Walk away, just walk away

Below, in green lettering, is an excerpt from an article named Pastor Sues for Bad Reviews written by Dan Foster on Medium (emphasis added). The complete article can be found at:

https://medium.com/backyard-theology/pastor-sues-for-bad-reviews-724816ea7044 

Or complete details of the lawsuit can be found at: "Spiritual Sounding Board"

I add this article because it demonstrates the doctrine of shunning the ABC follows is actually much more common than we realize, and is an ungodly practice. If we use the Bible as reference point there is really no sound justification for this doctrine. And, in fact, those in leadership are admonished they must not lord it over the flock, the opposite of shunning and bullying.

Psychology Today describes shunning as, “an act of control and aggression, with powerful consequences”(1).  Shunning is really nothing less than formalized bullying.

______________________

"When Julie Ann Smith of Beaverton, Oregon, walked away from her church, she was unprepared for what would follow. Suddenly on the outer, she found herself and her family being inexplicably shunned by church members who were told by church leaders not to associate with her or her family anymore.

“If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way,” said Smith.

And while Julia Ann Smith was shocked at receiving the cold shoulder, this kind of story is an all-too-familiar tale from people who have walked away from churches. Suddenly, those who thought were your closest friends — your spiritual family, even — treat you as if you are a leper.

The Church in Smith’s case was the ironically named “Beaverton Grace Bible Church,” although, according to Smith, the “grace” was non-existent. In fact, Beaverton Grace Bible Church was famous for shunning former members/attendees or anyone who dared question the authority of the church leaders. Of all the things a church could be famous for…"

___________________________________________

This is "spiritual abuse". On this woman's website can be found one of the best definitions I have seen for the term "spiritual abuse". It is reprinted below.

Spiritual Abuse:  Spiritual abuse is a spiritual role-reversal where a shepherd, instead of clinging to and emulating the Great Shepherd by shepherding God’s people (Acts 20; 1 Peter 5; 1 Timothy 3; Ephesians 4), subtly demands that members exist to meet the shepherd’s needs (James 4:1-4). Rather than relating as a servant leader, the pastor “pulls rank” and “lords it over others” (Matthew 20:20-28; 1 Peter 5:1-6), not for the benefit of the flock, but for the benefit of the pastor. Rather than speaking the truth in love and rather than ministering grace and truth (Ephesians 4:11-16, 29; Colossians 4:3-6; Titus 2:10-12), the spiritually abusive pastor intimidates, judges, condemns, shames, and blames the sheep without regard for the spiritual wellbeing of the sheep (Jeremiah 23:1-4; Matthew 23:1-39). Definition from Bob Kellemen, Executive Director of the Biblical Counseling Coalition

The only thing I might add to Dan Foster's article is those who have been "pushed or driven out" as well, not just those who have "walked away". If one were finding peace and safety where they fellowshipped, they would likely not be "walking away" from it looking for a pasture that actually had green grass and safety.

I find the treatment she received mirrors closely the behaviors of the ABC toward those it finds "unacceptable" or of the "unapproved". As I have mentioned previously, the things I write on this site relate mostly to the ABC, because that is my direct experience, but this is an issue among many aberrant churches lost in a sense of self-righteousness. These churches encourage submission to the doctrines of a man, instead of to God, which leads to these false doctrines being implemented.  

 TO MAIN SITE

 

 (1)https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-bullying/201309/the-silence-shunning-conversation-kipling-william

Response to Anonymous 6/29/22 comment on Ch Ch Ch Changes post

In response to the question "- you stated that the ABC "denies Christ came in the flesh". Is this true?"

The ABC has three basic doctrines: the Foundations from Hebrews 6, the Creation teaching and the Revelation teaching. Beyond that, they are mostly stagnant with an undue focus on placing burdens on people, rather than setting them free.  

To answer your question directly; is there a specific teaching in the ABC that states Christ did not come in the flesh? No.  

However, the matter for which I was “eternally judged”, and told I could not speak a word in my own defense was this. In answer to a question about whether Jesus sinned when he stayed behind in Jerusalem to teach in the temple at age twelve, I stated Jesus did not sin against God, but may have trespassed against his parents by making them go out of their way to fetch him. His parents had traveled a full day into the desert before discovering Jesus was not with them. This caused them to leave the caravan, then travel back through the desert all alone for another full day to go find him. People traveled in caravans because there were thieves, robbers, and other perils. There was safety in numbers so they traveled in groups. Traveling back through the desert alone would have been very risky. Once back in town they frantically searched for three more days before finally finding Jesus at the temple teaching. This was a noble endeavor on Jesus’ part, but it also caused his parents much worry and grief. These were Mary’s scolding words to Jesus when she finally found him “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” So, five full days passed, causing his parents great anxiety and the loss of their caravan. This was undoubtedly not a small expense. 

Under the old law there were two types of sacrifice. One for a sin and one for a trespass. The first a bull, the second a goat. A dove if one was poor. Sin and trespass are not equivalent. Sin is against God; trespass is against another person. Did Jesus sin against God? No. Did he inconvenience his parents, put them at some peril, and undoubtedly cost them some money to acquire another caravan?  Looks that way. A trespass against another person is not any more a sin against God than if I accidentally stepped on a person’s toes. Jesus wasn’t belligerent in his actions, in his youthful mind it seemed the right thing to do. It wasn’t. Being on the caravan was the right thing to do and his trespass was accidental as he was not born with an adult mind. To a twelve year old this likely seemed the rational course, but he was still reliant on parents for guidance.

Jesus set aside the Godhead and became flesh, like any other infant or boy. Jesus was born to Mary in the flesh, and lived among us in the flesh. He became subject to everything we suffer, yet without sin against God. There is an entire book written about Jesus as a boy doing things such as accidentally using his “power” to kill a playmate. It’s a ridiculous book and carries the "Jesus as God on earth" concept to the absolute extreme. Jesus came to earth with a mind and body appropriate to his age. He was not born with adult thinking. He was not born talking and teaching before learning to read, write and all those other things his siblings learned along with him. He became the "Son of God" at his death and resurrection, not at his earthly birth.

When Jesus was on earth, he set aside being God until after his resurrection. I have no doubt he behaved in much the same manner as any other boy his age and needed to be taught how to behave properly. We know this is true because it is written in the gospel of John "For not even his brothers believed in him." His siblings saw him only as their sibling as he was growing up, not as a different creature with savant characteristics.  

Was Jesus staying behind at the temple a sin against God? No. Did he inconvenience his parents? Of course, he did. It took them five days to find him, put them in peril, and likely cost them money. While his cause was noble to “be about his father’s business”, he was not where he was supposed to be at age twelve. 

When they found him, He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?”  Their response was not to say, “oh, sorry, yes, we understand now. You are God on earth so, please pardon our interruption. Please continue with your father’s business while we get out of your way” Instead,…"they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.” Jesus then had a change of mindset “…and He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them…;” Like any other boy realizing they have accidentally hurt their parents he subjected himself to their parentage and delayed going about “his father’s business” until he was an adult. So, was Jesus unlike a normal child that needed to learn obedience? Not according to scripture. Jesus had to learn obedience.

I was not allowed to speak at the ambush, but I spoke up briefly for a moment to state my father, the one who started the ABC, would have agreed with me, and had stated this same fact to me many times. I was immediately shouted down by Bruce Leonard who stated my father would never say such a thing, as though he were somehow privy to every conversation my father and I had in the nearly eighteen years we lived in the same household. My father and I had many conversations about whether Jesus was like a normal boy when he was young, or if he was different. His conclusion was that his family did not see him as any different until much later in life, so he was likely just like any other boy growing up. This thought, Gilbert Larson, Bruce Leonard, and others felt was my “blasphemy” when I referenced it in my answer.  I was enticed to the ambush by a lie spoken to me at IHOP by Andy Atwell and a man named Mark. I was then judged for all of eternity to be a blasphemer. I lost every “friend” I had in one day simply because I had stated Jesus behaved like any other boy in the flesh and did not behave like a “god” on earth.  

So, while you likely would not hear any person directly teach that Jesus did not come in the flesh, this action of eternally condemning me forever for speaking this truth speaks for itself. The ABC does not acknowledge Jesus came in the flesh, dwelt among us, and was subjected to human frailties, yet without sin. Trespass and sin are not equivalent. 

There was another time I was declared to be a blasphemer that would show the ABC believes Jesus did not come in the flesh. I address this in my post “Haímatos (αἷμα / αἵματος ), hīdrṓs (ἱδρώς) and the Fox”

In this teaching I am considered to have “blasphemed” Christ when I related the story of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, when he knew he was soon to die.  Luke described this moment as, “And being in agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

I mentioned in my teaching Jesus, at that moment, when he was in great agony, suffered a human medical condition called hematidrosis. This is a condition in which blood enters the sweat glands, causes them to rupture and swell and the sweat becomes enlarged and bloody. This condition is only brought about by a person in extreme anguish and is exactly, precisely, what is described in Luke’s account of Jesus in the garden. We must not forget; Luke was a physician and he spoke as one who was a physician. The backlash was immediate. It was declared to me, Jesus was God, was therefore perfect, and could not possibly have suffered such a human condition. My words then were considered blasphemy against Jesus.   

This further shows the ABC does not believe Jesus came in the flesh. My words regarding Jesus being in the flesh were no small issue to the “leaders” of the ABC. After I was ambushed and “eternally judged”, while not being allowed to defend myself in any way, everyone I knew was then commanded not to speak to me under the threat that if they did, they too would be “eternally judged” in the same manner. They were admonished that they needed to decide if they were “in the body” or “out of the body”. The body of Christ is not just a few hundred people affiliated with the ABC. It is universal and none of these men have the right to decide who’s in and who’s out. That is arrogance.
Some still showed up at my door, even very late at night. One person even showed up at ten PM, unannounced, to shout at me that I was now a “stain on the body” for my single sentence. Others would show up to plead with me to do what the leaders told me, even if it was wrong. Secret letters were sent to my wife telling her to leave me and come back to the ABC without me. Secret phone calls were made to her work to convince her I was a "blasphemer". There was much, much more harassment, all provoked by Bruce Leonard at the behest of Gilbert Larson. My only option was to sell my house, leave my career position and literally go into hiding to remove myself from the incessant harassment of these self-righteous persons.

The ABC love bombs a person into membership. When you say, in reference to your ABC friend, “Although most of our conversations about the Lord end up at baptism”, this is because the ABC, a group of only a few hundred on this globe, believe the ABC baptism, by a member of the ABC, is the only valid baptism that exists. All other baptisms are “John’s Baptism” and are considered an invalid baptism, even if that person had proper faith toward God.  These friendly encounters you speak about likely have only one goal. To entice you into joining the ABC. This is likely not about being a friend. It is “love bombing”. 

In Revelation it speaks about an uncountable number of faithful and this is just the number that came directly out of the tribulation, not all those throughout all of history. How many is immeasurable? More than a few hundred? Juxtapose immeasurable with the few hundred persons of the ABC and do the math. Is it really possible the ABC has the exclusive franchise on truth and baptism? They do have a Greek Concordance that is difficult to use and causes spiritual myopia through an intense focus on words rather than truth. I speak as one who once suffered that same myopia, but I took off the polarized glasses obscuring my view. They will accuse me of “abandoning my foundation” but that is quite far from the truth. I just don’t keep laying it down over and over again, as they do. My view on the foundation has not changed one bit, but my focus has shifted to a focus on faith, the more important element in that list. It is a person’s faith toward God at baptism that saves them. Not the lineage of the baptizer, or the right words being incanted, or a witness assuring a nose tip might have not gone fully under which, if missed, supposedly invalidates the whole thing, per the ABC. All those rules were made up by Andy Atwell, but my father, the guy who started the ABC, did not ever meet these rules. They are a real stretch beyond putting faith in baptism, the faith being the thing that saves us. The physical baptizer is of no consequence. If that is a requirement, all in the ABC are lost because my dad was not baptized in the ABC way by this set of rules. All who followed after him are relying on his supposed ABC style baptism to assure a perfect spiritual lineage. That did not happen and I explain those details in several other posts.

Only the Lord knows those who are his. It’s not up to me. It's not up to them. When I do the math, it does not add up to the ABC having an exclusive franchise on truth and baptism. They speak of faith, but have little understanding of true faith towards God and not towards a baptizer. It is not their right or privilege to decide who is “in” and who is “out”.  That is up to the Chief Shepherd only.

TO MAIN SITE

Ch ch ch changes

It would appear control of the ABC has passed into the hands of these four men. 

• Kenton Miller
• Mark Davison
• Daniel Robertson
• Richard Oslund 

Kenton Miller and Richard Oslund previously played a legal role in the church, but Mark Davison and Daniel Robertson are now new to that list. 

There is no longer any reference to Gilbert Larson, the "apostle", in the legal record of the ABC and the previous treasurer, James Shierman, passed away last September. It can be assumed this likely prompted these changes.

Mark Davison, in Vancouver Washington, has now taken control of the treasury and one hopes this change will bring about an era of greater protection, and transparency, for all members of the ABC. 

 

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Someone asked me, not long ago, how much income the ABC receives in tithe each year. I was aware, at one point, the income exceeded one million dollars per year. When I was "eternally judged" to be a "blasphemer", and phone calls were made to everyone I knew to tell them I was  "evil", and they should not speak to me unless someone "trusted" was present, that ended most of my direct contact with persons in the ABC. I have no direct reference to an exact answer to that question of church income. Many more have left the ABC, or passed away, and this has likely reduced that income level. I could only make a wild supposition. 

This new document on file with the State of Washington indicates, by the highlighted "no" statement, the income is still currently in excess of at least one-half million dollars per year and it may, in fact, still exceed that one-million dollar mark but I have no direct evidence of that. (Note: the most recent corporate "Annual Report", acknowledged by the State of Washington on 2/6/23, shows the income level has now declined below the $500,000 mark.)  

I understand, from what I have been told, there is a significant investment portfolio that generates additional income on top of what is received in tithe and offering but of this I have no proof since management of the tithe has always been held secret.

Most non-profits must give an accounting of their monies to anyone who requests it. There are state and federal loopholes which allow religious non-profits to hide their accounting, and maintain zero transparency.  This may be correct legally, but morally and ethically, I am not so sure. It opens up the potential for abuses without any chance for audit.

I requested a transparent accounting of the monies several times before I was "eternally judged for all of eternity". The only  response I ever received back to my requests is I must trust God it is used correctly. This, in effect, keeps the money a mystery. Hidden.

After I was ambushed I sent a certified letter to the ABC requesting this information again. This letter was ignored, as expected. The ABC pays a salary to certain select men and makes a payment of sorts to Yvonne, my father's second widow, who previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to take control of the church. As a concession, the church agreed to pay her a monthly "retirement", but the specific information is not disclosed. This secrecy indicates to me there is something to hide. I know, from past experience, the tithe and offerings have, at times, been grossly mishandled so some transparency seems in order. 

There is a word in Greek, kekaustēriasmenōn, (κεκαυστηριασμενος), which means "to be burnt with a branding iron".  This word is found in Paul's first letter to Timothy.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron...

Recently there was a television program depicting life on a large cattle ranch in Montana. In this show, if one showed a special dedication to the ranch, that person could choose to be branded with a hot iron. Just like cattle. Once branded, this person was expected to remain loyal to the ranch for life. Even if that meant witnessing the death and destruction of others. In the show, as atrocities mounted, those branded were expected to "just go along", even if it could later subject them to legal peril. Those branded could never leave the ranch and those who did try were killed to prevent them from disclosing the atrocities they had witnessed. There are some parallels here.

These persons in the letter to Timothy, the Ephesians, had been "branded" in their conscience. These Ephesians, completely unaware of their own lies and hypocrisy, had begun to teach contradictory laws and created rules for men to follow that were out of step with truth. They had lost their first love and had, in their midst, false apostles who demanded their loyalty. The Ephesians had once again became enslaved to the law and welcomed these false apostles and prophets for a time. For this reason Paul requested Timothy to stay and try to correct things in Ephesus. 

When one is branded with a hot iron, the nerves  become dead and the area becomes numb. In this writing, in Timothy, Paul refers to this branding being of their entire conscience. The effect was a numbing of their conscience to the point they no longer registered the atrocities being committed right before their eyes. They became willfully ignorant and blind to them and no longer cared about the trail of damaged souls left in their wake. They lost all ability to show empathy or care.There is a great deal of similarity between the ABC and Ephesus.

In Exodus 13:9, just before the escape from Egypt and slavery, it speaks about the law being imprinted, or "branded", on the hand or between the eyes (on the forehead) of those enslaved who were fleeing Egypt. This was to be a memorial to them. 

This was before the curse of the law of Moses was given. It was before even the ten commandments were known. The only law that existed at that time was an unwritten law passed down through the generations from Abraham's time. The Lord's law.

And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.

Juxtapose this with a similar "brand", at the end of days, when men will once again become enslaved, just like the Israelites. The Israelites escaped this bondage in Egypt, became enslaved to the law then once again became enslaved, this time in  Babylon, drawn in by its beauty. 

Revelation speaks about the antichrist causing those who follow to have an imprint, a "brand", placed on their hand or on their forehead. This is a "brand" of enslavement to a "hidden Babylon" and is the polar opposite to the memorial "brand" of freedom which ended the captivity in Egypt.  

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

While some will disagree, not all things written in Revelation are to be taken literal. The Israelite people did not receive a literal "brand" or tattoo on their hand and forehead, it was a figurative "brand"  as a memorial. In Revelation, this too, is a figurative "brand" placed on the conscience, or soul, of an individual. It depicts an enslavement to "Hidden Babylon".

Mankind has been watching and waiting for "the antichrist" to show for centuries but the spirit of the antichrist is already here. It has been for centuries. The common theme among most Christian sects is the antichrist will be a person in the flesh that will rise up to take over every government in the world,  they will then control the entire globe through physical branding and a physical enslavement. Having worked in three levels of government, over a period of thirty years, I can tell you this; governments are not that efficient. Nations do not work together well when not allied during war. There are too many hurdles for this to happen in a literal sense. 

This scripture is a parable of sorts and the "mark" is  a figurative mark, not a literal "branding" or mark. It is the "brand" given to those who have enslaved themselves to the spirit of the antichrist rather than having a memorial of becoming free "branded" on their hands and mind. 

When concepts are spoken in parables there are  words attached such as, "If any man have an ear, let him hear." These words are attached to this story of the "mark" in Revelation.

This mark in Revelation is just like the figurative mark given to the Israelite people when they fled bondage, but is instead a mark of entering bondage rather than a memorial to freedom. This mark, placed on the hand or the forehead, symbolizes dead works or false teaching and prophesy. This is the anti-mark to the memorial of freedom given to the Israelites. 

We are given a huge clue about the substance of this mark in the wording that directly follows. Not all are able to hear this and understand.

Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

There are two other places we find this exact same number. It is in the book of First Kings and Second Chronicles. Both of these places read nearly identical and both refer directly to the riches of Solomon that caused him to turn away from God, become an idolator and an oppressor of his own people.

The weight of gold that came to Solomon yearly was six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold...

It is not a coincidence the number of the "mark of the beast" correlates with the number associated with Solomon's wealth building when he, in a degraded and idol worshiping state, sought his own devices, rather than God's mercy and truth. This is the part we must hear and understand. It is a compact statement that must be extensively unpacked.

Solomon became the builder of the temple when David failed the test and was rejected by God. After building the temple, Solomon gave himself privilege and status and took control of the treasury to enrich himself with money, wives, horses... Solomon then fell into a steep decline and, during this period of decline, began to tax the people he ruled in such a manner that his income would equate to exactly 666 talents of gold yearly. This is the number of mankind spoken about in Revelation. This numbering system of words was common in ancient languages. 

In today's currency Solomon's income would be about one billion dollars per year. More than a person would ever need for personal sustenance. This was all about power and control. Ego. Enslavement. Solomon enslaved his own people to build the temple then used the temple for his own worldly gain. Solomon received money from outsiders, but this was not included in the sum of talents that equaled to six-hundred and sixty-six yearly. This number was deliberate and symbolic.

Deuteronomy laid down some of the rules for a king. Solomon broke them all.

"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again." He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

Juxtapose this now with Revelation, which uses a great deal of figurative language regarding horses, the bride replaced by a harlot, and gold. These were the root of Solomon's sins. Horses, wives and gold led him astray. That takes some deep analysis to understand, and most of the verbiage is figurative and not literal.

Money is often associated with decline. Money is the root of all evil. Think of how Jesus whipped the money changers at the temple who were selling doves used as a sacrifice of forgiveness. A lamb was required as a sacrifice for sin but, if one were poor, a cheap dove could be sacrificed instead. These money changers, buying and selling sacrifices, were actually preying on the poor,  denying them forgiveness without them first paying tribute.

...he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.  To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

^"and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

If we are of God, we have a foundation which contains a seal; "The Lord knows those who are his..." It is a memorial just like the Israelite people received on their hand and forehead.  If we are of the spirit of the antichrist, we are instead "branded" with the mark of a man. We are told we must rely on an outside money changer to worship God properly or find forgiveness. We are taken captive then led to believe, just like Solomon, we have special privilege. That didn't work for the Jews that sought out John the Baptist, feeling their association with the lineage of Abraham gave them special privilege. It didn't.

The physical Babylon seemed a beautiful place to the Israelites, but it was really a place of bondage, enslavement. So, too, is Hidden Babylon. It appears attractive, feels right, but it is a trap that enslaves.

God is not a brand. God set the Israelites free and set a memorial of that freedom. He set us free but man often seeks out bondage again, once freed. The Israelites ended up enslaved again in a visible Babylon. We, too can become enslaved again by a Mystery, or a Hidden Babylon.

The buying and selling referred to in Revelation is not the purchase of lettuce and toilet paper for our homes. It is the  erecting of a false external temple, real or virtual. It is the belief we must worship at a certain place and time and must find our forgiveness there. It is the establishing of false prophets and apostles to rule over our false temple, real or virtual. It is allowing these false apostles to seek earthly gain from a tax on the people.

It is this "branding" that leads us down a destructive path and enslaves us to an entity, rather than to righteousness and to God. It is this "brand" that stipulates where we must worship God. There is nowhere in this universe where God isn't. We can worship God from the deepest hell, although I don't recommend it.

The kingdom of God is within us. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. We are created in God's image. If someone says, go here, go there, don't believe it. Walk the other way since they speak by the spirit of the antichrist. The number 666 in Revelation is a clue for us to look back at Solomon's degraded state, his abuses of power, his taking of wealth from the people, his enslavement of people to build the temple of God then using it to enrich himself. It is a warning not to follow in the same path. Juxtapose that to the memorial of freedom given to God's people when God freed them from Egypt. He gave them just ten commandments but they demanded to be enslaved under a law because ten was just too nebulous. This mark of six-hundred and sixty-six spoken about in Revelation is upon our soul, upon our conscience and not upon our flesh. The Ephesians failed this test miserably, so has the ABC.

The ABC regards itself as being "outside of Mystery Babylon", denies Christ came in the flesh and  condemns as a blasphemer those who speak such things. These are the marks of the spirit of the antichrist working in their midst.This is evidence they are deceivers with mysteries and things hidden.

And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Mystery Babylon is  alleged to be the Catholic Church which sits on  seven hills in Rome, her daughters being the mainstream denominational churches born from her. This is convenient, but not necessarily true. It doesn't account for the many non-Christian religions not born from the Catholic church. It is a ruse intended to avoid the truth that the avoidance of Mystery Babylon is pointed directly at us as individuals, not at "them somewhere out there". 

If this concept were true, the ABC is a daughter of Mystery Babylon as the lineage can be directly traced back to Broadway Tabernacle in Seattle, an Assembly of God affiliate. Nearly all of the study materials used in the ABC were developed by James A Watt, pastor of Broadway Tabernacle in Seattle. 

The ABC is an incorporated denomination just like all other denominations. This is an unavoidable fact. If this Mystery Babylon teaching is then correct, as taught, the ABC is just as much a daughter of Babylon as all the rest of those denominations they look down on and declare to be evil. 

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians; "And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." that's exactly what he meant.  Come out. Be separate. 

We are all individually a temple of the Holy Spirit and our very life is a worship of God. We can fellowship where we will but should not enslave ourselves again to false temples, apostles or prophets.

The ABC seeks to build large phylacteries of Greek knowledge, institute rules that are burdensome, reverts to old laws that were done away with at Jesus death, builds wealth through a tax, passes eternal judgments without looking in the mirror first, and some even try to stand in place of the Chief Shepherd and rob, maim and kill parts of the flock.  These false shepherds enslave sheep with the intent to "brand"  with a hidden "brand" that demands absolute loyalty to them rather than to God. We belong to God. They require their followers to look the other way when atrocities are committed and to stay silent under threat of similar treatment. Those who choose to leave the ABC are considered as dead and no longer worth their time. Unless it is to try to woo the person back in. If you are not within the walls of the ABC, it is assumed you are no longer seen by God as righteous. Those who speak of these abuses are defamed. 

This does not hold up in the light of the fact there is a number that cannot be counted before the throne at the end of time. Compare that with the few hundred of the ABC. Their numbers are not even close to innumerable.

I hope with these recent changes perhaps the culture of the ABC will change. But it has been more than fifty years of a few ingrained false abusive doctrines so it is not likely. Time will tell.

TO MAIN SITE