Why Russian law shields against some proselytizing

Why Russian law shields against some proselytizing


by Don Hank

A few religions that were recent implants in Russia have now been refused re-registration or have had their work curtailed. These include Jehova’s Witnesses, Mormon and Scientology.

In view of Russia’s 20th Century history, it is no surprise that these churches are not welcomed with open arms. Russia has returned to its Christian roots and groups like these are not traditional.

In fact, I have interacted with Jehovah’s Witnesses and discovered that their Bibles are slightly different at one crucial passage: John 1, where John wrote of Jesus, calling him the Word:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

In the JW translation, this is changed to:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 

Why did the JWs decide upon this translation? Two reasons:

1—It fits in with their idea that Jesus was not a deity, and

2—In the “original” Greek manuscript, the word God is written in John 1 without the definite article (analogous to the word “the” in English). In most cases, the word for “God” in the NT is preceded by the article (o).

However, there are 2 reasons we can know that this translation is erroneous:

1—The definite article “o” is not used obligatorily with the word God (theos). I went through the Nestle’s NT and found 36 instances of the word for God not preceded by the article.

2—While from a purely theoretical standpoint, one would have to admit that the word theos could be rendered, in some contexts, as “a god,” the real clincher is that the Hebrews were monotheists and did not have or accept the concept of multiple gods. This chapter we are discussing, John 1, makes it clear that the early Christians did not think of Jesus as separate from God the Father. Therefore, John 1 does indeed teach that Jesus was God. They were, in the Judeo-Christian theology, one and the same person in different forms. The Russians do not accept this Jehovah’s Witness teaching. It’s their country, they decide.

As for Scientology, I went to the pertinent web site and saw that there is no mention of God at all. To a Russian, no God means no religion. No religion reminds them of 70 years of hell under tyrants.

Yes, very dogmatic, and if you belong to a non-traditional “religion,” then Russia is not a good place to be. On the other hand, a Russian scientologist should be able to continue to practice this religion at home.

As for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it is easy to see why this religion would not be accepted as bona fide traditional Christianity by the traditional (some detractors say reactionary) Russians.

The Russians are skitterish about new groups, especially from other countries or whose belief systems come from abroad.

Consider what they have been through:

For 200 years, the Russian people groaned under the yoke of the Tatars, a horde of barbarians who exacted taxes from them, just as radical Islamists do today to non-Muslims. In fact, shortly after the Tatars conquered Russia, they became Muslims. At that point one might say they were collecting the jizya

Later, they were invaded by Bonaparte and then by Hitler, 2 foreigners who all but destroyed their country and slaughtered millions of them.

Further, a foreigner – the German Karl Marx – introduced an ideology – communism – from abroad and a few radicals adopted this idea. It is not known whether Lenin was even ethnic Russian (it is speculated that he may have been Chuvash, Mordvin or Kalmyk), but whatever the case, he hated the Russian nationality and wrote this on at least one occasion.  As for Putin, he has dissed Lenin on one occasion. Popular Russian duma member Vladimir Zhirinovsky quotes from Lenin in a recent speech to show that Lenin hated Russians. (BTW, Rabid Neocon activists claim communism never died in Russia. So how do they explain this?).

According to Nobel laureate Solzhenitsyn in his book 200 Years Together, 85% of the top level Bolsheviks who followed Lenin were Jewish. I am not addressing herein the historical veracity of this report, just saying what Russians believe to be true.

In fact, Putin addressed a group of prominent Jewish leaders in Russia a few years ago and told them this story. But Putin came from a staunch Soviet background and was therefore not anti-Jewish. One of the pillars of Soviet creed was that they, as the victors in the Great Patriotic War, stood in contrast to the fascists that they had defeated, particularly in terms of their attitude toward the Jews. Thus, in telling these Jews this story, he just wanted them to know this and told them in a friendly way. He also was subtly reminding them that any attempt to return to a Russia under non-Russian rulers hostile to Orthodoxy would not be tolerated.

Lest anyone think Putin has an anti-Jewish streak, note that he has met with Netanyahu many times in the last few years, even as Obama shunned the latter. And every time they get together Putin reminds him that, despite their differences, their 2 peoples have a lot in common, both having suffered horribly at the hands of the fascists during the Third Reich.

In other words, foreign ideas and people unattached to the Orthodox culture of Russia are seen as the originators of the 70 years of pain and tyranny of Russia. Putin himself has spoken disparagingly of Lenin, for example, and has suggested that Lenin was not a good Russian.

The Russians have a right to their opinion that it was non-Russians who destroyed their country. Clearly, if it had not been for this non-Russian (notably, non-Orthodox) interference in their history, they would not have gone through the painful experience of having atheism shoved down their throats and being forced to live under tyranny for 70 bitter years.

That in a nutshell is their motivation in wanting to stay free of foreign religions and ideologies and allowing Russian Orthodoxy to flourish without excessive interference.

Like the Jews who survived the holocaust, they too are saying “never again.” Their experience too was a holocaust.


Full text translation of Chapter 15 of 200 Years Together



Mr. Trump, why did you meet with my husband’s murderer?

Read it here

Even after Paris, Libertarians want open borders


Even after Paris, Libertarians endorse open borders


by Don Hank


The libertarian think tank Mises Institute just published an article titled ISIS May Be Our Ally Some Day. (My thanks to our friend Peter in the UK for this tip).

Expressed in the following sentence from the piece is perhaps the most dangerous error of ideological Libertarianism:


“In the West, since the nineteenth century, nationalism has largely filled the role of manufacturing consent to government domination, by drawing arbitrarily the contours of a fantasized historical and cultural community.”

Libertarians make the same mistake as radical leftists in that they ignore cultural identity and pretend it does not exist. I discussed this and its disastrous effects here.

Their attitude is: 50 million people share the same likes and dislikes, the same customs, the same religion and the same cultural identity? So what? It’s up to us to erase this identity to protect the world from war and enslavement.

Liberals, including Libertarians, think that it was nationalism that gave the world the Third Reich and WW II. Quite the opposite is true. It was indeed the supranational idea of a united Europe that inspired Hitler, and the idea was carried on by his former officials after the war to create the EU dictatorship, as disclosed  here and here and in this video by Edward Spalton and Rodney Atkinson, respectively.

By attempting to erase all cultural differences, Libertarianism and Leftism both seek to dominate while hypocritically endorsing “liberty.”  Instead of divide and conquer, they seek to artificially unite and conquer.

The author mentions the 19th Century as a turning point, alluding to the Treaty of Westphalia which enshrined in international law the concept of respecting the sovereignties of nations. Today’s utter disregard for national sovereignties gave us, for example, the hideous grotesquery of a shattered Libya where the US hegemon decided arbitrarily to take out Ghadaffi, a progressive and beloved secular leader who brought unprecedented prosperity by refusing to allow Islamic radicalism to get the upper hand. The author is, perhaps unwittingly, supporting this lawlessness.

The contours of a historical and cultural community they speak of are anything but arbitrary. Calling them arbitrary is indeed arbitrary in itself. The author is referring to national groupings whose constituent populations identify with each other sentimentally and intellectually. Nor is this community in any way a fantasy.

Go tell an Italian that the Italian identity is a fantasy. Be prepared to run.

But especially, do not tell a Russian that there is no such thing as a Russian identity. It’s all in his head (BTW, the Russians’ strong sense of identity is one of the main reason for the utterly irrational hatred of all things Russian that permeates the West, particularly the upper strata, who cleave to the dangerous notion of supranationality endorsed by the Mises Institute author). False modesty aside, I am particularly alert to cultural differences because of my intimate exposure to many cultures and languages over about 55 years. My analysis is not only from intuition or from a study of other people’s ideas, eg, from having read books or heard lectures, but primarily from years of experience in total-immersion experiences in the field. Why listen to an armchair philosopher when you can get it from the horse’s mouth? Listen to me: Culture is real, more real than anything libertarians or their soul mates the liberal leftists have ever written. They, along with the liberal leftists, are in fact the reality-denying fantasists who promote the dangerous fantasy of a one-world world government that has wrecked swaths of our world both under the communists of the 20th Century and under the EU.

The lie that statehood and national identity do not exist is what is bringing down Europe before our eyes, flooding it with unvetted “refugees” from terror-nurturing countries and foisting a failed monetary system and military program on its constituent states, all subservient to the US government. It has enabled a small deceitful cabal to bring an entire continent to virtual economic and social ruin.

America is on the way to such a union. GW Bush tried to foist the North American Union on us years ago. Fortunately, Americans – most of whom think of ourselves as a nation despite the ill-intentioned propaganda of the kind so cheekily represented by the Libertarians above – protested vigorously and the project was apparently scrapped. But in reality, even after the elites stopped naming its name, they stealthily pursued its goals as vigorously as before, with Bush opening our borders ever wider, allowing more and more illegal aliens into our country and even refusing to repatriate violent criminals who had entered the US illegally, as I showed here long before Donald Trump raised the issue. Obama is carrying Bush’s torch. You don’t have to name it to create a supranational union. The unnamed ones are the most dangerous.

Like all ideologies, Libertarianism must deny reality to survive and receive donations. One clue as to why we ignore Putin to our peril is that he has stated publicly that he has no ideology at all. Recently he was named the most powerful man in the world. Realism is power. Ideology is doomed to failure.






Rick Warren calls dissenting Christians fake

by Don Hank

Help grow my megachurch or leave!

I was recently surprised to read that Rick Warren is calling other Christians fake and calling for phony Christians to leave his church. He is targeting in particular those who fail to help his multimillion dollar Saddleback megachurch grow. Is the narrow way passé for the finger-pointing pastor?

A country preacher at a church I once attended used to say “when you point the finger of blame you have three fingers pointing right back at you.”

How about a pastor helping a Marxist get elected?

How about a pastor being unequally yoked with non-believers who deny Christ? Wouldn’t that be fake Christianity? Rick has been yoked with the Left and Islam for some time now despite Paul’s explicit command: 

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

Rick seems to have his own personal definition of “Christianity” and it doesn’t look quite the same as the Apostle Paul’s.

So who’s a fake? 

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:5).

The “Christian” Left, hordes of sheep-like socialist heretics led by charismatic fanatics, almost completely took over Europe at various times in the 13th and 14th centuries. Even after they were largely subdued, they clung to their utopian fantasies and the last one of their line, Wilhelm Weitling, met and influenced Karl Marx. Charismatic leaders like Dolcino in Italy and Thomas Müntzer in Germany, condemned other Christians as fakes, preaching that all property must be held in common and strictly forbidding all private ownership of anything. They plundered, killed, maimed, destroyed and looted churches and waged war against all who stood in their way, conquering vast territories and forcing concessions from powerful princes and popes before finally being overthrown. They were convinced that they were right, based on a cursory knowledge of certain verses of the Bible, and that they were Christ’s avengers, based on nocturnal dreams.

Yet nowhere do we read that Jesus or the early Christians had urged Christ’s followers to force others to live by their rules.

Jesus flatly rejected the socialists of his day, in so many words telling them to get lost when they dunned Him to initiate a free lunch program.

The socialist heretics had their way in Europe sporadically for about 2 centuries, and then faded away. Their modern day counterparts will do likewise.

But not before causing untold hardship and leading hordes of foolish, gullible souls to perdition.

Further reading:



The Internet Monk is Wrong to Wish Obama an Unqualified Successful Presidency

by Anthony Horvath

To begin with, I need to say that as an occasional reader of the InternetMonk blog, I almost always approve of almost everything that I read there. Michael Spencer gets a lot of things right and a lot of things he says needs to be heard by the Church. So this is not knee jerk reaction. Indeed, I find him a kindred spirit and frankly wish that I didn’t have to challenge him on his recent blog entry, Christians: What are you saying about the President?

Before I begin, I should also mention that there is a sense in which I’m singling him out unfairly. I have been hearing similar sentiments from a variety of places. So, this should be read as a challenge to Spencer but also a whole host of other commentators too. Rightly or wrongly, his post is being taken as representative of several worrisome trends.

The IM begins with a litany of comments that he has heard that he finds disgraceful. Without hearing the context in which they were spoken we are left to take them on their face. There isn’t much we can do about that. We certainly can’t ask him to substantiate each one. Some of them we can join in denouncing, but others I think I’d like to hear the arguments for. Did Mr. Spencer solicit their arguments even? Therein lies the first problem. Mr. Spencer leaves little room for the possibility that the speakers have good reasons for what they are saying. Rather, we are told with utter certitude that these are all “threatening, hateful, hostile or untrue words.”

That approach only works if you expect that your audience already accepts the terms of the discussion, which of course most of the people commenting on the entry did. But since the whole point is to persuade those who don’t accept those terms to think like you then in my view you have to do more than just throw out statements that you expect any reasonable person to reject. Granted, we don’t want to endorse something that will get you on ‘some FBI list’ but I personally don’t see an inherent contradiction (for example) between praying for someone and hating them, or at least hating what they stand for.

Perhaps more worrisome then the possibility that a caricature is being painted is that the concern is over seeing “a black Democrat take the office of the President.”

That is utterly ridiculous. I know a lot of people who are horrified at an Obama presidency and none of them care one lick that he is black. What about the wide spread support of Alan Keyes? What about the folks who pined for Condi Rice to run? Then, when we heard examples of contemptible statements none of them supported the racial aspect. So where did this come from? I’ll tell you what it sounded like to me- it sounded like a very clever way to call people racists without using the word. Saying it bluntly would have seen immediately as insulting and patently false. Instead, it was still insulting and patently false, but cleverly worded. Still an insult and still patently false. Mr. Spencer calls people to repentance for saying the things they said. He should repent for this insult to fellow Christians.

But I don’t want to dwell on this aspect. My problems with his post run far deeper.

Spencer’s arguments after this basically have two halves. The first half is ‘No, I don’t agree with Obama but I still wish him well.’ The second half is his exposition on what the Christian’s attitude on government should be. I will take them each in turn and then wrap it up with a discussion of worrisome subtext to Mr. Spencer’s arguments, and others I’ve heard and read as well.

Like the many pundits and bloggers wishing Obama a ‘successful’ presidency, Mr. Spencer says: Continue reading

Christians, fear the LORD, not Rick Warren!

Christians: Fear the Lord, not Rick Warren!

 by Donald Hank

Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.    Mat. 25:45

Some will certainly ask why my campaign against Rick Warren. They say it seems so personal at times.

It is. Let me try to explain where I am coming from.

300 years ago, my Anabaptist ancestors, gentle, godly men and women, were persecuted for their faith and their plain talk.  Here is how it happened.

My people had been living in the mountains of Switzerland and had been holding house church services there, perhaps for centuries – no one knows – much like the Chinese Christians today, reading contraband German translations of the Bible (which was supposed to be in Latin only) and teaching against child baptism, when Martin Luther managed to throw off the yoke of the Catholic church for the first time. Now they knew that up until then, had the Catholic authorities learned of these “heretical” activities, they would have been in mortal danger. But seeing Luther as their liberator, they decided it was safe to come down and come out. They went into the public squares and preached their new doctrines. Amazingly, they could quote the Bible in German, something ordinary people couldn’t do, because the Catholics had taught that only higher ranking church people had the right to do that. And their words seared men’s hearts and consciences, because it thundered like the truth of prophets. Unadorned, unflattering truth that tore away centuries-old facades and hypocrisies in a flash, leaving sinful people naked before man and God.

But if Luther was a liberator for some, he was not their liberator, far from it.

For the followers of Luther had their own doctrines shaped as much by their leader as by the Bible. Luther was indulgent. He didn’t preach much about sin or hurt the feelings of his flock. After all, they were his bread and butter. Many were rich and influential. So he liked to make his flock feel good about themselves. Sound familiar?

Luther’s reformers decided to take action against my ancestors. Soon the more outspoken ones were rounded up and persecuted. The tortures were unspeakable. Some were loaded with weights and thrown into rivers to drown; some had their cheeks burned open with red hot irons, leaving hideous gashes in their faces. Some were burned at the stake. Even young girls were not spared the torture and execution. Yet they marched to the place of execution singing hymns of praise to our Lord!

Faced with extinction, the Anabaptist church elders soon decided their only hope was to emigrate. But where to go? Who would take them? Many of those living in the East went to Russia, which then was a godly country. But for most, there was only one haven: America. A certain William Penn, a godly man himself, had acquired the rights to a vast territory in the Eastern part of the new land and invited the Amish and Mennonites, as they came to be called, to settle there.

Praise be to God. They were free at last! And they brought with them a new concept of government: separation of church and state.

But good things like this never last forever, at least not without a fight. But the Anabaptists didn’t believe in fighting.

In the 20th century, their children were exposed to wicked ideas, from the same places that had expelled them. From Charles Darwin in Europe. Darwin’s idea that people could live without God, that they were no longer His children but accidents of nature, spread like a miasma over the land, suffocating good religion and righteous people who resisted evils like homosexuality and abortion were soon the target of ridicule and even threatened with imprisonment.

A new “church” rose up under the influence of the new ideas. The new church taught a new doctrine: civility. But what that meant was that the old believers were not to speak. The new believers were allowed to say what they pleased as long as they did not sully the new church’s elders. And they could embrace the evil condemned by God himself. For the new leaders were wicked and secretly hated God and his plain words about these evils.

A new leader emerged among the false prophets, a man named Rick Warren, who quickly became famous because he flattered the evil doers and said nothing about their sins. Not only that, he punished those who spoke out against the evil. Rick was well liked among the licentious because he provided cover for them by silencing dissenters, called them “uncivil” if they criticized same-sex marriage and abortion.

Meanwhile he devised a scheme known as the “Growth Covenant,” and urged churches to sign this, promising them growth and wealth if they did. Many foolishly believed that they would become prosperous even without God’s blessings. Yet some, the wiser and older believers who knew the Bible, resisted. Rick told the pastors to simply kick out these older people, whom he derisively called fundamentalists (a name that had been shrewdly used by non-believers to denote Islamic radicals, making it seem as if all traditionalist Christians were every bit as bad as terrorists). Through this sleight of hand, he was able to discredit real Christians.

Do you see what had happened? The nation that had taken in the downtrodden was now persecuting them. And Rick Warren was the new Martin Luther, ruling with an iron fist – and a smile.

An old believer named James Sundquist documented the abuses suffered by these poor unfortunate Christians, in a book entitled “Who’s Driving the Purpose-Driven Church,” and later in another one entitled “Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan.” For his pains, Brother James was also persecuted, receiving vicious attacks from the followers of Rick, who called him vile names. The hypocrisy was evident. These people who talked so much about “civility” were anything but civil.

It was a sham.

And this is the America we now live in. Anyone who dares to criticize Rick Warren is threatened with lawsuits, attacked viciously or treated as a pariah in the evangelical community. Almost no churches will tolerate a dissenter. Even the most traditional ones have adopted a code of silence. I spoke with some of the victims on the phone, who said they were threatened with the loss of their livelihood if they dared speak out against Rick. Others hung up as soon as they realized I was investigating Rick. I have spoken with otherwise traditional pastors who immediately jump to Rick’s defense when confronted with the truth, saying “I still believe Rick is saved,” as if being saved were an excuse for doing evil! And they hurry to get away. One man I spoke with said was escorted out of a church by the police because he had criticized Warren to his pastor earlier that week. It is surreal, like something straight out of Kafka.

But recently there have been stirrings. After Rick’s minion Richard Abanes had Ken Silva’s web site taken offline, I prayed earnestly about this intolerable situation and, seeing that no one else had the courage or understanding to intervene, finally stepped out in faith and took up the cudgel. I started exposing Rick’s shenanigans. And then, God stepped in as He always does at such times. Well-known and influential commentators started opening chinks in Rick’s armor, criticizing his leftism, something good Americans cannot tolerate when its mask is pulled away.

Below I present citations from respected and well-known serious commentators. Now, Randy or Hunt or Richard Abanes, or whoever is running interference for Rick today, please note that now, I am only quoting for a change.

But even so, don’t even think about harassing my friends here, because I promise to make you even more infamous if you do.

From what I have said about my ancestors, you can understand that I do not abide bullies well – especially religious bullies!

America is the last stronghold for religious freedom. If we fail here, there is nowhere left to go. All good people must fight. Please, fellow Americans, don’t be afraid. God will protect you, and bless you, if you stand up for what you know is right.

Now is the time to shed forever your purpose-driven shackles and shout a resounding NO to the rich and powerful bullies who have usurped America’s pulpits!

Donald Hank


Institute on Religion and Democracy

Rick Warren: Evangelical Statesman
Alan Wisdom
August 18, 2008 

“Rick Warren will not endorse either candidate. Nor has he abandoned his convictions about abortion and homosexuality. But he does Obama a great favor simply by presenting him on the stage of Saddleback Church alongside John McCain. Assiduously avoiding the issues where evangelicals differ most sharply with Obama also aids the Democrat’s cause. (One wonders whether it will be possible, at an event in California, to pretend that the court-imposed redefinition of marriage is a matter of little concern to evangelicals.)” [my emphasis here and hereafter]

Read more here.

 That, of course, is essentially what I had said back in February in my column “The purpose-driven left Turn.” No other columnist had mentioned this back then.

Star Parker echoes this same concern. Have a look:

Star Parker:

Pastor Warren: Stop politicizing religion

“For whatever good intentions Pastor Warren may have, by posturing as a neutral broker between different points of view, many of which have profound moral and religious implications, he contributes to the moral ambiguity we’d expect a pastor to be combating.
We have institutions for civic and political forums. The press, universities, town halls, etc. If they’re not delivering well, let the marketplace work to improve what we’re getting. But this is not the job of pastors or churches. If it is, where do we go to learn about good and evil?”

And further: 

“The pretense of neutrality is really a left-wing illusion. It’s a sleight of hand to buy into relativism, and somehow Pastor Warren seems to have fallen into the trap. [Star is very diplomatic, falling short of calling Warren a leftist-DH]
When a pastor hosts a political candidate that has a 100 percent rating by NARAL Pro-Choice America and a 0 percent rating by the National Right to Life Committee, he gives legitimacy to that candidate. When legitimacy is given to a line of reasoning that says that poverty and AIDS are symptoms of anything other than moral breakdown, the relativist views of the left are justified.”

Amen, Star!

Read more here.

Finally, for those who have not read the numerous blogs and the books by James Sundquist, here is a letter from one of the victims of the Purpose Driven Mafia, which I received from this courageous author.

Brother James says:

Kaycia Key is wife of Pastor Ron Key who was driven from a well known PDC church in Dallas, TX. I published her letter in my book on Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan.   Here is her letter as cited in “Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan vs. Scriptural Teachings on Peace.” page 114-116, ©2006  Bible Belt Publishing, Southwest Radio Church and Rock Salt Publishing:

December 14, 2005 and January 9, 2006

Hi James,

Our newly founded church, Cornerstone, is doing very well, has such a sweet spirit. We have over 250 members and we are meeting in facilities provided by Dallas Christian College.

We have to use the gymnasium for worship services because it’s the largest area to meet. We’re too big for their chapel. We also have refugees from a myriad of other churches.

Ron and I are having an Open House this weekend to try to thank everyone for all the love and support we’ve received . . . so that has kept me pretty busy.

I finally got to get a little further into your book and another one that someone else sent which echoes the same concerns you have. I am so grateful to you for identifying some of the causes of my fear and concern for the Lord’s church. The Deceiver certainly has come as an “angel of light” in these days.

I recently read an article in Christianity Today, five pages of Rick Warren’s Global Plan to end world poverty. It was sad and frightening to read all those pages and only one mention of Jesus . . . a mention about how Rick Warren was there to restore the hands and feet to the body. And as you point out, his theology is definitely skewed. Have seen numerous articles corroborating your book. . . . Many who left Valley View Christian Church did so in great part because the leadership had developed an irrational and irrecoverable rupture in our common faith, belief and vision of Christ’s church after we studied and implemented the Purpose Drive Life by Rick Warren.

The church had been experiencing problems between the elders and the congregation and people were quietly (and some not so quietly) beginning to leave. When the elders  brought in a new preaching minister [who supported Warren’s view] people grew more unhappy and then after we did, the purpose-driven programs the rift developed into the rupture of faith and our vision for Christ’s church to the point a “re-visioning” even the foundational charter. To try to overcome this growing rift the elders, and Ron and I, agreed to submit ourselves to a biblically-based reconciliation process under the direction of a professional Christian reconciliation group to try to overcome this mindset which had come upon the church.

But three days later the elders reversed their decision and asked Ron to resign, with six months severance or be fired and receive two months severance. Ron, my husband and senior minister, said that under these circumstances, they would have to fire him, because he said he could not resign when he had lived up to his end of the agreement. Ron Key did not, as some may thought (or been erroneously told) start a new church, but was asked to become the minister of the new church, once it was founded.

Since then the church has grown to about 275-300, several of whom were refugees from other churches in the area who were also leaving because of many of the same issues with

leadership that had developed in their respective congregations after purpose-driven programs. We are also now being able to share in love with more people about the perils of Warren’s programs. Believers, who sensed something amiss, but were not aware of the dangers in his teachings and who knew nothing (like me) of the congregations that have developed splits after having implemented his “purpose-driven” ideas. As one of our

members and past elder at VVCC stated, “The question is not whether the congregation will obey their elders, but whether the elders will obey Christ.”

-Kaycia Key [reprinted by permission]

Folks, if you are still not quite convinced, I recommend you go out and get James Sundquist’s books, which document the purpose-driven reign of terror that I have tried to briefly depict here.