It seems that we have come under the serious
scrutiny of a cult-watcher of sorts at:
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including one (which has been archived) by Davie Bowie (not the rock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:
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.
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.
2-11 of 11
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
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
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
My thanks to Leif who found this site for us
today. We like out people to know what others say about us, however
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?
To see our views on cultism go to:
If you do an internal Google search of www.nccg.org
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
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?
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.
|Reviewer: firstname.lastname@example.org from The Hague,
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:
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.
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
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?)
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.
Inconvenient coding of some
links on this site was necessary to aid maintenance of your anonymity:
The html code for this site does not contain
direct, "clickable" links to the www.nccg.org website. In most
browsers, it will be necessary for the reader to use "copy and paste"
into another browser window to view the links, or type the URLs into
another browser window. These links are deliberately set this way
because "web counter" software operating on the www.nccg.org website
may be able to to reveal "referrer" information for any direct links.
In other words, if I had employed direct links, this group's leader
(who is also its website operator) should be expected to be able to
positively identify you by IP address as being a reader of THIS site.
This site could move in the future to a
Contact information: email email@example.com. I will not reply to or acknowledge emails which I suspect
as being from NCCG group members or leadership due to the ongoing
nature of the research and the non-anonymous nature of email header
Who sounds paranoid?
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
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.
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!