” Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time.” (Colossians 4:5)

Once again in this section our critic mainly repeats the same reproaches he made in previous chapters. This leads us to a certain amount of repetition here as well.

Even among non-Christians it is true that with every new friendship and integration into a new circle of friends a person’s “communication skills” change. When a person gets to know new friends, his conversations will be characterised by new topics. How much more does encountering God shape a person?

The first Christians also proclaimed:

“For we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:20

The Kingdom of God, and following Jesus becomes the determining content of our life. Trivialities such as stamp collecting or football are simply not an important topic of conversation anymore. It may seem suspicious for a non-Christian who does not have God in the centre of his life that “religion takes a decisive position in the member’s life and thoughts.” But what else characterises a Christian, if not the endeavour to allow his whole life and thinking to be determined by Christ?

The central position God has in our lives does not mean that we do not have any other topics of conversation. We are not apolitical, cultureless and scientifically ignorant people.

But we see everything in relation to faith in Christ.

We do not use the tactics we are accused of, such as, “During the recruitment the group wants to give a good impression to the parents of a prospective member,” after which, “contacts with people outside the sect are reduced to a minimum or broken off completely.” We have nothing to hide. Each person who really wants to get to know us has the opportunity to spend time together with us and to get to know us just as we are. Our guests have the opportunity to get to know our community life from the inside. We do not want to put on a religious show, but to allow each person to take part in our lives from the beginning as much as it is possible (compare 1 Thess. 2:8). We do not want to give anyone a false impression of ourselves – neither better, nor worse. We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus (2 Cor 4:5). Each person can test for himself to what extent our life is in line with the requirements of Jesus.

Family members also have the chance to take a closer look at our life. There have even been cases where parents have followed their children’s decision to be part of the community because they were not prejudiced, but rather experienced the working of God in their children and in the community. They recognised that the changes their children were going through were not the product of psychological manipulation, but the work of God.

Unfortunately cases where other family members also decided to live a life of discipleship are an exception. Due to differing aims in life, the basis for committed relationships diminishes and contact to one’s family becomes weaker. This is not the result of refined manipulation, it is a natural development.

Moreover, this fully corresponds to what Jesus said.

“Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life.” (Mk 10:29-30)

The passage Kluge mentions in 2 Cor 6:14-18 does not touch this problem. As mentioned above (“The lifestyle of the Group”), 2 Cor 6 is only concerned with the impossibility of spiritual fellowship between believers and unbelievers.

As for the reproach that we ignore the fact that Jesus shared meals with sinners:

Jesus came to call everyone. He called sinners and he ate together with them. But Jesus never took part in their sins. Where ever Jesus was, God was in the centre. He brought the love of God to those who had been written off by the Pharisees. The kingdom of God was in the centre of his life and actions and all his conversations. Many sinners seized this opportunity offered by Jesus and repented. Yet Jesus never confirmed people’s sins with his presence. Or does Kluge really think that Jesus would have chatted with people about football and car racing, gone to the cinema with them, and perhaps chuckled to himself at their dirty jokes? When people had things on their mind other than God, Jesus also saw no basis for a conversation.

“For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.” (Matt 21:32)

The sinners believed John and later they believed Jesus even more. That was the basis for further fellowship.

“A Christian who does not convert after having contact with the Holic-Group is considered worse than an atheist who has not yet had a chance to absorb the Gospel” is another reproach levelled against us.

To this briefly:

1. Someone who has already become a Christian does not need to convert. We have never required a Christian to convert. As we have repeatedly explained, we are glad about every Christian God leads to us.

2. A pseudo-Christian who refuses to repent to God (not to a non-existent “Holic-Group”) has put himself in a worse situation than a person who has yet to hear the message (whether religious or atheist). If anyone refuses the call of God, he hardens himself against God, making it much harder for himself to listen to a further call of God than for someone who has not yet heard anything.

3. We profess along with Paul that every person can recognise God and that there cannot therefore be any such thing as an honest, sincere atheist.

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20)

We must therefore unfortunately assume that atheists have already made serious decisions against God, which does not hinder us from also reaching out to atheists.

The criticism quoted here presupposes that we endeavour for atheists, showing that Kluge’s assertion that “missionary work with atheists is unknown” is not the reality.

It is interesting that Kluge praises the “members of the sect” for something that he would attribute to but a few of his Roman Catholic brothers in faith when he writes, “Members of the sect would rather not answer a question than be drawn into a lie.”

Whoever believes in the truth also lives in it.

In response to the criticism that we have a lack of “social welfare activities outside the Group”: It is correct that we do not see social welfare activities as our priority, but not because we consider these activities to be fundamentally wrong. Several of our brothers and sisters are involved in “social welfare” in their jobs. In addition, we are well aware of the great social injustice that exists in many parts of the world and the severe material need many people face, and for this reason we give financial support to several charities. The principle duty of a Christian though, lies elsewhere. Jesus did not send his disciples out to remove social deprivation, but to preach the Gospel. The fight against material poverty is an important task. The fight against spiritual poverty is even more urgent. This is, on the one hand, because a life without God has consequences not only for this earthly life, but it also separates people from the source of eternal happiness for all eternity. On the other hand it is because sin is so often the cause of social injustice. A Christian does not oppress his fellow-man, nor does he exploit him. Thus evangelism also indirectly serves to remove injustice. The sharing among Christians and their modest lifestyle are an example for those around them. In the life of the community it should be visible how it could be everywhere, if everyone followed God.

With great conviction we reject the principle that we have read in the handbook of a Roman Catholic sub-organisation, The Legion of Mary: “Material relief must not be given — even in the smallest ways; and experience shows that it is necessary to mention that old clothing belongs to this category.” (The Official Handbook of the Legion of Mary, CONCILIUM LEGIONIS MARIAE, Dublin 1993, p.291)

Thankfully in the countries where we know brothers and sisters there is a certain amount of social security (even if some politicians – often members of so-called “Christian” parties that are in reality capitalistic parties – zealously work to dismantle this security). Thus the urgency of social help is less than in biblical times. As there are so few of us, even if we were to concentrate solely on social welfare activities, many problems would remain that we could not solve. The fact that there are so few of us means that it is so much more important for us to focus on our evangelistic activities. Even morally conscious non-Christians can supply physical bread to eat. The “bread of life” was given by Jesus to his disciples for them to feed the people. We eagerly strive to do the same, as even our critic admits calling it a “strong drive to convert”.

About our mini-vans: Fellowship and evangelism are at the centre of our lives. This also means that we do a lot of travelling. Over the years we have seen that the most effective way of doing this is using vans which can also be used to live in temporarily. Our vans are financed exclusively out of our own pockets. We receive no state support or otherwise. We are not (nor do we want to be) any kind of registered, recognised, religious organisation, thus we do not enjoy any kind of tax-breaks. The fact that we are able to afford our vans, which have been internally modified to make them useful, not “respectable”, is a result of sharing. Contrary to the widely held belief that community of property leads to poverty, it is quite logical that a simple lifestyle combined with the practice of sharing all possessions leaves some money over for the acquisition of assets used by all.

“All who believed were together and had all things in common” (Acts 2:44)

In this chapter of Kluge’s article he more or less repeats some of the same reproaches as before which does not change the fact that they are false.

Living together in live-in communities, as has already been mentioned (II.), came about because many of us had already moved away from our home towns and villages because of our education or profession. Moreover this lifestyle has undoubtedly many advantages for community life. We can make much better use of our money and our time by living together in a larger household than in many separate flats. It also enables us not only to meet in the evenings but also to begin the day together in common prayer.

In the same way meeting with brothers and sisters from other towns or countries is beneficial and edifying for all of us. Our common talks about God’s word and our personal experience help us to get to know God and each other more deeply. Sharing our experience of nature also deepens our relationship with our creator.

There is nobody who plans who will walk with whom. We are adults and do not need someone to make our decisions for us “from above”.

When Kluge accuses us of not allowing married couples to separate themselves from the “Group” in any way he puts the cart before the horse. Someone who joined the community voluntarily does not want to isolate himself. The same is true for believing married couples. The relationship between the community and a family can perhaps be compared with the relationship between an extended family and a nuclear family, as was common in former centuries. The “nucleus” of the family was integrated into a larger circle of grandparents, uncles, aunts etc. In the same way, a family within the community is integrated into the community like in an extended family. This kind of lifestyle naturally requires people to overcome their selfishness and is only possible on the basis of a completely voluntary decision.

Our critic acknowledges that “community and the feeling of togetherness within the Group is therefore very intensive and dictated by great sincerity and honesty“, yet in the same sentence he questions “whether any real personal relationships can exist”. He does not explain at all how these two contradictory statements fit together.

Whatever he means by “real personal relationships”, such intensive “community and the feeling of togetherness … dictated by great sincerity and honesty” among people of such different backgrounds shows that God is at work here.

To which other groups which Kluge considers to be churches would he so confidently attribute these characteristics, not to mention all the official “church members” who live their own separate lives?

In response to the reproach that we require separation from all previous social networks, we want to make it clear that we distinguish between fellowship with believers and other relationships. 2 Corinthians 6:14 and the following verses speak about the impossibility of spiritual fellowship with unbelievers, but this does not mean separation from all previous social networks. Each one of us has many relationships with people in the “outside world”. We do not strive to break off relationships with parents and family from the outset. In many cases it is the intolerant behaviour of the family which makes any kind of relationship impossible. What is clear is that when a person’s priorities change the emphasis in his relationships will also change. A radical separation from all relationships, as was (at least in the past) demanded by some Catholic Monastic Orders, is not our aim and is something we reject.

It is not the “restriction of communication with the outside world” that enables us to focus more on “communication within the Group”, but setting spiritual priorities and experiencing fellowship with the brothers and sisters leads to a reduction of superficial “relationships with the outside world”. At the same time, we endeavour to put our relationships, which were previously built on a superficial base, onto a solid foundation. Personal relationships can only be deep when God is in the centre. That is the only way we can help each other even in our problems.

We endeavour, as Kluge correctly comments, to live a simple lifestyle. This is something he assesses positively in his closing remark as well. Contrary to some Catholic movements (like Francis of Assisi), we do not consider poverty to be an end in itself.

“… but if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.” (1 Timothy 6:8-10)

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:24)

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matthew 6:19-21)

Since our treasure is in heaven the earthly things are not in the centre. We want to use all the material gifts with gratitude for a modest life. Poverty is not the goal of our life, but next to the great treasure that Jesus has given us the significance of the earthly goods fades in comparison.

We do not want to obey any human fashion-dictators but God, who “clothed us in garments of salvation” (Isaiah 61:10).

We do not have any secret sources of income. We live from what we earn. The fact that we share our possessions and live a modest lifestyle means that some money remains for greater purchases such as for our vans, which are necessary for our meetings. Even if this “raises some questions” for Kluge, we have nothing to hide. Such questions should rather be asked of the Catholic church and its history.

We greatly enjoy the creation with all its God given beauty. Our walks, described as being “extremely long”, usually last a little over three hours, and occasionally four to five hours (if there is an especially nice route). Brothers and sisters who find this too exhausting take a shorter route. Many of us have jobs where we sit for hours, and some are students. So some physical exercise combined with conversation and spiritual fellowship is very beneficial.

Concerning the rejection of festivals and celebrations – we have already explained our point of view thoroughly. It is inappropriate to compare this with Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose life is full of formalism.

The reproach that we proclaim our “lifestyle to be in accordance with the will of God and demand that each person adopt this lifestyle” is based on a false premise. The initial question always has to be: What is God’s will? This is the starting point for the way we live our lives. In the Bible we do not find any model lifestyle that could be applied unchanged to our circumstances. Instead, taking into consideration all the demands and requirements of our current situation, we decide upon the best way to live so that all are edified.

“Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.” (Hebrews 13:15)

Our whole life is an act of service to God.

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” (Rom 12:1)

That is why we do not want to perform any ritual procedures. Instead we want God’s acting to become visible in everything we do.

Salvation is given to us through Jesus; therefore we do not acknowledge any signs (sacraments) which mediate salvation to us.

Jesus instituted baptism (Mt 28:19). It is the sign of conversion (Acts 2:38), of the death of the old self and the beginning of a new life in Christ (Rom 6:3-11). The magical misinterpretation of the baptism, in which the form itself without the content is believed to mediate salvation, makes it necessary for us to emphasise that it is not baptism itself that mediates salvation, but faith alone, of which baptism is a sign.

Whenever the Bible mentions only the baptism of a person when speaking about his repentance, it is the content more than anything that is being expressed by the form.

There is only one baptism (Eph 4:5). We are not Anabaptists. If an unbelieving “priest” or “pastor” etc. pours water on a child of unbelieving parents in the presence of unbelieving “godfathers” or “godmothers” or other relatives while quoting Jesus’ words from Matt 28 then this is not baptism but an empty ritual.

Nevertheless we strictly reject baptising brothers or sisters who were already Christians when we met them. We do not question the fact that they were already Christians when they met us.

In the same way that Paul did not baptise Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) we do not baptise brothers who were already Christians when we got to know them.

Mr. Kluge notes correctly that we consider the baptism of babies to be possible in the case where the parents are believers and guarantee to bring up the child according to Christian standards.

We definitively exclude the baptism of children of Christian parents during their youth or when they are grown-ups. In a Christian family a child gets to know the way of Jesus from an early age and (in a positive case) makes a series of steps in the right direction. A child of Christians does not experience a great hour of repentance, but rather he has the chance to make many small, good decisions for God. A child of Christian parents is taken into the community of believers from the beginning and gets to know Christianity within the community.

The history of the various Baptist movements has revealed that baptising the children of Christian parents in their youth – an unknown practice in the first centuries – is no protection from secularisation. The only protection is a constant concern for the purity of the community, which includes the readiness to see, in a negative case, the disbelief of one’s own children and to accept that they do not want to live in the community.

The form baptism takes (full immersion or sprinkling with water) is of minor importance. The only essential thing is the decision of the one who is going to be baptised to follow Jesus.

The Lord’s Supper or Communion is the celebration of our salvation. Therefore we abide by the early Christian practice of restricting the participation in this celebration to those who have accepted salvation, which means every Christian. Mr. Kluge’s expression that only “fully committed members” are able to attend is nonsensical. Somebody is either a Christian or he is not.

We reject the catholic understanding of the Eucharist (sacrificial character and transubstantiation) as well as the symbolic understanding of the followers of Zwingli and numerous Free-Churches. Also the Calvinist’s understanding of a spiritual presence is insufficient, since Jesus is spiritually present all the time. We hold to the understanding of the bodily presence of Jesus in the bread and wine without any transformation of the essence of the bread.

In defiance of what Kluge recognises as a “disinterest of the Group in theological questions which have no bearing on lifestyle or the formation of a community” we quite often discuss the topic of the Lord’s Supper with more intensity than he would suppose. Apart from that, it misses the point to consider the Lord’s Supper as a mere “theological question”. It has a lot to do with our practical life.

“Nothing is yet known about the precise rituals…”. Nor do we want to have any rituals. The only fixed point during the celebration of communion is the remembrance of Jesus’ act of salvation by reading the words Jesus said at the institution of this celebration.

There is no such thing as the “ritual” of public confession. Confession can take various forms. It could be done in a talk between two people or in a greater circle. The confession of sins is a clear commandment of God (James 5:16). Through confessing our sins God also helps us to become really free from them.

“No one who conceals transgressions will prosper,
but one who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)

Already the “Didache” (end of 1st century) testifies about the practice of confessing sins in front of the community:

“In the assembly you should confess your transgressions, and be careful to never approach your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.” (Didache 4:14)

The Catholic practice of “confessio oris” (confession to a priest) is a medieval invention.

We also do not have any persons who are authorised to forgive sins (like the priests in Catholicism). God grants forgiveness to everyone who regrets and confesses his sins without any special human mediator.

Our daily meetings are indeed the most essential part of our daily routine. But they are not our actual “worship services”. Our whole life is a service of worship to God. Our behaviour at work or at school must be pleasing to God in the same way as when we are together with our brothers and sisters.

Our meetings serve the edification of the body of Christ. For this reason every part of the body must have the possibility to participate actively.

We want to praise God in everything we do, also with our singing. By doing this we do not want to satisfy the artistic expectations of our critics but to glorify our creator and saviour. That is why we do not have a choir who through artistic, often high quality performances seeks its own fulfilment.

We pray to God both in common prayer and personal private prayer. It is our wish to live in continual fellowship with God and in constant prayer. Prayer cannot be limited to certain prayer times. God is always with us and in prayer we can lay our whole life before Him. The personal relationship with God finds its expression in personal prayer. The slanderous claim, that we disapprove of private prayer as separation from the community, is untrue no matter how many times Kluge repeats it. (In the latest version of Kluge’s article he has revised his statement, saying that personal prayer is permitted when someone is alone or at work or at school.)

Common prayer and personal prayer are not in contradiction but compliment each other.

Jesus did not come in order to introduce a new and “better” prayer formula. We therefore consider the words of “The Lord’s Prayer” to be a way of helping us to focus on the right priorities so that we can pray according to the will of Jesus. God’s kingdom and God’s will should be our ultimate focus. Jesus did not want us to repeat his words precisely. He wanted to show us the right objective of our prayers, the essence of what we should pray for.

Concerning religious holidays we have already explained our view above (“Their perception of the community” -Daily meetings).

“And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all…” (1 Thessalonians 3:12)

“Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.” (1 Corinthians 12:27)

Re: “The Community”

“It was at Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26)

Re: “The name, or self-definition of the Group”

Kluge is almost correct in the way he renders our point of view. We are and do not want to be anything other than Christians. We also reject the name “True Christians” as already mentioned above.

Every specific denominational name is in contradiction to the will of God who wants only one community.

Whoever insists on the existence of various different churches shows that he is not interested in unity and that he is a destroyer of God’s temple.

“If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person…” (1 Cor 3:17)

Using the terms “catholic”, “evangelical”, “orthodox” to refer to the one church is correct in as much as there is only ONE catholic (universal, all-embracing) church, only ONE church living in accordance with the “euangelion” (gospel), preserving the sound teaching (orthodox). As soon as those names are used to distinguish one group from another they are incorrect (a particular group isn’t universal, orthodox, evangelical any more) and express a rebellion against God’s will to be in unity.

We don’t know of any “Holic-group”. So-called “cult-experts”, if they want to be objective and taken seriously would not use any name to describe a group which the community in question rejects as contradicting their own principles.

Comment on Steven Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control

Kluge makes reference to Hassan’s book, “Combating Cult Mind Control”. It is therefore appropriate for us to make some comments about this book and especially concerning its description of “mind control”.

The author himself was a member of the “Unification Church”, commonly known as the “Moonies”. After several years he left the group, since which time he warns people about this and similar cults. He apparently does quite well out of this business (by his own account (p.143) exit counsellors charge fees that range from US$250 to $1,000 a day. The average cost of an intervention lies between $2,000 and $5,000).

He comes from a Jewish background; there is no evidence that he converted to Christianity. He only deals with the psychological problems of groups. The content of the teaching is irrelevant for him. That is certainly very problematic when assessing a religious group, as the teaching is clearly the essential point to consider when assessing whether a group is based on the New Testament or not.

The author’s great concern for the freedom of people from every kind of manipulation is commendable and we fully share this concern. We reject any form of psychological manipulation, whether through hypnosis or group dynamics. It is perhaps possible to bind someone to a cult using psychology. But the church of God would not endure if it were based on psychological methods.

We do not, however, share Hassan’s concept of human nature, considering humans to be essentially defenceless against the manipulation of deceivers. We believe that God created people in such a way that they will not fall helplessly into the clutches of a deceiver.

Jesus said: ‘Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.’ (John 18:37b)

Thus, a truth-loving person need not fear deceivers, whatever his background, as long as he is searching for the truth.

We, too, have had contact with members of the “Unification Church”. In an open dialogue we always spoke with them about the teaching. In the end they were not able to refute clear biblical arguments. They did not especially attempt to use psychological tricks. They probably realised that these do not work on people who are only interested in the truth.

Hassan’s book may indeed be quite informative concerning the methods used by the “Unification Church”. Mr. Kluge, however, draws upon this book, presumably contrary to his better knowledge, in order to assess a Christian community, slanderously alleging that we use the same methods. His own article, however, shows that, at least in several decisive points, a comparison between the disciples of Mr. Moon and us is absolutely unfounded.

Hassan writes: “Since all destructive cults believe that the ends justify the means, they believe themselves to be above the law. As long as they believe that what they are doing is “right” and “just”, many of them think nothing of lying, stealing, cheating, or unethically using mind control to accomplish their ends. They violate, in the most profound and fundamental way, the civil liberties of the people they recruit. They turn unsuspecting people into slaves.” (p. 36)

We have only ever come across such practices among our antagonists from the established churches. There would be no room in the community anymore for anyone among us who even suggested such practices.

The principle, “The ends justify the means”, is in complete contradiction to the Bible:

“And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is deserved!” (Rom 3:8)

As for lying, Mr. Kluge concedes:

“Despite the fact that the Group has such a clear picture of the enemy in their sights, you need not expect that you will be deceived by them. Members of the sect would rather not answer a question than be drawn into a lie”

From Acts 5:1-11 we can see how God condemns lying.

“Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practises falsehood.” Rev 22:15

In contrast to the institutional “churches” there is no room for liars in the church of God.

Kluge also acknowledges that other “typical sectarian characteristics” are absent among us, such as:

• the overwhelming importance placed on collecting money for the leader which results in the exploitation of followers
• a founder or current leader whose beliefs are seen as the most important aspects of that belief system and who is seen as the mediator between God and his disciples and is hence idolised as a cult figure
• the global (and economical) network of the sect, an empire of underworld organisations
• the expectation of an imminent end to the world.

Even a superficial knowledge of our fellowship ought to be sufficient for him to know that the following statement of Hassan does not apply to us:

“To my knowledge, there are almost no people with handicaps in cults, because it takes time, money, and effort to look after them.” (p. 50)

We offer the love of God to every person we meet and we have brothers and sisters with various physical disabilities. We are thankful for their valuable contribution toward the edification of the community. We follow Jesus and not the Qumran community who rejected the blind and lame.

Some further comments on the four components of “mind control” described by Mr. Hassan:

a) Behaviour Control

“Behaviour control is the regulation of an individual’s physical reality… where he lives, what clothing he wears, what food he eats, how much sleep he gets – as well as of the jobs, rituals, and other actions he performs. This need for behaviour control is the reason most cults prescribe a very rigid schedule for their members… Every hour of his day has to be accounted for… The chain of command in cults is usually authoritarian, flowing from the leader through his lieutenants to their sub-leaders down to the rank and file.” (pp. 60–61)

We strictly reject any regulations concerning clothing and food. How much a person sleeps is also dependent on his individual needs. Rituals are completely alien to our very essence. We have no hierarchy and therefore no “chain of command” either.

Many of the points Hassan lists in this section can, however, be found in the Rules of Catholic Monastic Orders. We will not prove that in more detail here.

b) Thought Control

“Thought control … includes indoctrinating members so thoroughly that they internalise the group doctrine, incorporate a new language system, and use thought-stopping techniques to keep their mind ‘centred’. In order to be a good member, a person must learn to manipulate his own thought processes… All that is good is embodied in the leader and the group. All that is bad is on the outside… A destructive cult typically has its own ‘loaded language’ of words and expressions. Since language provides the symbols we use for thinking, controlling certain words helps to control thoughts… Perhaps the most widely used and effective way to control cult members’ thoughts is thought-stopping rituals… Different groups use different thought-stopping techniques: concentrated praying, chanting aloud or silently, meditating, ‘speaking in tongues’, singing, or humming.” (p. 61 – 63)

It is true that we internalise the teaching of the Bible by often reading the Bible alone as well as talking about it a lot within the fellowship. Surely all fellowships that call themselves Christians would share the conviction that reading the Bible can only have a positive effect on someone.

When we study the Bible we want to use our minds, not turn them off. We are not interested in blind repetition, but in thorough contemplation that leads to responsible actions.

It is also true that the language of the Bible is reflected in our own speech. We do, however, consciously avoid developing a special language.

All that is Good, in our view, is embodied alone and uniquely in God and in his Son, Jesus Christ. As redeemed sinners we desire to approach His perfection continuously, conscious of the fact that we will never fully reach this perfection on this earth.

Our prayers are not thought-stopping techniques, but a personal conversation with God. We reject every form of ritual prayer. Speaking in tongues was a gift given by God to the first generation of Christians. In groups where this is practised today, it is in many cases emotional escapism.

Later Mr. Kluge reproaches us of the very opposite of escaping into emotions, saying that we seek safety in rationality. Rationality and thought-stopping are only compatible within an irrational system of thought.

How does Mr. Kluge fight against the thought-stopping ritual of praying the Rosary in his own organisation?

c) Emotional Control

“Emotional Control … attempts to manipulate and narrow the range of a person’s feelings. Guilt and fear are necessary tools to keep people under control. Guilt is probably the single most important emotional lever for producing conformity and compliance… Loyalty and devotion are the most highly respected emotions of all. They are never to criticize a leader, but criticize themselves instead. Many groups exercise complete control over interpersonal relationships… People are often kept off balance, praised one minute and tongue-lashed the next… Confession of past sins or wrong attitudes is a powerful device for emotional control, too. Of course, once you have publicly confessed, rarely is your old sin forgiven in the true sense – or forgotten…The most powerful technique for emotional control is phobia indoctrination “… People are made to have a panic reaction at the thought of leaving: sweating, rapid heartbeat, …

“It is nearly impossible for an indoctrinated member to imagine security outside the group.” (p 63 – 65)

Guilt is a reality in the life of every person. If guilt is not dealt with it leads to fear, simply because it separates us from God and other people and finally alienates us from ourselves. That is why forgiveness and liberation from guilt and anxiety are such a significant part of Christianity. Our guilt is not repressed, but it is confessed and forgiven. In the power of God we experience freedom and are able to live with a clear conscience. Brotherly admonitions do not act as a tool of control, but help towards becoming free from guilt. We have an obligation to admonish one another, whether the sinner has been in the community for one week or twenty years. The aim of Christian admonition is to strengthen and solidify each other in what is good. Praise and criticism are complementary. Only when praise and criticism are separated from a specific situation, can they become a means of psychological manipulation, for example, when praise serves to strengthen unethical activities and criticism is used to produce feelings of guilt.

Christians are together so they can admonish and encourage one another (1 Thess 5:11). Tongue-lashing is not acceptable in the church of God.

No one who is motivated purely by fear can remain in the church of God permanently. The only motivation that binds us to the community is our love for God.

Indeed, there are some very severe warnings about apostasy in the Bible. We can assume that what the inspired authors of scripture were concerned with was not what Hassan terms “Emotional Control”, but a sincere warning of an actual danger. That is why we also warn people about the danger of apostasy, although we are always aware that above all their love should be roused.

d) Information Control

“In many totalistic cults, people have minimal access to non-cult newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio… Information control also extends across all relationships. People are not allowed to talk to each other about anything critical of the leader, doctrine, or organisation. Members must spy on each other … New converts are not permitted to talk to each other without an older member present … Destructive organisations also control information by having many levels of ‘truth’. Cult ideologies have ‘outsider’ doctrines and ‘insider’ doctrines.” (pp. 65 – 66)

In our community we have access to the literature of a wide range of groups and organisations. There is no restriction whatsoever on what we are allowed to read. It is self-evident that a Christian will avoid books and magazines which contain immoral content. Criticism is not prohibited, but desired – as long as it is constructive. In our common life we allow for a wide scope of personal interaction between the brothers and sisters, including those who are young in faith.

We know only one truth which we share with one another in the community and which we convey to the outside world.

Real information control can be observed in the excerpt already quoted above from the Rule of ‘Saint’ Benedict:

“And let no one presume to relate to another what he hath seen or heard outside of the monastery, because it is most hurtful. But if anyone presume to do so, let him undergo the penalty of the Rule. In like manner let him be punished who shall presume to go beyond the enclosure of the monastery, or anywhere else, or to do anything, however little, without the order of the Abbot.” (Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 67)

We will leave it up to the reader to decide where the totalistic system really is.

“For we are not peddlers of Gods word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.” (2 Corinthians 2:17)

Mr. Kluge reports some subjective experiences which are influenced by his negative expectations. The form a discussion takes depends on the particular person we happen to be talking with. The aim of every missionary talk can be nothing other than to offer the person the best possible help to follow Jesus. Just as there is no such thing as a “concept F” person, likewise there is no such thing as “concept F” evangelism.

When we are talking about what a godly community should be like, we cannot keep silent about injustices and pseudo-churches. It would be loveless not to warn someone of the deceivers who preach a distorted Gospel.

We do not “relish” in unfolding the dark pages of church history as Mr. Kluge supposes. On the contrary, it is very sad to have to see how many crimes have been and still are being committed in the name of Jesus.

In contrast to Mr. Kluge’s account we always place the emphasis in a discussion on the knowledge of the truth revealed by God, which is accessible for everyone in the Bible.

As for Luther, we refuse to descend to his level of mocking his opponents, a practice he held in common with many of his Roman Catholic contemporary opponents. What we can read in his teachings shows his godlessness enough. Most of us haven’t the faintest idea about the waistline measurements of Luther. If it happens to be true that Luther really “died a fat man” (something unknown to the author up till now), then this points to a lack of discipline, something certainly not worthy of a man of God, but our assessment of a person is based on the doctrines he holds to.

We also make a distinction between Luther and the “church” which bears his name, the “Lutheran Church”. It at least refused to adopt from him the abominable teaching of the Denial of the Free Will and the connected teaching about Predestination either to heaven or hell.

When we meet Christians we are glad to know them as our brothers or sisters and we don’t question their Christianity, as imperfect as it may have been. We only baptise those brothers and sisters who became Christians through meeting us.

“Sin” and “freedom” are certainly two important issues which are touched upon again and again in discussions with unbelievers. The very essence of the redemption in Christ is the freedom from sin.

“Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” – “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:34,36)

The very fact that we have experienced this freedom in our own lives, is the reason we also want others to be able to share in it.

In 1st Century Christian scriptures (Didache and the Letter of Barnabas) we find the teaching of the two paths which Jesus had taught about in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:13-14). The path of Life and the path of Death both lie before every person who is called to make a decision. These early Christian texts don’t point to any abstract paths, but to concrete deeds according to which it can be seen which path someone is walking along. When we talk about the freedom we have found in Jesus we are referring to what is described in the early-Christian tradition as the path that leads to life.

We don’t want to try to delude people into believing that the prevailing consumerist attitude is real freedom, as Mr. Kluge does when he evokes the “liberating” sense of a visit to a cafe. We don’t want to belong to those who Peter speaks about:

“… promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved”(2 Peter 2:19)

The freedom that we experience in the middle of this consumer driven world, Mr. Mr. Kluge sees as a constriction. Of course this is a question of one’s approach to this matter. Every drug addict feels constricted at first when he doesn’t have access to his drugs. But the real chains that bind him are his drugs. For the person who is still enslaved by his sin, the freedom of the Christians appears to be a restriction, because all he can see is what he has to go without, but not what he would gain.

A remarkable reproach is that we enter into discussions with a clear concept in mind. A condition of every sensible discussion is that both parties have objectives. There is no “script” for evangelism, but we do have a clear objective. We are not interested in irrelevant chitchat, but in the knowledge of God and his Salvation.

The statement, “The members are trained not to listen to the arguments of other people” is pure slander. Supposing one of us really said, “What others say is not true, don’t even consider their ideas!” let it be known that this is against the very principles of our fellowship. We have nothing to fear from arguments. In an open discussion we have nothing to lose. It’s certainly necessary to distinguish between an argument about details and a basic direction. We fully agree when, for example, the Catholics prove that Peter was in Rome where he suffered martyrdom. But this is nevertheless not the least argument for the validity of Papacy, as this teaching cannot be derived from the Bible or from the early church history.

The truth is too valuable to make a sport out of looking for arguments. Common analysis of arguments is no sport for us, but an obligation for all truth-loving people who don’t want to ignore the thoughts of people who think differently.

On the one hand Mr. Mr. Kluge accuses us of “indoctrination” and on the other hand that we “respond with silence”. What do we have to do in order to please him? How terrible must it be in schools where the teacher “indoctrinates” (presents his teaching material) on the one hand, and on the other hand lets the students work hard to acquire an “already existing answer”! Mr Mr. Kluge simply tries again and again to use isolated observations to construct a system which firstly doesn’t exist and secondly is not logical. He has to reach his aim of defaming us as a “Psycho-cult” using all available means.

That’s why he uses the term “love bombing” especially tailored to fit all “Psycho-cults”. This term is a contradiction in itself, as love is not a weapon with which you can destroy someone. Our love is not a short-term emotional “mentoring”, but a long-term commitment.

Concerning the “reports from Poland” mentioned by Mr. Mr. Kluge, according to which “minors were brought in to the Group against the will of their parents”, the following points must be added, or corrected:

No one has ever been “brought into the Group” It was the personal decision of the juvenile siblings to spend their time in the community against the will of their parents. No one forced them and they were there of their own free choice. The “offence” committed by the sister who was put on probation for one year was that she did not send the youths, who were with us of their own choice, home to their parents against their will. A different court dismissed charges made in a similar case.

The youths were always brought home, although they had to put up with terrible conditions at home. Their parents beat them repeatedly. They tore up and even burnt the Bible numerous times before their children’s eyes and forced them to take part in a Catholic first Communion celebration. Then the siblings suffered an extended imprisonment in their parents’ house; For three months they weren’t allowed to go to school. Occasionally they were chained up by the legs and were threatened with a gun.

A later charge against the parents of the abused children was dismissed on the grounds that the parents had only undertaken certain measures for the protection of their children. False statements protected the parents from prosecution.

Their parents saw that even the strict restriction of the youths could not dissuade them from following their conviction. As they knew the address of the above mentioned sister they took her to court in the hope that the community would forbid the youths to meet with them because to do so would be a “punishable offence”.

Despite being violently separated from the community, the siblings remained true to their chosen path.

It is not only “new-comers” with whom we want to spend as much time as possible. We attempt to plan our lifestyle to ensure that daily community is possible for everyone (whether old or young), not so that we can “keep a check on each other”, but in order to take part in the fellowship which is important for all of us. This is, however, suspicious for people who don’t share this desire.

It is easy to throw around negative phrases such as “control of environment and information”, “mind control”, “consciousness control”. It is just as easy to completely distort positive statements, especially with such a negative attitude.

When a husband asks his wife what she did that day, his question may come from a loving interest in his spouse or it could be “social and information control”

We respect the privacy of correspondence and there is no ban on arranging a meeting with someone as was (and is?) common in various Catholic “monastic orders”

” Whether a Monk Should Receive Letters or Anything Else-Let it not be allowed at all for a monk to give or to receive letters, tokens, or gifts of any kind, either from parents or any other person, nor from each other, without the permission of the Abbot.” (Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 54)

“And let no one presume to relate to another what he hath seen or heard outside of the monastery, because it is most hurtful. But if anyone presume to do so, let him undergo the penalty of the Rule. In like manner let him be punished who shall presume to go beyond the enclosure of the monastery, or anywhere else, or to do anything, however little, without the order of the Abbot.” (Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 67)

Reading Mr. Mr. Kluge’s account of the psychological condition of a new-comer sends shivers down your spine (doubts, insecurity, contemplation of suicide, cold, losing interest in scholastic or vocational pursuits, weight loss, unsteady gaze…) The imagination knows no bounds. Of course, every serious decision a person makes leads him to greater earnestness. The fact that we don’t laugh at bad jokes and superficial chit-chat could well be interpreted as “loss of humour”, “animalistic” and “cold”.

Mentally unstable people experience deep decisions as stressful, while mentally stable people do not. It is the same everywhere, and has nothing to do with our kind of community. We need go no further than the written accounts of various catholic “saints” to see what “symptoms” were visible in their decision making process.

Both mentally stable and unstable personalities become Christians, certainly none of them without some kind of inner struggle. Every generalisation is unacceptable and bears the mark of Mr. Kluge’s ever present prejudice.

Mr. Kluge accuses us of psychological manipulation through a “clever selection of passages from the Bible”. Of course, we consider which passages can be helpful in a particular situation. We certainly do not want to just chat aimlessly. We are deeply concerned with the freedom of every person, so all we can do is to point out what we have realised concerning a particular situation from the Holy Scriptures. The decision to live with God is up to each individual.

We are, indeed, also used to considering not only one single aspect, but weighing up different statements from the scriptures as well as other arguments that appear to contradict our own opinion. Mr. Kluge implies that we consciously omit certain passages of the Holy Scriptures. However, that is altogether contrary to our attitude towards the Bible, because we do not want to simply read our own interpretation into the text, but we desire to understand the will of God as revealed in the Bible through objective discussions. Unfortunately not many people are prepared make the effort to enter into that kind of discussion with us.

Likewise, Mr. Kluge regards the participation in the community of goods – which, as he states “is not demanded” – merely as the result of “peer pressure”. It is simply impossible for him to imagine that among us something like that can come from love. He admits that there is no “overwhelming importance placed on collecting money for the leader which results in the exploitation of followers”. So it stands to reason that we share what we have out of love. But what is unimaginable must, of course, also be impossible.

If community of goods can only work by force in Catholic orders (as is evident in the aforementioned examples), then a functioning community of goods on the basis of love – outside the bosom of the Roman Church (in which alone is salvation) at that – is by definition impossible. But we know it does work as a result of love, whatever motives people may assume we have.

Regarding: “External criticism, which has a unifying and bonding effect”

Rejection by outsiders certainly also leads us to appreciate even more the value of each brother with whom I can share everything. However, rejection from outside is not a proof of correctness at all. The Jehova’s Witnesses have often been socially marginalised – by no means proof that their teaching is correct.

Mr. Kluge should not complain that we do not call ourselves something that we are not. As we are not and do not want to be anything other than Christians, we cannot pretend to be anything or anyone else. We are not “True Christians” or “New Christians” because we do not consider there to be different classes of Christians. Our distinctive mark is love and unity:

“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another”.(John 13:35)

“…that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21)

“Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters!” (Isaiah 55:1)

We are always glad to meet people who were active and enthusiastic about their faith before they met us, and who didn’t simply go with the flow, but are used to testing things and who want to consistently follow what they have recognised to be right. The decision to follow Jesus shouldn’t be made on the base of an emotional response but should be founded on a rational decision built on rational arguments.

Quite often we have had to accept the sad experience that someone was enthusiastic to begin with but that this initial wave of emotional enthusiasm proved to be no real foundation for Christianity and the person didn’t take the necessary steps to become a disciple. Jesus himself mentions this in Matthew 13:20-21.

“The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.”

An initial fascination is not a sufficient foundation. If a person doesn’t really seek the truth, he won’t find anything in the community to keep him there long term. We ourselves cannot offer him a lasting foundation if he doesn’t want to drink from the fountain of eternal life, which we have found in Christ.

Mr. Kluge knows that “most of the members tell their own personal stories about their search for the Meaning of life up to the point where they made contact with the group.” It is astonishing that Mr Kluge knows this, although he hasn’t had so much as a few words with “most of the members”. Though it is certainly correct that one has to seek in order to find. Most of the members of the Institutional churches are members from the cradle to the grave without having ever really searched. This notion of community is certainly unthinkable for us.

Mr. Kluge is not mistaken in detecting “a need for introspection” visible among those who are interested in talking with us and younger brothers and sisters. It is a good thing when a person focuses on the most important things in life, and considers everything thoroughly, allowing God to be the centre of his life. The danger of introversion also exists, but this finds a counter-balance in the challenges of community life. Mr. Kluge’s representation is very one-sided. He barely knows us, and yet he wants to determine what kind of people we are. There is no such thing as a typical personality of a Christian. We are all different people, introverted, extroverted, loners, others who are more sociable. God binds us together and helps us to mould ourselves according to his image, not losing our personality, but deepening it.

Just how “radical” the change really is when a person gets to know the community depends largely on the background of the brother in question. For some, life in the community is a logical continuation of the life they lived as a Christian already before meeting us. For others, the impulse they received through the brothers was their first contact with Christianity, and we had the privilege of guiding them on the path to faith.

Regarding the claim that we “recruit almost only among youth and young adults.“

We shouldn’t be surprised that people make a decision to follow Jesus at an age when they otherwise set the goals and aims of their lives. Young people are often more flexible, not so set in their ways. But now and then we experience the “miracle” that an older person turns to God. We endeavour for each person, regardless of age, because God’s call is valid for everyone.

“And they went out and proclaimed the good news everywhere.”(Mark 16:20)

Every Christian is always and everywhere a missionary. Spreading the gospel can’t be limited to certain persons, places or times. The greatest treasure God has given us urges us to share it with those who don’t know it yet. The testimony of Christ, and the hope which fills our life, permeates every aspect of our life. That’s why we want to be ready to talk about faith in any situation.

Especially when evangelising we experience how dependent we are on God. He who knows the heart of all people can lead us in the most diverse situations to meet people who are open for his word, whether in an every day situation, at school or at work, walking down the street, or at various meetings where people gather to think and talk about faith.

So Mr. Kluge’s criticism refers only to one part of our evangelistic activities. We got to know a good number of our brothers and sisters in places other than religious meetings. Long before Mr. Kluge concluded that “missionary activities among atheists are not known” we regularly engaged actively in discussions with atheists. Some of our brothers were atheists before they became Christians.

It is not and never has been our aim to lure anybody away from a Christian community. This would mean destroying the body of Christ and to bringing condemnation upon ourselves.

1 Corinthians 3:17 “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.”

But as already elaborated above (III.F) the organisations are not community but the “world” (even according to their own understanding for they accept people who are visibly unbelievers among their ranks). Even the religious world is the “world”, where there are many unbelievers. So as we have received a commission from our Lord we will not exclude the people in the religious world from our missionary activities.

The reason Paul visited the synagogue first, in order to speak to the sons of Israel whenever he entered a new town was that he could expect there to be a greater number of responsive people. We, too, hope to find in these various religious groups people who maybe are already Christians or have at least already made certain steps in the right direction.

“As the father has sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21)

Firstly we want to make it clear that our aim is not to recruit members for a group. Membership of a particular group is not what it is about. We do not have any kind of baptismal register or church membership register in order to keep a track of anonymous “sheep”. There is no membership fee, nor any kind of formal obligation.

We call people to follow Jesus, not to join a group. Without the right spiritual base no Christian community can exist. Whoever follows Jesus loves his brothers without signing any forms.

“…that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me, and I in you…” (John 17:21)

“…making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:3-6)

There is only one church. The body of Christ is not split (see 1 Cor 1:13). It is unbiblical to think that it is possible for different Christian communities with different teachings to exist. To speak about “attitudes towards other Christian (or religious) communities” is in itself a denial of the biblical teaching about the unity of the community.

Whenever the word “church” is used in plural in the New Testament it refers to the one church, which consists of several communities in different towns. As we explained earlier we never intended to start “our own” church and we never did it. If we had found a community that deserved to be called the “church of God” we would have joined it at once. We would have denied God if we had done otherwise.

It is incorrect to claim that we “will not concede that other churches and religious communities are leading lives as Christians”. We can only say that the “churches” we know of do not correspond to the New Testament definition of church.

We do know that even within those “churches” there are Christians. Several of our brothers and sisters were already Christians while they were still part of organisations that are not churches in God’s eyes.

It is no secret that the “churches” deviate from the teaching and the practice of the first communities in many points. Even their own advocates are aware of that. Why, then, should we call them churches? We cannot call a group “church” that is not a church according to the Bible.

In this context it is important to note that the way the parable of weeds among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30 and 36-42) has been interpreted since the time of Origen leads to the conclusion that the “churches” understand themselves to be the “world”. The parable is taken to mean that sinners have to be tolerated within the church, that in the church there have to be good and bad people, that finally the church is always a mixed community (Augustine: corpus mixtum). But Jesus said: “The field is the world” (Matt 13:38a).

In this parable Jesus was not speaking about the church. He was speaking against the Jewish expectation that the wicked would be exterminated with the dawning of God’s Kingdom, often understood in a political way. In the world the separation will only take place on the last day. Within the community it happens now. Whoever refers this parable to the church identifies today’s “churches” with the world. And he is right.

If Kluge criticises the way we refer to the “churches” he should also consider that his own organisation is unwilling to this day to concede that the “churches” resulting from the Reformation are Churches in the proper sense. In 2000 the Catholic “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” declared:

“On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense” (Declaration “Dominus Iesus” 17).

Moreover, this same “catholic church” has for centuries denounced other “churches”, with whom she is now cooperating in ecumenical gatherings, as heretics and false teachers, persecuting them violently whenever possible. Considering this background a comparison with the Nazi Party (NSDAP), surely the epitome of human malice, is by all means justified. But while the Nazi terror could be stopped after some years, the “catholic church” continued for centuries to murder innocent people in the name of Jesus. The catholic terror was not as intensive as that of the Nazis, but it lasted much, much longer.

It is also worth mentioning here that at least in Austria and Germany the Roman Catholic organisation many a time chummed up with the National Socialist government. In fact, at that time ALL the Austrian bishops emphatically welcomed the annexing of Austria to the National Socialist German Reich and greeted the “Führer” with “Heil Hitler”. When some isolated critics like Franz Jägerstätter, who refused to join Hitler’s murderous army, spoke out about their objection to the unjust war, they received no support from the “church” for their godly principles. On the contrary, the Catholic bishop tried to persuade him to conform to God’s enemies. Nowadays, of course he is regarded as a martyr (because he disobeyed the pastor supposedly appointed by God).

To Matt 7:1 we have already taken a stand.