Yesterday, I began a mini-series on dominionist cell churches--a subject I've touched upon in past in regards to steeplejacking and political party takeovers, but not so much on the history of cell churches within dominionist congregations themselves and their use in control of members.
Yesterday, we focused on the origins of dominionism within the Assemblies of God (including its invention by Paul Yonggi Cho, who was head of the Assemblies' world governing council throughout the 90's and who also originated a lot of other bad habits there); today, we focus on how cell churches are set up and how they are used to keep members in line--a subject of some increasing importance, seeing as one of the primary groups using the "cell church" model happens to be at the very center of the "Christian Embassy" scandal in our own military.
Cell Churches 101: Setting up your own religious pyramid scheme
How cell-churches work is actually rather simple--the best model to look at, in fact, is probably the plethora of "affinity schemes" and similar pyramid schemes promoted throughout the dominionist community.
At top, you have the pastor. Below him, he is "shepherd" over the assistant pastors; these are in turn "shepherds" over the deacons; the deacons are in turn "shepherds" over the small-group managers, these in turn are "shepherds" over smaller groups, and so on until you get down to "home churches" or "cell churches" of around six people, including a "shepherd".
Those of you who are familiar with pyramid schemes and multi-level marketing have seen this before. Namely, everyone reports to or gives money to the "upstream", and they report to the "upstream", and so on and so on till you hit the very head of the organisation.
AmWay (which I've reported on before in regards to their own dominionist connections and in particular the promotion of frank Assemblies theology in the Yaeger downline) also tends to operate a lot like this; to this day I have to wonder which came first--the MLM, or the remarkably MLM-like setup used in cell churches.
At any rate, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that this form of setup is inherently abusive--a surprising number of MLMs (not just AmWay IBOs, but things like Herbalife and such) are considered potentially abusive because of the pressure given to members by the "leaders" of that particular level.
However, this is relatively small potatoes in comparison to the level of coercion in a typical neopente cell-church.
At any rate, I do mention this setup because it's important to know how they work--as it is, these are incredibly effective tools both for very rapid growth and for ensuring control. (If you have multiple "big brothers" reporting back and "herding" a group, it becomes very difficult indeed to have any dissent in practice.)
In the case of Yoido Full Gospel, the level of layering is very apparent in the first three layers--Cho at top, and 171 associate pastors and 356 lay pastors (who are themselves supervised by associate pastors). The number of potential "big brothers" only gets more numerous from there.
And, as it turns out, the primary problem IS with these "big brothers"--just as it is with other kinds of pyramids. An article from a rare premillenial dispensationalist church opposed to dominionist tactics lays out how these groups operate in practice:
As we shall see, the cell churches are all pyramid structures where apprentice leaders are carefully trained and monitored but under the headship of another leader and the staff of the church. Although they claim to be "New Testament" forms, they are more rigid and authoritarian than the traditional structures we have today. Well known "church growth" consultant, Carl F. George describes his "Jethro I and II" systems (named after a system Moses established of ‘lay judges’). It starts with the individual followed by the apprentice leaders, cell group leaders leader of ten, the leader of five groups of ten, of a hundred and five hundred. The flaw here is that the Old Testament form of organization, including the temple and the priesthood were done away with by the New Covenant.
The Pastors develop a hierarchy clergy and lay leaders into an organization which can be drawn on a chart called a "Meta-Map". "Skillful use of a Meta-Map helps staff and boards understand how their churches are configured so they can track such critical important factors as where leaders and potential leaders are, where new people are, how visitors are being handled, and where long-term members are relative to more recent members. A Meta-Map enables leaders to see what happens after everyone has gathered for corporate worship: Where do they go? What tasks to they take with them? What stations in life are they occupying?...Every visual symbol on a Meta-Map represents a leader to be supervised, a training site for producing an apprentice...) (Carl F. George, "The Coming Church Revolution", p. 246) Far from being loosely organized and under the direction of the Holy Spirit, cell groups are tightly controlled within the church hierarchy.
Proponents feel that "the traditional, program-based church cannot contain the coming revival." (Larry Stocksill, "The Cell Church," p. 17) The following describes an ideal cell meeting: "Sometimes, in a home setting, everyone will move into the living area and begin the ‘icebreaker’ as naturally as any other topic of conversation. The group leader poses a simple question (written into each lesson) to which anyone can have a quick or humorous response. An ‘icebreaker’ is indispensable because it promotes group community as well as opens up the members to sharing...The next component is a discussion of four questions based around a passage of Scripture. Our groups generally discuss the topic from the previous Sunday’s sermon...The lesson closes with an ‘application’...After the lesson, the group focuses again on prayer and ‘vision.’ (ibid., pp.135-136) This is hardly a description of a spontaneous "early church" meeting where everyone is free to share what the Lord is doing in their life. Sharing is okay as long as it relates to the previous Sunday’s sermon.
(In other words, things are surprisingly structured. Pretty much almost exactly like an MLM, in fact.)
Dominionist cell-churches, unlike conventional MLMs, are not terribly worried about "running out of marks"--their eventual goal is to get the entire planet in the "pyramid". Tricia Tillian's seminal work in "The Transforming Church" tells more on this:
Up to now we have looked at the Church Growth model for change, and the house churches. But now we turn our attention to a different kind of enterprise - the cell church system.
At first glance, there seems little to distinguish cell churches from house churches, and the rhetoric appears to be identical. Both would denigrate the ecclesiastical structures of the old denominations; both would point out the small informal structure of the Early Church and urge Christians to transform their thinking about the way the Church is organised.
But there the similarities end. Christians could be forgiven for believing that cell churches are another method - a commendable method - of avoiding heavy shepherding and making sure that elders do not take on too much authority leaving the church members nothing to do but submit and obey like sheep.
Unfortunately the very opposite is true, for as we shall see, the cell church system is actually designed to enforce stricter obedience to the new order of apostolic government, and to ensure that this obedience is spread to local communities and eventually the entire world.
The purpose of cell churches is to transition the Church as a whole into a new order, to create a radical and ground-breaking reformation that will overthrow the established order and bring into being a pattern of apostolic government and prophetic revelation that will change the thinking of all Christians.
Part of the structure of cell churches--one which becomes critically important in regards to steeplejacking--is the emphasis on destroying practically all non-cell-church led forms of accountability:
This is the model from which the house church and cell-church draws its inspiration:
"Revival and reformation truly start with a complete rediscovery and reconstruction of the core essence of the church, with New Testament DNA, the genetic code of God, supernaturally empowered with growth potential from within (Mk. 4:26). ...The result of this incarnation, at least in New Testament times, was a house-church movement, that swept through the city of Jerusalem like yeast in dough, or like an unstoppable virus, in maybe less than two years."
In the same commentary from which the above quote was taken, "The Reinvention of the church", (part of "Houses That Change The World" by Wolfgang Simpson), we read about the necessity for destroying the old structures in order to transform the Church according to a new pattern. We will later consider whether this new pattern is a fitting model for the Church of Christ.
"Many churches which are desperate for renewal - or at least for change - tend to overlook the fact that you cannot produce a new quality in the church by changing the structures. As management guru Tom Peters says, renewal and reformation is out, revolution is in; a company does not really need a CEO - a Chief Executive Officer - but a CDO - a Chief Destructive Officer, regularly dismantling obstructive traditions, because it is much easier to rebuild according to a new pattern than to restore and renew an outdated one."
Quite so. It IS indeed easier to destroy the old order when you want to overthrow it and move into something new. Imperial Russia discovered this when the people rose up in revolution and so did France in the 18th century.
We are witnessing the complete eradication of what we know and see of the Church today, in favour of the sort of "spiritual revolution" demanded by author William Beckham in "The Second Reformation":
"Unless there is a structural wineskin, the wine of reformation, revival and the remnant will gradually evaporate. This final element is coming into place in these last days before the second millennium...in the cell church movement, God is providing the structure through which the Church can be the catalyst for spiritual revolution" (Ibid.p.235)
But of what spirit? And what is the aim of this revolution? It is no less than world domination.
Yes, you read that right: the dominionist groups promoting the "cell church" movement--including the very denominations that essentially invented neopente dominionism--see steeplejacking as essential to depose legitimate moderate Christianity and eventually get everyone in their own personal downline.
Sadly, this not only opens the door wide for abuse but--as I'll note in the next section--is inherently abusive in and of itself.
Cell churches as tools of spiritual abuse and coercion
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the "cell church" setup in and of itself is inherently abusive and coercive.
As I noted above, dominionist cell churches are set up very much like a pyramid scheme (complete with a group leader and five people "downstream"). This leads to dissent being in essence stifled, as Tricia Tillin notes:
The method being used to change the entire thinking and value system of Christians today (the "paradigm shift" so sought by the leadership) is the Hegelian Dialectic which removes a person's confidence in what he previously believed so that he is open to accept another way of thinking.
As the cell church leadership have realised, this can best be done in a group setting providing love and support, but more importantly to ensure that each person is pressured to compromise his/her established rules or standards in order to be accepted as part of the group and to properly submit to the mentors and trainers set over them.
The aim is not to establish objective truth, on the basis of God's word and the nature of God, whether people like it or not, but to ACHIEVE CONSENSUS.
Group meetings in an informal context are the best place to do this, and that's where the change in thinking is taking place, as well as in the arena of seeker-sensitive megachurches and the revival churches where study is abandoned in favour of music, worship and experiencing God. What little teaching takes place emphsises over and over the need to conform, unite, love everybody, despise rational and critical thinking of all kinds, and agree as one for the good of the whole.
One commentator interviewed for a radio show comments:
"...what the Hegelian Dialectic is – most simply stated as – a synthesising of two opposites and so in a ‘seeker friendly’ church what you would see, is believers admixed with unbelievers and they would synthesise – that is coming to consensus where truth becomes somewhat in the middle; and so basically what happens is the believer ends up moved very slightly away from his original position of moral absolute – the seeker or the unbeliever is moved slightly more towards faith and the people who are doing this movement think that is good enough and eventually they will come to faith through this process. But the thing that ends up sacrificed really is the truth of the Word of God... [Jesus] always taught it factually and it would either convict people or it would not convict people. It was never watered down or softened ..." ["The Purpose Driven Nightmare"]
On the website of Berit Kjos, there is an excellent explanation of this process:
"When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers, with multiple Bible versions utilized (with King James usage discouraged) and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of the Word of God has been watered down ever so slightly, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise (synthesis). The new synthesis becomes the starting point (thesis) for the next meeting, and the process of continual change (innovation) continues. The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God, and such a one usually remains silent (self-editing). The fear of man (rejection) overrides the fear of God. The end result is a "paradigm shift" in how one processes factual information." [What's Wrong With The 21st Century Church?" by Dr Robert Klenck]
Studies of this concept of the Hegelian Dialectic, and what Dean Gotcher has called DIAPRAXSIS have been undertaken, and you should not be put off by the scholarly nature of this discussion for at its heart is the basic building block of the New World Order. See for example this article on another website: Dean Gotcher's booklet and an overview and summary here: How Diapraxis manifests itself in the Church Growth Movement.
What is wanted by the cell church leaders is experiential knowledge of God in spiritual intimacy, the miraculous, group hugs, laying on of hands, singing and dancing, food, fun and thrills. Bible study, teaching and preaching the Word are downplayed and in some cases derided, and the main focus is on meeting people's "felt needs", relating to one another, "sharing", social activities, psychology, counselling and using spiritual powers to effect changes in the people who attend or who are being drawn to the group. Developing community life is deemed much more important than establishing objective truth in the heart of the individual.
Persons familiar with how coercive religious groups operate probably already see a number of danger signs.
Steven Hassan's BITE Model, a generally-accepted map of potentially abusive tactics in religious and business groups, notes some of these tactics rather specifically. In fact, the tactics used in cell-churches practically cover almost the entire BITE Model list of "red flags", including covering almost the entire Behaviour and Emotional Control sections (this is extremely unusual unless one is dealing with an incredibly abusive group; it is very, very rare that a group will hit each and every single category in the BITE model even if the group IS known to be abusive).
It can be argued that no effective dissent can be given in a church using a cell-group system (thus also covering the Thought and Information Control sections). Cho's church (being the first church where the cell-church tactic was used and originated from) is often used as a model, and we'll use Tricia Tillin's commentary in regards to it:
Possibly the best example of a megachurch system run using cells is that of Yonggi Cho in Seoul, Korea.
It is a model which has cells as the primary meeting place for all participants but which revolves around the pastor and his vision and teaching for its basic doctrine.
The cells are therefore led by church-appointed elders and all are accountable to the church which has birthed the cells. The more intimate cell meetings are intended as a follow-up to the pastor's weekly sermon, and the leadership structure is intended both to reinforce the pastor's vision (in this case Yonggi Cho) and to enforce compliance with the philosophy and teachings of the church.
One well-researched report makes a comment that is true of the entire cell-church system:
The proponents of this "new church" claim that they wish to mobilize the laity and reduce the burden carried by the clergy. This would be positive. .... However, upon closer inspection, it appears that the CGC system actually centralizes power and authority. It is a highly structured authoritarian system which places the leading, preaching, and teaching function in the hands of a select few, mainly one, "anointed leader"--the Senior Pastor. The Senior Pastor casts his "vision" and then the people are to embrace that "vision" and work to fulfill it. [Quoting from cell-church books]
"The Senior Pastor guides the Church... The clear direction set for the church by the pastor is a mandate for the congregation to focus on one thing alone. As one cell group pastor said to me, 'This one thing we do!'... Pastor Paul Yonggi Cho goes to Prayer Mountain once a year to fast and pray, seeking God's mandate for the church's life for the next twelve months. When he returns from that time with the Lord, the goals which are given to him are printed and framed. These framed statements are then hung on every wall of every church worker on the staff. All is in perfect focus, and everything done by every person is directed toward meeting that objective." [From "Where Do We Go From Here" Ralph Neighbour p 76]
"The Senior Pastor is over the entire home cell system. He is continually giving the vision and motivating the District Pastors, Sectional Pastors, and Lay Pastors in ministry. Through sermons and communications he is actively recruiting lay people into ministry. He sees that they are given the proper training and supervision to be successful. The Senior Pastor's heart must be in the home cell ministry if it is to be effective. This is one ministry that cannot be handed over to someone else and forgotten". ["20/20 Vision" Dale Galloway p 128]
"Every Friday the Senior Pastor receives a detailed report of attendance, number of visitors, converts, contacts made, and how the district is doing on its goals from each of the District Pastors. The District Pastor makes up his report from the sum totals of all the reports that come in from the TLC group meetings. On Friday as Senior Pastor I know exactly how many people attended a TLC group meeting for the week. I pay close attention to these reports which let me know how we're doing on the reaching of our goals for the year". [20/20 p 149]
"In their weekly report sheets, our TLC leaders are required to tell us how much time has been spent in each of these three activities (Sharing, Conversational Prayer, and Application of Bible). We monitor this to see that our groups are kept balanced." [20/20 p 112 ]
In Dale Galloway's 20/20 Vision plan, the only power a lay person is truly afforded is the power to serve the vision. ...It is clear that the "successful" churches used as model examples, (e.g., Dale Galloway's, Paul (David) Yonggi Cho's), are strictly guided by the Senior Pastor. It is their "vision" which must be realized; anyone who questions the "vision" or authority of the Senior Pastor is released; anyone who fails to live up to the conditions required for service on staff, paid or not, is disciplined and soon released if not brought into compliance. The possibility that the "vision" of the leadership could be in error and appropriately confronted by the laity is never considered. It seems that loyalty to leadership is the real glue that holds the CGC together." [Church Growth Through Cell Churches]
This sort of control is frighteningly effective in not only maintaining a very coercive atmosphere in a church that promotes "cell churches" and effectively squelching dissent, it also is known now to cause actual psychological damage. Much of the reason that discipling and shepherding groups are not promoted by those names anymore is due to some very bad press resulting from coercive religious groups that used the tactics--notably the International Church of Christ and in particular Maranatha (an early "Joel's Army" group that was so abusive that it was eventually banned from two separate state college campuses; after a considerable amount of publicity, it folded and reorganised under the names Morning Star International and (later) Every Nation). Maranatha in particular is surprisingly connected to the beginnings of political dominionism in the US.
A particularly damning psychological study mentioned in "The Discipling Dilemma" has noted that longterm involvement in churches that use "cell churches" as a method of control actually causes longterm personality changes. Among other things, two particular groups known to have used coercive "discipling and shepherding" (the Boston Church of Christ and Maranatha) were shown to have members with personality types that changed over time on all scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to ENFJ (including a number of complete reversals from ISTP to ENFJ, which does not generally happen without some coercion--it's roughly the psychological equivalent of making a left-handed kid write with their right hand or vice versa), and the same pattern was noticed with other groups known to be coercive religious groups (notably the Moonies and Scientology) but was not noted with mainstream Christian denominations used as a control.
The group "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" have also noted some aspects that inherently lead to abuse:
The vast majority of cell churches are affiliated with conservative Christian denominations. One source list 14 mainline and liberal cell churches (Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Methodist) and hundreds of Charismatic, Fundamentalist and other Evangelical churches. Many cell groups lay a heavy emphasis on fasting, prayer and evangelizing non-Christians. In one group, certain leaders "will have undertaken three 40-day fasts and be praying 8 hours a day." 7
(Footnote:
- Alan Creech, "Cell Church," at: http://www.cell-church.org/ He has a mailing list which can be subscribed to at: http://www.cell-church.org/ The list is "a discussion group for Christians who are interested in the cell church model to build up and encourage each other by sharing vision, questions, problems, experiences, testimonies, and practical tips.")
This is especially important to note as the tactic has become popular among dominionist groups. One of the biggies using cell-church tactics was Promise Keepers; another major user of "cell churches" besides the Assemblies and other neopente megachurches happens to be Campus Crusade for Christ. We've noted Sara Diamond's documentation of Campus Crusade's involvement with cell churches in our last post; most likely they got the idea from their close historical links with the Assemblies.
Yes, for the record, this is the same Campus Crusade whose military group "Christian Embassy" is known to be at the very center of a breaking scandal involving mass religious coercion in the armed forces at top levels.
It is not a terribly comforting thought that Campus Crusade has itself been considered a coercive religious group in direct connection with its use of cell-churches. It is also not comforting knowing that the biggest promoter of cell-churches outside of the Assemblies is pretty much subverting our own military from within:
Another parachurch organization that influenced the discipling movement is a group known as "Campus Crusade." Bill and Vonette Bright are its leaders. They are as cheerful and sunny as their last name suggests. Bill has been in campus work for almost four decades. Campus Crusade has led the way among evangelical fundamentalists in several areas.
Historian Richard Quebedeaux observed that Bright is an authoritarian leader with a chain of command placing himself clearly at the top as leader of Campus Crusade. Further, he says, there is a lack of any effective self-criticism within the organization.
Concerning Bright, Quebedaux adds,". . . it has been very difficult for him to divorce himself from the pietistic tendencies toward legalism and super-spirituality, despite his words to the contrary. " (8) It should be noted that this criticism comes in a work about Bright and Campus Crusade that is highly favorable. Similar criticisms have been made concerning the leaders of the discipling movement among churches of Christ.
(Footnotes:
- Richard Quebedeaux, I Found It (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), p. 176 ff.)