebellion for a long time but they were waiting for an opportunity to deal with him, yet where is the so-called evidence for that other than Wayman said so. He is also big on the belief that God will judge rebels, those whom agree with rebels and those whom sympathise with rebels. So those whom are identified as rebels must be "treated" and viewed appropriately, meaning cut them off, warn them of their sinful rebellion against God and tell them you don't want to hear their so called slander (Payne calls it garbage) of their righteous fellowship and leadership....

Darren

DaVe wrote:When you grow up in the PH and have those doctrines preached at you all the time during revivals and conferences, they become second nature and you never question it because it's "headship" that's preaching it. And questioning headship is a sign of a rebellious spirit. So it's catch-22.

Mythbuster wrote:The problem is sermons in the PH are like mince, meat intertwined with fat etc you can't tell where the meat begins and the fat ends. That why a lot of people take the whole lot as gospel from 'God's annointed'.

Mythbuster wrote:The problem is sermons in the PH are like mince, meat intertwined with fat etc you can't tell where the meat begins and the fat ends. That why a lot of people take the whole lot as gospel from 'God's annointed'.