The Hotel California Doctrine – Three Ways to Leave Grace Fellowship

Posted on by kevinjandt

The second installment of GFC’s private video series includes some more interesting theology from the leaders of Grace Fellowship.

Today, let’s take a look at the clip that appears just before the one I shared previously. This is the buildup to the statement:

“You don’t have the authority to leave.”

Why don’t you have the authority to leave? Because, according to the pastors, you don’t even have the authority to join. And if we really follow the logic of the system, you don’t even have the authority to determine your own salvation.

The entire structure hinges on their discernment.

However, even according to them, their discernment isn’t always perfect. And that reality creates a number of contradictions.

Before examining the details, it may be helpful to watch the relevant portion of the interview in full context.

The clip below is only a few minutes long, but listen carefully to how the pastors explain the process of leaving the church.

The Membership Discernment Process

In the first portion of the clip, the pastors describe a situation where a woman waited two and a half years before being received into membership.

The leadership wants to get it right. Who can blame them for that? They say they are trying to avoid affirming someone as a Christian if that person is actually deceived about their salvation.

Mike Reid seems so concerned that he almost breaks down in tears because this woman was unable to participate in the “means of grace,” including the Lord’s Supper.

There’s a lot of irony here, but I’ll leave that aside for the moment.

Instead, let’s ask a simple question:

Is this actually the biblical pattern?

The Pattern in the Book of Acts

In the early pages of the book of Acts, we see several accounts of people coming to faith and being received into the church.

“So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”
— Acts 2:41

“But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.”
— Acts 4:4

These are not the only examples.

Consider the Ethiopian eunuch:

“See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
— Acts 8:36

Well…nothing.

Unless Philip is concerned that baptizing him might somehow confirm his trip to hell.

The biblical narrative tells us something very simple:

They believed and were baptized.

There is no evidence of a prolonged investigation or a multi-year membership process.

False converts reveal themselves eventually.

Even Simon the Magician initially appeared genuine.

“Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip.”
— Acts 8:13

Later Peter confronts him:

“Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours… For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”
— Acts 8:22–23

Notice something important.

Philip is never held accountable for Simon’s deception.

Simon alone is responsible.

This doesn’t mean church leaders have no role in discernment. But when oversight becomes extreme, and leaders begin inserting their own standards into Scripture, something has gone too far.

The Contradiction in the System

In the interview the pastors emphasize that church leaders must carefully discern whether someone is truly a believer before affirming them as a member.

But they also openly admit that their discernment is not perfect.

Yet at the same time they argue that members do not have the authority to leave a church.

When those two ideas are placed together, the system places enormous weight on the discernment of church leadership.

If the leaders are wrong, the member has very few options.

And that leads us to the next part of the video.

The Exit Process

According to Mike Reid, there are only three ways to leave a church.

He lists them as:

  1. Death
  2. Mutual agreement (or being sent)
  3. Excommunication

Then he concludes:

“That’s the three ways that you can leave a church.”

Notice the implication.

Leaving simply because you believe the church is wrong is not included.

Leaving because of concerns about leadership is not included.

Leaving because of conscience is not included.

The only voluntary exit allowed is mutual agreement with leadership.

He softens the claim slightly by saying:

“We think…”

That is an interesting phrase.

Because these same leaders often challenge others by asking:

“What Scripture would lead you to believe that?”

They demand a verse for many theological claims.

So the obvious question here is:

What Scripture leads them to believe these are the only three ways someone can leave a church?

The Result

When most people watch this clip, they will likely conclude that the system being described contains some extreme elements.

But more than that, it contains contradictions.

Leaders acknowledge that their discernment is not perfect.

Yet the structure places extraordinary authority in their discernment.

Membership depends on their judgment.
Participation in the Lord’s Supper depends on their judgment.
And even leaving the church depends on their judgment.

That is the system being described.

Historically, Baptists argued that the conscience ultimately belongs to Christ alone.

Early Baptist leader Roger Williams wrote in 1644:

“God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced.”

He even warned that:

“Forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.”

— Roger Williams,
The Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience
(London, 1644)

— Kevin

Two quick side notes:

GFC is exporting their brand. They have opened a new church in West Liberty, IA. Much of the same doctrine and teachings will occur here: https://www.kingschurchwestliberty.com/

Why do I bother with this? I’m often asked this question. My simple answer is: when do we stop caring about people being hurt? Bullies have a tendency to keep on bullying. So, I keep doing my best to call them out on it. I will stop after they stop.

Hotel California Doctrine of Leaving a Church

Posted on by kevinjandt

Last thing I remember, I was running for the door.
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before.

“Relax,” said the night man,
“We are programmed to receive.
You can check out any time you like,
but you can never leave.”

— Eagles, Hotel California

It has been said more than once that Grace Fellowship is like the Hotel California.

Of course, it is a church, not a 1970s allegory about Los Angeles. But the Eagles may have captured something profound about institutions that are easy to enter and difficult to leave.

What makes someone willingly walk into a place that looks so promising, but when things turn bad, and they want to leave, they are told they cannot?

They don’t have that authority.

Authority is a consistent theme throughout the full video. Authority itself is not a bad thing. Churches need leadership. Healthy leadership can guide, protect, and shepherd a congregation well.

Early in the video, the pastors frame the discussion this way:

“The church is the one with the authority given by Christ.”

The problem arises when authority exists without meaningful safeguards.

The leaders of Grace Fellowship have built a system with no clear external accountability. They are not part of a denominational structure or a broader church association, and the only oversight described in the video are the elders themselves. While claiming that accountability is the plurality and the oversight of the church.

Healthy church structures often include safeguards such as:

• external elder accountability
• congregational oversight
• independent review when disputes arise

Without those safeguards, authority can become a closed loop.

That is the concern here.

I have spent many hours studying high-control religious environments. My reading has included both theological and psychological research into how authority functions within tightly structured communities.

One of the clearest warning signs appears when a church restricts freedom of conscience and suggests that members lack the authority to leave.

Rather than describing the doctrine in my own words, it may be more helpful to simply hear how the pastors explain it themselves.

The “Hotel California” Model of Church Authority

1. Members Do Not Have the Authority to Leave

In the video, one of the pastors states plainly:

“You don’t have the authority to leave a church.”

Grace Fellowship describes itself as Reformed Baptist, yet this claim does not reflect the historic emphasis on liberty of conscience found among the Reformers and written in the Confession.

Early Baptists strongly emphasized what they called liberty of conscience. One of the earliest Baptist leaders, Thomas Helwys, wrote in 1612 that “men’s religion to God is between God and themselves.” That conviction became a defining feature of Baptist theology: Christ alone is Lord of the conscience, and faith cannot be compelled by ecclesiastical authority.[1]

2. Authority Flows Through the Church and Elders

What emerges instead is a system that polices itself.

Authority flows downward.
Questions flow upward.

But the structure itself remains largely insulated from outside review.

3. Those Who Resist the System Are Excluded

Without external safeguards, discipline becomes the primary enforcement mechanism.

“You don’t have the authority to leave.”
“If you disagree, come talk to us.”
“We will correct the misunderstanding.”

In a system structured this way, the outcome is almost predetermined.

Several years ago someone sent me a copy of the full video. I had heard about it long before that, and I even asked Mike Reid directly if I could watch it after others challenged my account of events. The request was refused.

Eventually, someone else shared the recording with me.

After watching it carefully, I believe it is worth hearing the pastors’ words for yourself.

The video contains some strong doctrinal claims and a number of revealing statements about authority, discipline, and church membership.

So, rather than summarizing it, I will simply release a short excerpt, which we will call the “Hotel California” doctrine. There are many more interesting clips that I plan to release, but this sets the table for how these men think. It’s not a new philosophy. Men have sought control for as long as authority structures have existed, so these guys are not “original” in their thinking, but in my view, they take it to a whole new level. You can decide for yourself.

Enjoy.

— Kevin

[1] Helwys, Thomas. A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity. London, 1612. (Often reprinted in modern editions.)

Call Me Dennis… Part Four (The Painful Exit Process – part two)

Posted on by kevinjandt

“While most pastors are gentle, kind, and patient, others have a proverbial knee on the neck of their sheep. They’ve been doing it for years with little or no consequences. And despite the pleas of the people, other pastors and elders sometimes stand by and let it happen. They may even defend the bully pastor. In sum, the problem is not just the abuse. It’s the larger context that allows it to continue unchallenged.” [1]

As I seek to close out this series on Dennis and the treatment he received at Grace Fellowship (GFC), I believe it is important to highlight a couple of different issues. The primary issue is how he was treated. Christianity should be known for treating people well. Dennis was treated well in some respects. You will see some references to this below, but does that excuse the other behaviors?

Secondly, and more importantly, why does this behavior continue? Why don’t those in the church call to task the leaders when they behave badly? The quote above makes that clear. The pastor and the system are defended at all costs. This “allows it to continue unchallenged.” It’s not just the congregation. It’s also the other leaders. Who is willing to speak out?

One of the things I’ve come to love and appreciate about Dennis is his willingness to say it how it is. He isn’t afraid to speak his mind. He’s honest. When he first approached me it didn’t take him long to say that he wanted to expose this behavior. I’m glad he did, so one of the things he has boldly done is send the article out to those at the church. That has been met with some resistance. If the collective is harmed, they all swarm.

Below are two conversations that occurred with Dennis. The first is a leader. The second is an older woman in the church. I provide commentary after the conversations.

—————————————————–

Leader:

“Why are you sending me this?”

Dennis:

“Because you love me and care about me, this is my perspective on just a few occasions in a matter of just a few months in Grace Fellowship. So, I’m just sharing, so you have my take on my experiences.”

Leader:

“Kevin is a liar and a slanderer of the brethren. You need to repent of your participation with him.”

Dennis:

“Soon, I believe you will be calling me a liar and slanderer. Just for bringing truth from actual events and actual comments from people from GFC. But at least I tried. Take care….” 

Leader:

“There also was no mention of So and So, and So and So (Referring to the family that housed Dennis).”

“I notice that there was no mention of receiving free housing at So and So, and So and So’s for how many months? No mention of free food. No mention of being provided with employment.”

Dennis:

“You haven’t studied cults much, have you? It starts with love bombing.”

Leader:

“LOL. You are using Kevin’s talking points. You were extremely well treated. Goodbye, Dennis.”

Dennis:

“It always starts with kindness. Love bombing. You think me ignorant, I do have disabilities, but completely ignorant has never been one of them. Zero common sense isn’t one of them. I studied cults for years; it’s just this one side-tracked me. It’s a bit different. The night Pastor Mike yelled at me about 5 to 6 times, ‘shut up.’ Even leaned in on me. And then So and So started yelling at me. Then I was asked what happens when iron sharpens Iron? I knew the ignorant statement that does not even pertain to the context of that verse. I said Sparks?’ He said, ” Yep. He as, in So and So, I was being treated as if every word that came out of my mouth was incorrect. I started thinking I’m so stupid, then I was told I’m not stupid, then I was treated as if I was, over and over.”

———————————————————–

This conversation continues to expose and highlight the abuse dynamic that is consistent at Grace Fellowship. You see it coming out of one of the leaders’ mouths. Where is empathy? If Dennis was treated so well, why did that stop when he left and exposed what had happened to him? Does this leader want the truth or to protect the organization?

Dennis is completely dismissed, and he certainly isn’t intelligent enough to figure this out on his own. 

“I notice there was no mention of receiving free housing…”
“No mention of free food… employment.”

Was there kindness involved at GFC?

Yes. Does that mean we tolerate abuse? No, absolutely not, and by reframing this as justification or evidence, that abuse could never have occurred is more evidence of abuse. It says, “We can do whatever we want since we were nice to you.”

This interaction shows the issue is not one of disagreement. It is the inability of leadership to tolerate perspectives outside its control.

The most troubling thing about this conversation from a “leader” in the church is the speed at which he dismisses anything Dennis says. It’s as if he is now dead because he dared speak out and criticize them. Wouldn’t this leader want to ask if Mike Reid called Dennis retarded, or called him Water Boy? The leadership claims they hold each other accountable. Why not now? Did this guy lose his backbone, or did he ever have one? Something like this should NEVER be tolerated. But here we are, and it is, and now it’s brushed off as if this guy doesn’t even matter because he left. And worse yet, he’s a traitor because he has exposed these deep secrets. I wonder if they find it as disturbing as they find his departure disturbing?  

I will share one more brief conversation that occurred between Dennis and an older woman in the congregation. She has been there a long time, and we knew her well. She has had a front-row seat to the actions, yet she chooses to dismiss these behaviors and defend the leadership.

——————————————————————-

Older woman:

“You are part of attacking the bride of Christ. Unless you don’t believe the pastors and members are Christians. Who served you and loved you well.”

Dennis:

“Hi, do you remember asking me if Mike was still calling me names? If he does, you’re sorry he does that. Things that actually happen, you know, are wrong that happened to me. It’s in the article I’m guessing you didn’t even read.”

—————————————————-

We’ve seen this same pattern in the other conversations. “We did all this good to you, and now you are not only attacking us, but the bride of Christ.” How should someone respond to that? They can’t. It shuts down the possibility of finding out the truth.

She creates a false dichotomy.

She, like most members and attenders, is not willing to objectively examine the facts. They have set up the leadership structure as demi-gods who can’t be touched. It is a harmful, closed society that won’t tolerate dissent.

This exchange shows how spiritual abuse is sustained communally, not just by pastors.
When members internalize the idea that protecting leaders equals protecting Christ, abuse becomes untouchable.

The result is isolation for survivors and moral cover for harm.

I want to end this with some heartbreaking things that Dennis told me. He thought he had found a place to belong and to serve Christ. He was wrong.

——————————————————————–

Dennis:

“I thought I finally was accepted. I felt like I finally found my place. Found love.”

“Bam with a brick right to my face. They’re yelling at me.”

——————————————————————–   

A narcissistic leader will always betray himself through his actions and his words. He can’t help himself. We have, at Grace Fellowship, a high-control, legalistic, self-serving cult masquerading as a church. They use theological language. They proclaim Christian Doctrine, but in the end, their actions don’t match their profession. God has also given us a way to deal with this, expose evil. Call it what it is, we have the required two or three or hundreds of witnesses who have experienced the same or similar behavior and abuse from Grace Fellowship.

When will it end?

It will end when the Lord opens the eyes of the people there and calls them to stand against the tyrannical leadership structure. They can choose to leave or demand change. But we know change will not happen until these leaders repent of their abusive behavior. We won’t hold our breath.

I would like to issue a challenge to those who are still at GFC. Do you think it’s appropriate for a Christian to call someone retarded? Or a moron? Or Water Boy? Or Rain Man? Have you asked Mike Reid if this is appropriate, or was he allowing unwholesome talk to come out of his mouth?

Have you practiced Matthew 18 with Mike Reid? Have you called him to repent? Have you or Mike contacted Dennis to apologize and seek his forgiveness? I already know the answer. I know you haven’t, and I know you will brush this under the rug and move on as if he is your holy leader and can do no wrong. You should be ashamed, but sadly, you are not.

As for Dennis, he is doing well. He has a place to live and a community of friends. I pray he finds that love and acceptance he desired at GFC, but will find it without strings attached, and especially without the indoctrination and abuse. I pray the Lord will rejuvenate him and restore the joy of his salvation.

Lord, help Dennis; Lord, open the eyes of your people to see the beauty in Christ alone; and Lord, we plead with you to stop Grace Fellowship from hurting more people.  

With continued amazement and disgust.

Kevin Jandt

[1] Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2022,) xviii

Call Me Dennis… Part Three (The Painful Exit Process)

Posted on by kevinjandt

“Those who make it hardest to be a Christian in this world are the other Christians.” [1]

Ronald Enroth, in his book Churches that Abuse, describes the world of cultish churches and how they behave. The answers nearly apply to every abusive and authoritarian church I have heard about. They all work from the same playbook. Today, I will describe what it’s like to leave one of these places. This is the third article I’m writing about Dennis Lane. Dennis has suffered spiritual abuse, manipulation, and authoritarian leadership. They treated him as a running joke at times. Not all the time, but enough to damage him, leaving him with scars from his short time there.

But that is not the worst of it.

The joy of leaving a place like Grace Fellowship quickly turns to grief as the current members and leadership begin to come after you. And come at you they do.

In article two, there were many quotations from the leadership toward Dennis. He was told things like, “Your feelings don’t matter,” “You’re being feminine for being hurt,” or referring to him as “retarded,” or “Water Boy.” If these were coming from someone in a locker room, it might be different, but coming from a church leader is more than disturbing. It defines what authoritarians do. The rules don’t apply to them.

I will show the messages sent to Dennis, see the ungracious spirit behind them, and realize there are deep issues within the leadership and the congregation. Due to the length, I need to break this into two articles.  The first one is a young man in the church. The second will be a leader and an older woman. In the second, we will also see how this affected Dennis. How he received this and what he will do moving forward.

Our first one deals with a young man who sent Dennis a series of messages. I’m paraphrasing, “Hey, Dennis, you know how to handle something like this, right? We use Matthew 18.” Side bar: Matthew 18 is a favorite, go-to verse when someone leaves. Everyone who has left or will leave will always be accused of NOT practicing this timeless verse for reconciliation. The problem is that this is not a Matthew 18 issue. Dennis was ridiculed in front of a group of people, being referred to as “retarded,” and to cope with the moment, he laughed and said, “Yeah, I’m retarded,” and everyone had a good laugh. Never mind, it was at his expense.

Of all the people in that group, I wonder how many went to the leader and said, “You know, that was really inappropriate.” How many of them practiced Matthew 18 with the leaders? Where are the other leaders when it is time to rebuke this behavior?  

To gain an understanding of the mindset of GFC’ers, I am going to directly quote three conversations Dennis had. We have old and young alike, and it should be easy to spot the patterns. They are trained nonstop in how to respond to these conversations. The talking points are drilled into their heads multiple times per week. It is how the system works, so the next generation is well down the cultic road. For the leadership, it is important that the “church” has a multi-generational vision. For that, you need lots of kids, and they have worked hard to promote the “quiver-full” type movement. Here are those conversations. (Note: the only adjustments I’ve made are to correct grammar or the unusual breaks messaging can contain.)

—————————————-

Young man from the church:

“Hey man, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Did you know that God tells us exactly how to handle this situation?”

Dennis:

“Yes, I’m sure you had to talk to others and figure out how to handle this and what to say. So yes, I understand why it’s so late getting back with me.”

Young man:

“No, have not talked to anyone about this, just been super busy with work. This is what God tells us to do in this situation:” Quotes Matthew 18

Dennis

“Sure, what two Christians (at the church) would have agreed with me, the ones that say there is a time and place for cussing, that it’s ok at certain times, said to you by two elders, to you specifically.”

Young man:

“God says to go to him alone.”

Dennis

“But he wasn’t the only one. You were there, they told you it was ok to curse at certain times, didn’t they? I don’t believe you will say yes, but it happened whether you deny it or not.”

“They kept using the word retard all night and laughed about it. The whole group.”

“They knew it hurt me and my spirit both.”

“Over and over, you couldn’t believe your own ears. So. That’s all day, every day.”

Young man:

“I’m not meaning to avoid your question, but did you go to him alone without anyone else around, just you two, and tell him you believe he is in sin?”

Dennis

“You’re not listening, sorry to say. I was alone with him a lot. I was never scared to speak my mind, never.”

“Yes, I tried to express my feelings. And, he bullied me, sorry that’s so hard for you to fathom. And yes you’re avoiding my question for a reason.”

Young man:

“The truth will set you free.”

Dennis

“The truth sets you free. What is the truth? Try to answer the truth. I’m guessing you won’t. Because you can’t. Exactly my point.”

Young man:

“There is a lot to respond to, not trying to avoid anything. Can I call you to answer your questions more thoroughly and try to understand your side better?”

Dennis:

“I understand you are too scared to respond to two questions; it speaks volumes.”

Dennis says that he is not feeling well.

Young man:

“Sorry to hear that, man. After you’re feeling better, I’d love to call you!”

Dennis

“You’re smart, you know you better not admit to what they said or did. Good choice.”

“Truth sets you free indeed, only if you admit it in the phone, haha.”

Young man:

“Dennis, remember man is fallible and imperfect. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God, including pastor Mike. I don’t agree with him saying retard or cussing, but based on this conversation, I will definitely bring these concerns to him. Hopefully, this answers your questions.”

Dennis:

“Sure, would it matter yes they are fallible, but no preacher, hardly on this planet, would find these things ok.”

—————————————-

I think it is important to highlight how damaging this conversation is and how this young man participates in the abuse cycle. He deflects. He minimizes, and he seeks to contain the damage.

Notice his response after Dennis points out all these things. And it appears this guy was even in the room when Dennis was being called “retarded.”

“Man is fallible and imperfect.”

My response: With as much sarcasm as I can muster.

“It’s okay that “Pastor Mike” is infallible and imperfect; he means well. He’s well-intended, even though on occasion he sins and falls short of the glory of God.”

Our young man has neutralized Mike’s accountability. Dennis claims this happened to him, but the man ignores that part and moves on to justifying the actions.

Oh, but there’s more:

“I don’t agree with him saying ‘retard’ or cussing.”

Me: Again, sarcasm.

“Well, that’s good. Thank you for stating the obvious. Did you miss the bigger picture?”

This is a pattern of abuse. We have no opportunity to further examine the abuse cycle. It’s just brushed off. Not only by the group in the room, but also by the other leaders.  

Young man:

“I will definitely bring these concerns to him.”

Me:

“I’m sorry, no, you won’t.”

That’s the biggest problem at GFC. Nobody has the courage to bring these concerns to Mike. Especially, not this young man. His approach continues to protect the institution, because why would the guy at the top listen to a young kid? This is a redirect; there is no need for independent accountability. “We got it all handled in-house.” 

This might be my favorite line:

Young man:

“Hopefully, this answers your questions.”

Me:

“Ummm, no, it doesn’t. He acts as if this resolves the issue.”

No apology.

No acknowledgement of the impact of this heartless act.

Certainly, no repentance.

No way to safeguard the future or others from experiencing his behavior.

This is abuse 101, and this young man is perpetuating the future of the system. He closed the book on Dennis’s case before it was ever opened.

This is common among other members of the church. I don’t need to belabor the point, but it is important to recognize the patterns. This isn’t simply enforcing Christian doctrine on the rebellious. It is bullying and intimidation to bring them into line with leadership. They have committed insurrection, and they must be dealt with harshly.

Please reflect on this interaction and consider whether this is truly what the Christian life should be about. I am disgusted by it. I’m sickened that after nearly twenty years, the behavior has not changed. It may have gotten worse.

With anger and disdain

Kevin Jandt

[1] Ronald M. Enroth, Churches that Abuse, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), ix

Call Me Dennis… Part Two

Posted on by kevinjandt

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matt. 12:36,37)

Grace Fellowship (Church) is well known for being spiritually abusive. There are countless stories and evidence of this, provided by scores of witnesses. Dennis is one more in a long line of them. Below, I present supporting evidence of the abuse Dennis received. It is my hope and desire that those who are still at the church will read this, be as disgusted as I am, and actually do something about it. LEAVE! 

The direct quotes from leadership that I obtained through Dennis’s messages are revealing. They show that the pattern described below is real. It’s not just a random occurrence. Patterns of “joking” are not unusual at this place. Words can be destructive, hurtful, and damaging, and that is what this pattern shows.

Above all, it’s biblical to expose evil deeds. And that is what I seek to prove. Over several months, Dennis describes repeated emotional harm, coercive control, humiliation, spiritual manipulation, and psychological distress connected to the church’s leaders.

I hope you find these abuses as shocking as I do. Each is taken from a long series of messages I had with Dennis for almost two months. I have organized them in different categories and summarized the behaviors in an easy-to-follow format.

1. Abusive and Degrading Behaviors

Dennis repeatedly reports being called:

  • “Retard”
  • “Moron”
  • “Water boy”
  • “Rain Man”

These terms were used:

  • Publicly and privately
  • By leadership figures
  • In group settings where others laughed

When Dennis attempted to explain that these words were traumatic due to lifelong bullying and abuse, his concerns were dismissed or mocked.

Bullying Disguised as Humor or “Toughening Up”

  • Leaders and members laughed when Dennis joined in self-degrading jokes to cope.
  • He was told bullying “doesn’t exist.”
  • Hurtful behavior was reframed as:
    • “Iron sharpens iron”
    • “That’s how men talk”
    • “You’re being feminine for being hurt”

This normalized humiliation as spiritual growth.

2. Patterns of Coercive Control

Excessive Monitoring of Personal Life

Leadership repeatedly:

  • Questioned where Dennis was if he missed church or events
  • Demanded explanations for absences
  • Contacted him persistently by text and phone
  • Pressured him to answer calls immediately—even at work or late at night

Missing a single meeting triggered interrogation and accusations of sin or pride.

Control Over Time and Behavior

Dennis was expected to attend:

  • Sunday services (often twice)
  • Wednesday services
  • Morning Bible studies
  • Men’s groups and extra gatherings

Declining even one event resulted in:

  • Guilt
  • Accusations of avoidance
  • Pressure to “repent”
  • Claims that the relationship was “shallow” if he did not comply

Attempts to Control Speech and Online Activity

  • Dennis was pressured to post only ESV Bible verses on Facebook.
  • Repeatedly told “I prefer you use ESV,” despite Dennis offering compromise.
  • Leadership insisted on authority over his personal social media.

Disagreement was treated as rebellion.

3. Spiritual Manipulation and Gaslighting

Misuse of Scripture

Bible verses were repeatedly used to:

  • Demand submission
  • Accuse Dennis of pride
  • Threaten church discipline
  • Frame disagreement as sin

Matthew 18 and Hebrews 10:25 were cited to enforce compliance rather than restoration.

Projection and Gaslighting

Leadership frequently:

  • Accused Dennis of being controlling while exerting control themselves
  • Claimed “no one is pressuring you” while relentlessly pressuring him
  • Denied past statements or deleted texts
  • Reframed Dennis’s distress as immaturity or sin

Dennis was told:

  • He was “not a victim”
  • His reactions were prideful
  • His autism should not affect behavior
  • Emotional pain was irrelevant

4. Exploitation of Vulnerability

Dennis was particularly vulnerable due to:

  • Autism and PTSD
  • Past lifelong bullying
  • Seizure disorder
  • Financial instability
  • Dependence on church help for paperwork, housing, and income access

Leadership:

  • Assisted him financially and administratively
  • Then referenced that help as leverage (“See, I got you more money”)
  • Implied obligation and increased expectations afterward

This created fear that leaving or speaking up would result in homelessness or loss of support.

5. Emotional and Psychological Harm

Dennis reports:

  • Chronic anxiety and fear
  • Depression and emotional exhaustion
  • Crying frequently
  • Feeling “trapped” even after leaving
  • Trauma responses and shutdown when yelled at
  • PTSD triggers from being shouted down by multiple leaders
  • Inability to think clearly during confrontations

He described the environment as:

  • “Like an abusive father who hits then hugs”
  • “Double-sided slaps followed by affection”
  • Constant fear of doing something wrong

6. Intimidation and Confrontation Tactics

Leadership behaviors included:

  • Yelling after others had left
  • Multiple elders confronting him simultaneously
  • Accusing him of lying while he was visibly overwhelmed
  • Demanding immediate compliance
  • Framing resistance as feminine, sinful, or rebellious

Dennis reports being told directly that:

“Your feelings do not matter.”

7. Authoritarian Leadership Culture

Leadership Characteristics Identified

  • Absolute authority with no accountability
  • No external oversight
  • Leaders’ preferences treated as God’s will
  • Emotional dominance presented as masculinity
  • Anger excused as spiritual zeal

Disagreement was labeled:

  • Pride
  • Rebellion
  • Immaturity
  • Lack of submission

8. Love Bombing Followed by Withdrawal

Early involvement included:

  • Intense attention
  • Constant affirmation
  • Immediate help
  • Praise and encouragement

Over time, this shifted into:

  • Surveillance
  • Criticism
  • Control
  • Conditional approval
  • Withdrawal of warmth when compliance decreased

Affection was tied directly to obedience.

9. Isolation and Fear of Exposure

Dennis was repeatedly warned—explicitly and implicitly—that:

  • Speaking critically would be divisive
  • Questioning leadership was dangerous
  • Leaving would harm him spiritually
  • Talking to outsiders was suspect

After leaving, members urged him to return while warning him not to speak negatively about leadership—reinforcing fear and guilt.

10. Post-Exit Trauma

After leaving, Dennis reported symptoms consistent with Religious Trauma Syndrome, including:

  • Persistent fear
  • Feeling mentally trapped
  • Guilt for resting or missing church
  • Difficulty trusting his own decisions
  • Emotional confusion
  • Lingering sense of control

He described feeling as though his “soul was still in the basement of the church.”

Conclusion

These conversations reflect a consistent and escalating pattern of emotional abuse, spiritual manipulation, coercive control, and psychological harm, particularly toward a vulnerable, disabled individual seeking safety and belonging. Nothing stated above is new for GFC and its leadership. These are consistent patterns wrapped in religious garb.

While outward religious language was consistently used, the lived experience described includes:

  • Fear rather than freedom
  • Control rather than care
  • Shame rather than restoration
  • Compliance rather than consent

The overall pattern aligns closely with spiritually abusive and cult-adjacent environments, even if not fitting every traditional definition of a cult.

Resources for further study on cults and high-demand religious groups.

  • Winell, M. (2011). Religious Trauma Syndrome.
  • Lalich, J. & Tobias, M. (2006). Take Back Your Life.
  • Hassan, S. (2015). Combating Cult Mind Control.
  • Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and Recovery.
  • American Psychiatric Association — Coercive Control Framework.
  • International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA).
  • Enroth, R. (1992). Churches That Abuse.
  • Kruger, M. (2022). Bully Pulpit.
  • DeGroat, C. (2020). When Narcissism Comes to Church.
  • Garrett, K. (2020). In the House of Friends.

Finally, I want to appeal to anyone still at Grace Fellowship. You all know Dennis. You have spent time with him. Although autistic, he is a highly intelligent man, and he was abused by you, whether directly or indirectly, through your approval of the leadership structure. Isn’t it time for this to stop? I say, it’s long past due. Stand up, do something about it. Enough is enough.

If you are a leader, it’s time to quit. You are not equipped, and you are certainly not qualified. I have no doubt that the pressure has been intense over the years, and I hope it only grows. You deserve it. But above all, you dishonor the God you claim to love and serve. He is not pleased by your behavior. The Scriptures show us this plainly, so you should stop pretending and give your people their freedom. Go get a job and go to a church as you examine yourself. Sit in the back and do not seek a leadership role.

Let’s confirm if you are first in the faith.

With all love and sincerity

Kevin Jandt