The Way Finder
For Those Who Found Their Way Here: Why We Chose Truth Over Silence
Perhaps you arrived here wondering why we chose to speak. Why break years of silence? Why risk the accusation of causing division in a community that preached unity above all else?
Let me tell you about a particular kind of darkness: the kind that wears light as a disguise.
There exists a form of violence so sophisticated it leaves no visible wounds. It happens when someone discovers that our deepest reverence can be weaponized, that the sacred itself can become a shield for exploitation. When Scripture meant to protect and guide becomes twisted into a tool of control, when questioning leadership gets reframed as questioning God Himself, something fundamental breaks in the architecture of faith.
Spiritual abuse is peculiar in its cruelty. It doesn't merely take from you; it makes you complicit in your own diminishment. It wraps exploitation in prophecy, calculation in care, manipulation in the very language of love. You find yourself questioning not the abuser, but your own perception. Surely someone who speaks so fluently of God couldn't be systematically destroying souls?
But here's what I've learned through years of wrestling with this darkness: Truth has its own frequency. Even when buried under layers of religious performance, even when silenced by accusations of divisiveness, truth continues its quiet insistence. It whispers in the dissonance between words and actions, in the strange hollowness where love should be, in the systematic patterns that emerge when you finally dare to look.
I need you to understand something: We didn't want to be here. Speaking these truths feels like tearing fabric that's been woven into our very identity. Some of us carry years of scar tissue from this particular form of violence, the kind that uses God's name as both weapon and shield.
Yet silence, I've learned, is its own form of blasphemy. There's a moment when you realize that your quiet endurance has become enabling, that every day you don't speak becomes permission for the harm to continue. When we know truth and refuse to voice it, we become architects of future wounds.
The philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote something that haunts me: "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." This crystallizes why we speak. Not from hatred, though anger at injustice is its own form of holy fire, but from love. Love for those still trapped. Love for truth that refuses to be perverted. Love for the divine that deserves better than being made into a tool of exploitation.
Our testimonies aren't attacks. They are an unveiling. This is the moment when we stop participating in the careful choreography that keeps darkness hidden. Together, we're choosing the disruption of truth over the violence of false peace.
Sometimes the most loving thing we can do is refuse to let darkness continue masquerading as light. Sometimes testimony is the only gift we have left to give: our scars transformed into warnings, our survival into someone else's roadmap toward freedom.
If you're here because something in your own story resonates, if you've felt that peculiar dissonance between proclaimed love and lived reality, trust that instinct. That unease you feel might be the Holy Spirit doing what the Holy Spirit actually does: leading you into truth, especially when that truth is costly.
We didn't choose this moment of speaking. It chose us. Years of accumulated silence finally reached critical mass, and we discovered that some truths simply refuse to remain buried. They rise, insistent and holy, demanding their day in the light.
This is why I shared my story. This is why we spoke. Not to destroy, but to prevent further destruction. Not to divide, but to reveal the division already there, hidden under performed unity and careful religious theater.
Truth doesn't need elaborate justification. It simply needs to be spoken. And sometimes, the bravest thing we can do is stop protecting those who never protected us, stop silencing ourselves for the comfort of those who profit from our silence.
The scars we carry have become our credentials. Our survival has become our testimony. And perhaps our willingness to finally speak will become someone else's permission to name what they've been too frightened to acknowledge.
In the end, this is about a simple but revolutionary act: choosing truth over comfort, clarity over confusion, genuine love over its sophisticated counterfeit.
Truth is its own authority. It doesn't need to shout. It just needs to be told.
And so we tell it.
Jim L
The Prophet vs Mercy Fallacy
by Jessica G.
Dave teaches that each person has a motivational gift. He lists 12 in the handout he has created. In his teachings, he emphasizes prophecy and mercy. He often places them on a spectrum and describes them as opposites.
Here are direct quotes from his writings on their description.
Spiritual Gift Handout
Prophecy: to proclaim the mind, heart and will of God by divine unction (Greek word: ‘prophetes’- “pro”=”forth,”phemi”=to speak) Key: may be sharp, edgy, seem critical and/or insensitive, always comparing the Bible to current church and personal practices.
Mercy: to be sensitive toward those who are suffering, whether physically, mentally, or emotionally, so as to feel genuine sympathy with their misery, speaking words of compassion and caring for them with deeds of love to help alleviate their distress. Key: highly sympathetic, even with strangers, comforting and encouraging them perhaps even when problems are self-inflicted due to sin; may take up offenses or try to protect people even from other Christians offering godly counsel.
Dave does not offer any scripture that supports that prophets are sharp, insensitive or lack mercy. I compared Dave’s hand out from 2015 to the description of ‘prophet’ in “My Place in God’s Plan” (copyrighted 2023), a curriculum that Dave heavily contributed to and that is used by CRU and TLM. While there is overlap in the descriptions, the CRU material does not describe prophets as insensitive or unmerciful.
The problem with this teaching is that the Bible does not teach that prophecy and mercy are opposites on a spectrum. Throughout 1 Corinthians 14, when Paul seeks a contrast to prophecy, he uses the gift of tongues rather than the gift of mercy. Paul encourages Christians to seek the greater gifts like prophecy (1 Cor 12:30, 1 Cor 14:1). Paul is also clear that prophecy will one day pass away. (1 Cor 13:9-10). This is why Paul says that the most important thing for a Christian to pursue is love (1 Cor 12:30).
When it comes to mercy, it is a foundational aspect of God’s character. Romans 12:8 uses the Greek word ELEO (G1656 noun) for mercy. The adjective of the word ELEEMON (G1655 adjective) is the same word God uses to describe himself in Exodus 34:6 (in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament).
Prophets like Jonah knew this about God. Jonah even tells God that the reason he rebelled was because he knew God was merciful. Jonah was afraid Nineveh might repent and then God would relent and not bring judgement on the city. In the book of Matthew, Jesus challenges the Pharisees to go and learn what God desires, which is mercy and not sacrifice. Jesus invites the Pharisees to learn this lesson twice (Mat 9:13, Mat 12:7) before he rebukes them in Matthew 23:23. When Jesus asks who loved his neighbor, the man in the crowd replied, “the one who had compassion [mercy]” (Luke 10:38). And James 3:17 says, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peace-loving, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and food fruits, impartial, free of hypocrisy.”
Mercy and prophecy are not opposites. Combining this teaching along with Dave’s self-proclaimed role of prophet enables Dave to justify his harsh and hurtful behavior. He specifically used this argument when I confronted him in 2022. I believe that Dave has created this false pair of opposites, in order to justify his harsh and hurtful behavior.
There is one additional harm that the prophet mercy spectrum creates. Dave has labeled many Friday Night attenders as either prophets or mercies. Most of the prophets are men and most of the mercies are women. There is also a pattern of Dave marrying couples that fit the same pattern as himself and Kathy, with the husband labeled as a prophet and the wife as a mercy. The spectrum enables the prophet to justify harsh and insensitive words or a lack of mercy as a part of their spiritual gift. It also allows a prophet to claim that they cannot understand the thoughts or perspective of their spouse who is a mercy. In a worst case scenario, the prophet can justify verbal abuse as being from God. This dynamic not only perpetuates harmful stereotypes but also creates an environment where emotional and verbal abuse can be justified under the guise of spiritual authority.
We should all look to God’s example and seek to embody His enduring mercy, for he says “Blessed are the merciful, for you shall receive mercy” (Mat 5:7).
The Unbought Word: A Biblical Case Against Transactional Prophecy
by Jim L.
Introduction: The Prophet's Sacred Trust and the Peril of Divided Loyalties
The prophetic office is not a profession; it is a sacred trust. A prophet does not speak for hire, nor for personal gain, but as one seized by the living God. Their task is singular: to bear the divine word with integrity, without bending it to human desire or trimming it for human approval. Scripture is unflinching here: the prophet’s loyalty must be undivided, their voice unpurchased.
The moment money becomes the condition for revelation—when a gift or payment secures a “word”—the office collapses under a divided allegiance. The prophet no longer stands free before God; they stand indebted to the client. What was given as holy entrustment is reduced to transaction, and what was meant to be bread becomes stone. The word of God is not merchandise.
This report builds the biblical case against such transactional prophecy. Across the witness of Scripture, the verdict is clear: commodifying the divine word corrupts the messenger, perverts the message, and dishonors the One who speaks. The prophets of Israel thundered against it. The apostles bore witness to its danger. The pattern is consistent: whenever revelation is sold, it is profaned.
At the same time, Scripture draws a distinction: God does provide for those who labor in the gospel. The faithful are called to sustain ministers of the word—but not to purchase the word itself. The difference is crucial. Legitimate support is relational and communal, designed to free the prophet or preacher for service. Transactional prophecy, by contrast, shackles the message to a contract, turning divine utterance into human commerce.
The thesis of this report is simple, but urgent: from covenant to Christ, from Moses to Paul, the word of God remains unbought and unbuyable. To place a price on it is to betray the office, to wound the church, and to misrepresent the very character of God.
Part I: The Old Covenant Foundation: Prophets, Pay, and Perversion
The Old Testament does not treat prophecy as a private enterprise. It roots the prophet’s vocation in covenant: in the binding relationship between God and Israel. The prophet was not a wandering seer-for-hire, nor a spiritual consultant competing in a religious marketplace. He was a covenant official, bound to the nation’s faithfulness. To accept payment for a word was not a mere lapse of ethics — it was treason against the covenant itself, a betrayal that summoned judgment.
The Covenantal Mandate of the Prophet
The prophet’s calling was judicial. He stood as Yahweh’s prosecutor, confronting the people with their covenant breaches, summoning them back to obedience.¹ His authority did not rest on popularity, political backing, or financial patronage, but on the raw weight of divine commission. He was an emissary of Sinai.
The Mosaic covenant was the charter of this relationship. It spelled out blessings and curses, consequences tied to obedience or disobedience, nowhere more fully than in Deuteronomy 28.² There the structure is laid bare: prosperity for fidelity, exile for rebellion.³ Agricultural abundance, victory, and prominence for a faithful nation; disease, famine, defeat, and loss of land for a faithless one.⁴ These outcomes were not arbitrary. They were covenant logic, written into history itself.
Thus the prophet’s role was to read the times through that covenant lens. He diagnosed the nation’s spiritual state, exposed idolatry, injustice, and corruption, and warned of the curse looming on the horizon.¹ His words were verdicts. His message was judgment.
That is why a prophet who accepts money to deliver a “blessing” subverts the whole system. Payment corrupts the verdict. Instead of declaring God’s judgment, the prophet bends to the patron’s desire. The covenant’s cause-and-effect — obedience sows blessing, disobedience sows curse⁵ — is denied for profit. A true prophet warns: what you sow in sin, you will reap in judgment. A prophet for hire assures: you may sow injustice and still reap peace.
But there is a darker form as well: a prophet who invents a curse and then sells relief from it. Instead of declaring what God has decreed, he enslaves the people with fear — “You are cursed until you pay.” This too is a lie. Blessings and curses come from covenant faithfulness, not from bribery. To bless for money or to curse for money is the same treachery. Both mock God. Both betray the covenant. As Paul thundered: “God is not mocked” (Galatians 6:7).⁶
The Indictment of Micah: When the Word of God Is for Sale
Micah levels the most searing charge against transactional prophecy. His third chapter (v. 5–12) is a courtroom where he arraigns every office — judge, priest, prophet — for corruption. What binds them together is commerce. Justice is sold for a bribe, Torah for a fee, prophecy for a wage. Each sacred trust is debased into a service for hire.
Micah paints the prophets as opportunists whose message is tied to their stomach: “They cry ‘Peace!’ when they have something to eat, but declare war against him who puts nothing into their mouths” (Micah 3:5).⁷ The word of God has become merchandise. Revelation is no longer received from heaven but negotiated on earth, priced and paid for by the client.
Notice the double corruption: blessing-for-pay, curse-for-withholding. Those who brought gifts received words of peace; those who withheld faced words of doom. This is not prophecy — it is spiritual extortion. The message becomes a weapon, wielded for gain: comfort for some, terror for others, neither flowing from the mouth of God.
The indictment crescendos in verse 11: “Her leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets practice divination for money.”⁸ Three offices, one disease. Judges, priests, prophets — all have inverted their loyalties. They no longer serve God or covenant; they serve the hand that pays.
Most dangerous of all is the false security this produces. These corrupted voices still dare to proclaim, “The LORD is among us; no disaster shall come upon us” (Micah 3:11).⁹ Payment purchases presumption. Leaders imagine that as long as temple rituals continue, God’s favor is guaranteed — even as they “abhor justice and pervert equity” (Micah 3:9). The prophets become enablers of delusion, supplying divine cover for national apostasy.
So Micah delivers the terrifying verdict: “Therefore, on account of you, Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins” (Micah 3:12).¹⁰ The cause-and-effect is unmistakable: because the word of God was for sale, the city of God would fall.
Archetypes of Integrity and Corruption
The Old Testament preserves case studies — flesh-and-blood parables of what it means to keep the prophetic trust or to sell it. Balaam, Elisha, and Gehazi form a stark trinity of contrast.
Balaam: The Prophet for Hire
Numbers 22–24 gives us the archetype of the mercenary prophet.¹¹ Balak of Moab offers Balaam a diviner’s fee (Numbers 22:7)¹² to curse Israel. Despite God’s direct refusal (Numbers 22:12),¹³ Balaam entertains the second delegation, seduced by promises of wealth and honor. Though compelled by God to bless rather than curse, Balaam’s heart remains fixed on reward. The New Testament remembers him not for his reluctant blessings but for his greed: Peter warns of those who “followed the way of Balaam… who loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15).¹⁴ Jude adds: they “rushed for profit into Balaam’s error” (Jude 1:11).¹⁵ Balaam could not curse Israel with his mouth, so he devised another way: corrupt them from within (Numbers 31:16),¹⁴ trading counsel for coin. His name becomes shorthand for prophetic corruption.
Elisha and Gehazi: A Study in Contrasts
In 2 Kings 5, Naaman arrives with gold, silver, and garments, expecting to purchase a miracle.¹⁶ Elisha heals him, but refuses the gift: “As the LORD lives, before whom I stand, I will receive none” (2 Kings 5:16).¹⁷ His refusal is theological: Naaman must see his healing as pure grace, not a bought service. Had Elisha accepted payment, he would have reduced Yahweh to one more pagan deity — a god whose favor could be bought.
But Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, runs after Naaman.¹⁸ He seizes the payment in secret, retroactively putting a price on grace. The judgment is swift: the leprosy of Naaman clings to him and his descendants (2 Kings 5:27). What Naaman received freely, Gehazi tried to monetize — and the curse fell on him. In poetic justice, he inherited the disease attached to the very silver he coveted.
Together, these stories testify: the prophetic gift cannot be sold without consequence. Balaam’s greed sowed destruction; Elisha’s integrity preserved grace; Gehazi’s covetousness reaped a curse.
Part II: The New Covenant Standard: Gratuity, Support, and Stewardship
The coming of Christ did not erase the Old Testament’s warnings — it intensified them. The cross and resurrection transform the prohibition against transactional prophecy from a covenantal rule into an ethic of grace. What was once written on stone now pierces the heart. The law said: do not sell the word. The gospel says: freely you have received, freely give. The New Covenant establishes a new model of support: not commercial exchange, but partnership; not quid pro quo, but communal care. A ministry sustained by honor and love eliminates the conflict of interest that always infects a fee-for-service gospel.
The Jesus Ethic: “Freely Give”
The charter for all New Covenant ministry comes from Jesus Himself. In Matthew 10, as He sends out the Twelve, He arms them with power to heal, raise, cleanse, and drive out demons — and then binds them with this rule: “Freely you have received; freely give” (Matthew 10:8).¹⁹ This command is not limited to miracles. It governs the whole enterprise of preaching the kingdom: “The kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matthew 10:7).¹⁹
The logic is sharp. Grace is an unearned gift. The power of the Spirit is an unearned gift. And gifts received freely must be given freely. To attach a price to a healing, a prophecy, or any manifestation of kingdom power is to declare with the lips: God’s grace is free, while declaring with the hands: access has a cost. It splits the gospel in two.
That split is exposed in Acts. Simon Magus, awed by the apostles’ power, reaches for his wallet. “Give me also this ability,” he demands, “so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:18–19).²⁰ Peter’s reply thunders through history: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20).²⁰ His rebuke sets a permanent boundary: the Spirit is a gift, not a commodity. If the Spirit cannot be bought, then neither can any of His works. Prophecy, healing, wisdom — all are gifts. None are for sale.
And this holds true not only for blessings but for curses. To threaten a curse and then sell release is as corrupt as Simon’s attempt to purchase power. Both pervert the gift into a transaction. Both deny grace. Both desecrate the gospel.
The Pauline Model: Rights Relinquished for the Gospel
No one wrestled more deeply with money and ministry than Paul. In 1 Corinthians 9 he builds an airtight case for his right to financial support. Soldiers are fed by their army, farmers eat from their fields, shepherds drink from their flock (1 Corinthians 9:7).²¹ The Law itself commands: “Do not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain” (Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Corinthians 9:9).²² Priests ate from the altar they served (1 Corinthians 9:13).²² Finally Paul roots it in Christ Himself: “The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14).²²
But then comes the reversal. Having proven his right, Paul lays it down. “We have not used this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:12).²³ He boasts of preaching free of charge (1 Corinthians 9:18).²⁴ In Thessalonica he reminds them: “We worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:9).²⁵
Paul feared the very appearance of profiteering. To demand payment would plant suspicion that the gospel was for sale, and so he refused. His ethic creates a hierarchy: support is a right, but the gospel’s integrity is the higher law. If exercising the right clouds the higher law, the right must yield. A prophet who ties payment to a word — whether a promised blessing or a lifted curse — inverts Paul’s ethic. They place personal gain over gospel clarity. They create the very “hindrance” Paul strained to avoid.
The Principle of Sincere Support vs. Sordid Gain
The tension resolves when we distinguish two models.
The Character of the Messenger
The New Testament ends where the heart begins. Leaders are disqualified not merely by actions but by what they love. An overseer is “not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:3), “not pursuing dishonest gain” (Titus 1:7).²⁶ Jesus left no room for compromise: “No one can serve two masters… You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24).²⁷ To love money is to serve another god. To pursue gain is to abandon grace. Paul warns that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil,” by which “some have wandered from the faith” (1 Timothy 6:10).²⁸
Transactional prophecy is the natural fruit of this root. A heart ruled by money will sooner or later put a price tag on revelation — whether by selling blessings or by selling escape from curse. But a heart free from greed recoils from the thought. Elisha refused Naaman’s gifts. Paul worked with his own hands. True prophets guard grace, not profit.
Thus the requirement is not merely external — a rule against charging fees — but internal: a heart that treasures God above silver. The refusal of money is the outward sign of an inward qualification. Only such a messenger can be trusted with the mysteries of God.
Conclusion: Upholding the Prophetic Office in an Age of Commerce
The testimony of Scripture is unbroken. From covenant to cross, from prophet to apostle, every line converges on one truth: the word of God is not for sale. The witnesses stand in chorus — Micah’s indictment of those who divine for money, Balaam’s hunger for reward, Gehazi’s greedy betrayal, Christ’s command to freely give, Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus, Paul’s relinquished rights, the pastoral demand for leaders free from sordid gain. Together they form a single verdict: prophecy cannot be commodified without corruption.
To accept payment for a specific word is to fracture the prophet’s allegiance. The mouth meant to serve God now serves the client. This fracture can take two forms: to bless for a fee, softening judgment into flattery — or to curse for a fee, enslaving the hearer with fear until money buys release. Both are condemned. Both twist divine truth into human transaction. Both mock the covenantal logic of sowing and reaping and deny the gospel of grace.
Such commerce is more than bad ethics — it is blasphemy. It misrepresents the nature of God Himself. Grace is not merchandise. Revelation is not a product. To treat them as such is to drag heaven’s gift into the marketplace, to turn the voice of the living God into the chatter of hired lips.
Yes, Scripture makes generous room for the support of ministers — a livelihood given in honor, sustained by community, freeing them for the work of the Word. But that model is the antithesis of transaction. It liberates; it does not enslave. It sustains; it does not manipulate. The difference is everything. One springs from stewardship and love. The other from commerce and coercion.
Therefore, the charge is clear. To preserve the integrity of the prophetic office, every messenger of God must follow Elisha’s refusal and Paul’s relinquishment. They must stand before kings and paupers alike and say with conviction: the grace of God is not for sale.
Works Cited
1. MICAH'S THEORY OF THE JUSTICE OF JUDGEMENT (MICAH 3:1–12)1 - Unisa Press Journals
2. Commentary on Deuteronomy 28 by Matthew Henry - Blue Letter Bible
3. What Deuteronomy 28:1-6 Teaches Us About Holiness & Favor - Matt Enser
4. Blessings and curses | The Christian Century
5. Deuteronomy 28-29,Galatians 6 NIV - Blessings for Obedience - If you fully - Bible Gateway
7. The Seven Laws of the Harvest | Bible.org
8. Commentary on Micah 3:5-12 - Working Preacher from Luther Seminary
9. Micah 3:11 Commentaries - Bible Hub
10. Micah 3:9-12 meaning | TheBibleSays.com
11. Balaam in the Book of Numbers | Religious Studies Center - BYU
12. Balaam – The Prophet For Profit - GROW magazine
13. Enduring Word Bible Commentary Numbers Chapter 22
14. The Way of Balaam - Gutenberg College
15. What does Jude 1:11 mean? - BibleRef.com
16. What can we learn from the story of Elisha and Naaman? | GotQuestions.org
17. 2 Kings 5 Summary - 5 Minute Bible Study - 2BeLikeChrist
18. 2 Kings 5:16 Commentaries - Bible Hub
19. Does Jesus' Command to “Freely Give” Apply Today?
20. Who was Simon the Sorcerer? | GotQuestions.org
21. 23 Living on Support Part 1 (1 Corinthians 9:1-14) - Wednesday in the Word
22. What does it mean that those who preach the gospel should live by it (1 Corinthians 9:14)?
23. Paul's Ministry – 1 Corinthians 9 - Redeemed Mind
24. Was Paul a Tentmaker? Part 2: Did Paul Financially Support Himself? - Biola University
25. Paul's Labor and Blamelessness | Reformed Bible Studies & Devotionals at Ligonier.org
26. 1 Timothy 5:17-19 | Arlin Sorensen's Thoughts on Scripture - WordPress.com
27. Qualifications for Elders | 1 Timothy 3:1-7 - Lamar Baptist Church
Church Discipline in Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5
by Jessica G. and Quinn
First, some introductory thoughts.
Scripture offers two primary passages on the process of church discipline. We acknowledge that there are different teachings on how to apply Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5. Friday Night does not have a written (or unwritten) process for holding an elder accountable. We also are unable to trust Dave to create a written process. Dave misled Jessica about SBC’s and CRU’s oversight and authority of Friday Night (see The Peerless Papa Dave). When Friday Night attenders had concerns or conflicts with Dave, he would use tactics like avoidance and lying by omission in order to deceive the men he claimed were holding him accountable (see Inner Circle Dynamics for more info). This has necessitated the development of our own process. Thus we leaned heavily on 1 Timothy 5. We have interpreted it to the best of our ability, attempting to be faithful to the text, consistent with general scriptural principles, and focused on protecting the church from spiritual abuse. We have also worked to prioritize protecting victims because we are also aware that Matthew 18 has been used to silence victims.
The primary argument used to defend Dave Cottrell and justify why he should not be held accountable or face any actions that might threaten his position in ministry is the claim that he has produced significant "good fruit." Dave himself uses this argument to defend his ministry, and his supporters say the same thing. Even some who acknowledge his abusive behavior admit that Dave has done some good. We assert though that regardless of the definition or measure of good fruit, no amount of good fruit compensates for Dave’s spiritual abuse. We see this principle both in the Bible and in the secular justice system. Within the justice system, no amount of philanthropy can erase a crime. Biblically, we needed Jesus to die for our sins, because our good works could not justify us.
*********************************************
Matthew 18:15–17 (NAS95)
““If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
Matthew 18 deals with the generic case of church discipline: “if your brother sins” (my emphasis).
Four steps are outlined:
- One on one
- [Two or three] on one
- [The church] on one
- Excommunicate
Notes:
- This isn’t talking about someone who listens, acknowledges fault, and simply falls into the same sin again. It’s talking about someone who does not listen when you confront them with their sin.
- There is a principle at play of protecting the reputation of the alleged offender, but gradually removing that protection as he digs his heels in.
- Excommunication is required if he won’t listen to the church, not an endless cycle of “showing grace” or “keeping them in community” when they don’t even acknowledge fault. “Showing grace” to an arrogant person who refuses to acknowledge their own sin puts the rest of the body in danger.
1 Timothy 5:19–22 (NAS95)
“Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.”
These verses pertain specifically to accusations against elders.
Key differences between these verses and Matthew 18:
- The assumption seems to be that Timothy would be there to receive an accusation against an elder. Timothy himself is not labeled an elder in scripture. However, he seems to have a prominent role – see 1 Tim 1:3, for example.
- Whereas in Matthew 18 the testimony of a single witness must be taken seriously, Timothy is supposed to disregard an accusation unless there are at least two witnesses.
- However, once two or three witnesses are brought and the elder continues in sin, the command is to rebuke in the presence of all.
- The Greek for rebuke here is elencho.
- To express strong disapproval of someone’s action, reprove, correct (BDAG definition)
- If a pastor is caught in adultery, rebuke means expressing strong disapproval of his adultery, not having him step down from ministry for unspecified reasons.
- All means all.
- A closed-door meeting with a board of directors is not “in the presence of all.”
- Paul explicitly says the purpose is to inspire fear in “the rest.” It’s unclear whether “the rest” is the whole church, or the other elders.
- Regardless, the other elders would be included. In general, it is important for people in positions of power to have a healthy fear of those under their authority. Otherwise, the temptation to abuse that power becomes too great.
- A very strong warning is made against bias / partiality. What does bias look like in a situation with a sinning elder?
- It could be negative bias:
- I don’t like his teaching, or he said something that offended me, so I will err on the side of the accusers.
- However, it seems more likely to be positive bias:
- “Yes, there appear to be credible accusations / evidence, but he’s done so much good it’s hard to believe he could be guilty of these things.”
- “There is some bad fruit, but if we go forward with a public rebuke, it will destroy the ministry / stop the good things from happening / cause people to lose their faith”
- “We need to show grace / give the benefit of the doubt” (where the same degree of leeway would never be afforded to anyone else)
- “We need to forgive” (where “forgiving” means retaining a disqualified elder in a position of authority)
- “We need to focus on unity” (deflecting the conversation away from the accusations)
- “No one’s perfect” (ignoring the requirement to hear the accusations and follow the process outlined by Paul)
- Don’t be hasty.
- Don’t sin in the process of bringing accusation / rebuke.
For specific information on why we went about this process the way we did, see FAQ.
What is Spiritual Abuse?
by Jessica G.
In its simplest definition, spiritual abuse occurs when one person attempts to control another person in a spiritual context, causing them harm.
Two characteristics of spiritual abuse are elitism and isolation. At the end of this document, I have included three complete definitions from three different professors and university lectures. The reason for these definitions is because I have heard Dave Cottrell talk negatively about seminary and the use of commentaries when studying Scripture. From his teaching, I internalized that I was a worse Christian if I read or listened to any other teachers. I now believe that Dave disparages individuals with formal theological education in order to discourage myself and others from being exposed to multiple theological views. Developing our own perspectives on topics presents a risk of his view and authority being challenged. In order to break the cycle of abuse, I have included multiple definitions, with full quotes and the authors’ biographies, so that others can develop their own perspectives.
While each author has created their own definition, all include the characteristic of control within a spiritual context. Two include the characteristic of harm caused to the victim. One, Michael Kruger, distinguishes spiritual abuse from other types of abuse including physical, sexual and emotional/psychological. He does this in order to identify specific methods used by a person who has spiritual authority. Karen Roudkovski enumerates the harms of spiritual abuse to include “spiritual, emotional/psychological, physical or relational”. None of the formal definitions specifically include financial harm, but it should be included as scripture warns against overseers/elders who have a desire for money (1 Timothy 3:3, 1 Peter 5:2).
Typically when we think of spiritual abuse we may think of the Jonestown tragedy, where Jim Jones convinced over 900 people to commit suicide, or the Catholic church’s cover up of sexual assault by members of the clergy. However, spiritual abuse can happen in any church denomination. Lisa Oakley and Kathryn Kinmond briefly review the shepherding or discipling movement in the United States which occurred in the 1960’s through 1980’s. The primary feature of the shepherding movement was its requirement of members to submit to their leaders. One of its other characteristics was “the use of ‘house churches’ (small groups acting as a community)...These small communities provided a surrogate ‘family’ or social support network.” And while spiritual abuse can coincide with physical and sexual abuse, it can exist without those components. Spiritual abuse can include features such as isolation from family, being told what to do because a leader “hears” from God, or not being permitted to question the teachings of the leader or the leader themself.
One of the things that stayed with me the most from “Breaking the Silence on Spiritual Abuse” is that spiritual abuse is deeply damaging. It strikes at a person’s core identity and values. In Oakley’s interviews, victims said things like “It took 11 years to feel better,” “The impact of Spiritual Abuse is like someone lighting a stick of dynamite inside of you,” and “At my worst I was suicidal; I planned out how I was going to do it.” Spiritual abuse is a serious issue and it is our responsibility to stop those who perpetuate it and care for those who have been victimized. I pray that this information helps you engage courageously and mercifully with every part of the body of Christ.
Quotes and Resources
Lisa Oakley & Kathryn Kinmond, Breaking the Silence on Spiritual Abuse, 2013
“Spiritual Abuse is coercion and control of one individual by another in a spiritual context. The target experiences spiritual abuse as a deeply emotional personal attack. This abuse may include: manipulation and exploitation, enforced accountability, censorship of decision making, requirements for secrecy and silence, pressure to conform, misuse of scripture or the pulpit to control behavior, requirement of obedience to the abuser, the suggestion that the abuser has a ‘divine’ position and isolation from others, especially those external to the abusive context.”
For those looking for an alternative to “Breaking the Silence on Spiritual Abuse”, consider Lisa’s book “Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse”.
• Lisa Oakley is the Programming Leader for the Abuse Studies course at Manchester Metropolitan University in Cheshire. She is also a Senior Lecturer in Psychology. She has taught in Higher Education for over twenty years.
• Kathryn Kinmond is a Chartered Psychologist and Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Abuse Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University in Cheshire. She is also an accredited counselor working with people who have been abused.
Karen Roudkovski, Understanding Spiritual Abuse: What It Is and How to Respond, 2024
Spiritual Abuse: a misuse of power in a spiritual context in which a person or group uses various coercive and manipulative methods of controlling the victim, resulting in the abused individual experiencing spiritual, emotional/psychological, physical or relational harm.”
Add up the scores from each question. Scores of 12-19 are mild spiritual abuse, scores of 20-26 are moderate, and scores of 27+ are severe.
• Karen Roudkovski (PhD, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary) is a licensed professional counselor, assistant professor of counseling at Mississippi College, and director of clinical training at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
Michael J. Kruger, Bully Pulpit, 2022
“Spiritual abuse is when a spiritual leader—such as a pastor, elder or head of a Christian organization—wields his position of spiritual authority in such a way that he manipulates, domineers, bullies, and intimidates those under him as a means of maintaining his own power and control, even if he is convinced he is seeking biblical and kingdom-related goals.”
Key Themes Found in Stories of Spiritual Abuse
● Abusers typically have what appears to be a fruitful, gospel centered ministry with a track record of success.
● Abuse often happens for years, leaving a long “debris field” of broken relationships before it finally catches up with the abuser.
● Abuse involves domineering, bullying behavior, leaving the abused to genuine fear, especially if the abuse involves threats of church discipline.
● Reports of abuse rarely lead to accountability, as friends defend the abuser and the board (often made up of people much younger in age or experience) provides alternative explanations.
● The victims of the abuse are typically forced out and charged as troublemakers who are attacking a faithful pastor just doing his job.
• Michael J. Kruger (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is the president and Samuel C. Patterson Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a leading scholar on the origins and development of the New Testament canon.
Biblical Passages About Spiritual Leaders who Harm Others
Ezekiel 34
Matthew 23
1 Timothy 5:17-20
1 Peter 5:1-4
Covert Narcissism
by Quinn
Note: Grace is a pseudonym
One of the big red flags that came up for me early at Friday Night was Dave’s overconfidence about his secondary theological opinions. When you go to seminary (at least the one I went to), you encounter a wide range of opinions, and you generally find out that there are pretty smart people and pretty good arguments on both sides of most issues. The natural result of this is that if you really listen to the other side, you end up holding your own views a bit loosely, knowing you could be wrong.
Dave has a confidence about his own views that I never encountered in the academic setting. To be fair, he does know quite a lot, and I firmly believe he could debate doctoral-level Bible scholars toe-to-toe on quite a few topics.
Nevertheless, noticing this was a huge turn-off for me in my early days at Friday Night. But I recognized Dave’s knowledge, and felt that I could learn from him. He did not strike me as a generally arrogant man. Outwardly, he appears humble and self-sacrificial in many ways. Unfortunately, because of the existence of covert narcissism, those outward traits cannot be used to rule out the possibility of intense pride lurking underneath the surface.
Special thanks to Jim for pointing me to this idea. Obviously, I’m not qualified to diagnose Dave, and this is not a diagnosis. At the same time, I do feel that understanding Dave through this lens makes a lot of things click into place.
___
The following information is from ChatGPT, synthesized from various psychological and clinical sources, including:
Research and literature on Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) from the DSM-5.
Insights from well-regarded psychologists and clinicians who specialize in narcissism (e.g., Dr. Craig Malkin, Dr. Ramani Durvasula).
Common themes from books such as "The Narcissist You Know" by Dr. Joseph Burgo and "Rethinking Narcissism" by Dr. Craig Malkin.
Patterns widely discussed in trauma recovery and codependency communities, particularly in how covert narcissism impacts relationships.
___
Covert narcissists, also known as vulnerable or introverted narcissists, are individuals with narcissistic traits or narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) who express these traits in less obvious, more subtle ways than the classic “grandiose” narcissist. While grandiose narcissists are overtly self-important, attention-seeking, and dominating, covert narcissists often appear shy, reserved, or even self-effacing—but beneath that exterior lies the same core of entitlement, lack of empathy, and deep need for validation.
Here’s a breakdown of traits and behaviors often associated with covert narcissists:
1. Victim Mentality
They may often see themselves as perpetual victims—wronged, misunderstood, or unappreciated—using this narrative to gain sympathy, manipulate others, or deflect responsibility.
2. Passive-Aggressiveness
Instead of openly expressing anger or frustration, they may use sarcasm, backhanded compliments, the silent treatment, or guilt-tripping to punish or control others.
3. Hypersensitivity to Criticism
Even mild or constructive criticism can trigger a strong emotional reaction, because it threatens their fragile self-image. They may brood over perceived slights or retaliate subtly.
4. Emotional Manipulation
They may play on others' emotions to get what they want—using guilt, shame, or exaggerated vulnerability to maintain control and evoke caretaking responses.
5. Quiet Grandiosity
Though they may appear modest or insecure, covert narcissists often harbor secret fantasies of greatness, superiority, or being unrecognized geniuses. They crave admiration but may act aloof to seem above it.
6. Lack of Empathy (but well-disguised)
They may seem caring or even empathetic at first, but their concern usually has strings attached. Over time, their lack of genuine empathy becomes clearer in how they respond to others’ needs.
7. Envy and Resentment
They often feel envious of others’ success, happiness, or attention and may harbor deep resentment. This can lead to sabotage, undermining, or toxic competitiveness.
8. Interpersonal Exploitation
They might use others to meet their emotional needs, often subtly, such as fishing for compliments, emotional caretaking, or relying on others to carry the emotional weight of relationships.
Why are covert narcissists hard to spot? Because they don’t fit the typical mold of a narcissist—they’re not flashy, loud, or obviously self-absorbed. They might come off as sensitive, introverted, or even kind at first. It’s only over time that the manipulation, emotional drain, and one-sidedness of the relationship become apparent.
If you're dealing with someone like this, especially in a close relationship, it can be incredibly confusing and damaging. You might feel like you're walking on eggshells or constantly trying to make them happy while losing your sense of self in the process.
___
Dave’s Quiet Grandiosity
Looking back, there were a number of warning signs of Dave’s grandiosity.
The Big Dead Rock
Dave has referred to himself as a “big dead rock,” in reference to the moon. The idea he would share is that the moon produces no light of its own, but only reflects the light of the sun. When it’s daytime, no one really notices the moon – but when all around is dark, the moon lights up the sky because it’s reflecting the glory of the sun. The surface-level message is one of modesty: anything good you see in me is because of God, I’m just a big dead rock. The subtext is: I’m the big dead rock. I’m the one whose glory requires explanation.
Then Why Doesn’t Your Face Show It?
Dave tells a story about being in Eastern Europe teaching a classroom of people. I might get some of the details wrong here, bear with me. Anyway, supposedly the people he’s teaching have a kind of gloomy demeanor about them. And he asks them if they have the joy of the Lord, or something like that. They say yes, and he says, “then why doesn’t your face show it?” The message is that joy is visible. Well, who’s the guy who just so happens to be smiling all the time? Oh, it’s Dave. So the subtext is that Dave is more joyful than others, and since joy is a fruit of the Spirit, more full of the Holy Spirit. The reality is many Spirit-filled believers don’t have a personality like Dave (if that even is his personality and not a mask). But when Dave tells that story, it subtly trashes the spiritual legitimacy of most of the people in the room and exalts Dave to the top. As people in the group grow in their spiritual walk but never seem to become like Dave in his “joy,” there can be a perception that Dave is always somehow on another level.
Jesus U
Dave had an idea back in 2019ish to start a ministry platform for discipleship training called Jesus U. He had ambitious goals of hitting significant milestones in the development of the platform within the space of a year. At one meeting, he told a few of us that God had given him a global vision for Jesus U. He remarked on how mind-blowing it was that God would work something so large through someone as small-time as he was (my paraphrase). To my knowledge, Jesus U hasn’t facilitated a single minute of instruction as of mid-2025.²
² We see this kind of grandiosity in some other leaders: In Season 1, Episode 7 (28:00 in) of The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, Cosper points out that Bill Hybels called Willow Creek the hope of the world, and Mark Driscoll said people would write books about Mars Hill (well, they did make a podcast…). Hybels resigned after allegations of sexual misconduct. In 2014, Driscoll resigned after public criticism and formal complaints of alleged abusive behavior. One might wonder if Dave’s global vision for little old me? line is the covert narcissism on (quiet) display next to Hybels’ and Driscoll’s grandiose narcissism.
The Vision of Fruit
More than once, Dave told a story to a few of us of a vision God had given him of the massive fruit of his ministry. The idea was that God was showing him how his work for the kingdom had multiplied over time (or would multiply?) and produced an amazing harvest.
The Mysterious Car Crash
During COVID, Citizens Church at 7th and Thunderbird allowed Friday Night to use its building for our meetings. According to Dave, one night he was driving back late at night (probably around midnight) after Friday Night. He’s traveling east on Thunderbird approaching Cave Creek Road. He begins to feel that he’s either being followed, or else having his speed / position controlled by one or two other vehicles on the road. Maybe there was a vehicle in front of him and one on the side, and he felt he was forced to slow down. I don’t remember exactly. But he comes up to Cave Creek and a car traveling at a high-rate of speed is about to hit him when suddenly another car smashes into the car that was going to hit Dave. It’s a massive crash. Dave gets a spiritual sense that it’s not safe to stop, but that he should keep going. He drives home and later contacts Grace, because he knew she would’ve gone home slightly after him and driven the same way. He asks if she drove past a large wreck, and she says no. Dave interprets the incident as being a spiritual one – while in every sense it felt physically real and he could hear all the sounds as if it was a real wreck, he thinks it was a spiritual battle playing out in the visible realm, or perhaps that it was in the spiritual realm but Dave could see it. Something like that, don’t quote me on it. Knowing now that Dave lies a lot, I suspect he simply made up this entire story. But perhaps he had some kind of experience. We know about delusions of grandeur, maybe it was an illusion of grandeur? Regardless, the message the story sends is that Dave was given a profound awareness of the spiritual world, if only for a brief moment. And when he glimpsed through the veil, he himself was the focus – the one spiritual beings were fighting over.
Another Spiritual Battle
Dave and Kathy tell a story about how a bunch of bad stuff was happening in their lives, and they felt like some kind of bad spirit was telling them that it will all go away if they just stop doing ministry. They refuse to give in and eventually it stops. I could have the specifics wrong, but that was the gist. Again, the message it sends is that the spiritual forces of darkness view Dave and Kathy as formidable enemies, worthy of expending significant time and resources. When you already trust Dave and Kathy as spiritual leaders and hear a story like this, it only reinforces that trust. When you see all the bad fruit, it really makes you wonder where that story came from.
Papa Dave
Dave accepted a special title for himself (“Papa”). Think about it for yourself. If you were mentoring someone and they wanted to call you “Papa” or “Mama,” would you accept it?
Apollos Wrote Hebrews(?)
Dave has claimed on multiple occasions that God told him that Apollos wrote the book of Hebrews. The authorship of Hebrews has been speculated about going all the way back to Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD). But God just told Dave the answer? Yeah, okay.
Commentary from Jessica: It does not edify the church for God to give this word to Dave. New textual evidence would need to be discovered in order for this to be helpful to the wider church community. It would cause unsolvable infighting if each biblical scholar based their assessment of a passage on what they thought God said to them. There would be no standard method to resolve conflicting "words from God". Thus statements like this appear to be a way for Dave to demonstrate his special relationship with God.
___
The following excerpt is from New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton.
Copyright © 1961 by the Abbey of Gethsemani, Inc.
The relevant section starts at the bottom of page 48.
Is Friday Night a Cult?
by Quinn
It may not be helpful to label Friday Night a cult or not a cult in a binary way. But let’s take a look at cult-like traits and think about which ones are present and which aren’t. We should be cautious about saying “Friday Night has / doesn’t have this one trait, therefore it is / is not a cult.”
Power and Control
On the non-culty side:
Dave does not require people to attend a certain amount, or even show up on time.
Dave allows anyone to bring a teaching.
Dave does not explicitly require anyone to believe in his particular doctrines.
Dave is fairly permissive about members setting up other ministry events that are not monitored by leadership.
On the culty side:
Dave influences people’s personal lives using prophecy, in morally neutral situations, like whom to marry or where to move.
Even when Dave isn’t directly exerting control, Friday Night instills the idea that God regularly gives people very specific direction in their personal lives in morally neutral situations, as opposed to giving people freedom to make their own choices based on general wisdom or personal desires.¹ Since Dave is perceived as being an especially attuned / accurate prophet, people often reach out to him for confirmation of what they believe they heard from God. At that point, whatever Dave says can have enormous influence over that person’s life.
Dave sometimes engages in subtly controlling, condescending behaviors, like telling the group to repeat phrases after him. ² “Repeat after me” is a teaching method that’s mostly done away with by 2nd or 3rd grade. The military uses it, but the military is open about its intense hierarchy. Getting people to comply with things like this may serve to reinforce Dave’s “Papa” identity. It’s also deeply at odds with the kind of egalitarian spirit implied by the “anyone can bring a teaching” idea. Think about it: if someone in the group other than Dave were to say “okay, repeat after me…” how would that be received?
When talking about various theological doctrines, Dave does not present both sides. In fact, he often presents a stupid and/or morally repugnant caricature of views he disagrees with. He spiritually justifies this practice by saying that it’s the way of a prophet to proclaim truth rather than presenting both sides as a teacher would. Uninformed listeners are led to believe that the arguments supporting alternative views are weaker than they actually are, which keeps people believing Dave’s doctrines. It also repels those who don’t agree, since they get sick of hearing their views misrepresented.
Some have experienced “correction” during Friday Night discussions to be heavy-handed and shame-inducing. If people can be intimidated into not sharing / holding views contrary to those of the leader, then Friday Night can maintain the appearance of openness while quietly enforcing adherence.
¹ In the New Testament, highly specific directions from God tend to come in the context of ministry situations, e.g. Acts 13:2.
² Repeating things is part of church liturgy, but liturgies are generally either direct scripture readings or prayers that have been handed down through the centuries. Not teaching points simply written by the current pastor and then imposed on the congregation.
Isolation
On the non-culty side:
Friday Night meets in an urban area, not on a compound in the middle of nowhere.
Friday Night does not directly discourage people from attending other churches. In fact, there have been times in the past when Friday Nighters were attending a wide variety of other churches on Sundays.
On the culty side:
Dave rarely speaks positively of other Christian leaders. The only ones that come to mind for me are Francis Chan, Kay Arthur, and Billy Graham. That’s over a 10-year period.
Dave almost never speaks positively of other churches, and very often bemoans their shortfalls (even if he rarely calls them out by name).
Dave sometimes denigrates people’s families of origin, which may serve to undermine their sense of personal identity outside of the group.
Dave sometimes slanders people who leave the group and/or are critical of him.
Broadly speaking: how does one leave Friday Night? No one’s guarding the exit, so what’s the big deal? Friday Night is good at instilling the idea that most churches on the outside are doing it wrong, even if those exact words are never stated. And so for many (including me, when I was there), the prospect of leaving Friday Night felt like choosing spiritual mediocrity. If Jesus asks us to seek God’s kingdom and righteousness first, then how is leaving a legitimate option?
Finances
On the non-culty-side:
Dave did not strongly emphasize financial giving to his and Kathy’s ministry to the group as a whole.
Dave and Kathy don’t appear to be outwardly wealthy, aside from going on frequent vacations in the last 2-3 years.
On the culty side:
Dave used false prophecy to take $30,000 from Jim and Rebecca. See Thirty Pieces of Silver and The Kidney Donor’s Story.
There is no transparency at Friday Night when it comes to how much money is taken in, how it is spent, etc.
The fact that Dave offered Jim a loan from the church blessing fund rather than a gift raises questions about how much of that money is actually given to anyone. See Thirty Pieces of Silver under “Spiritual guilt deepened our financial desperation.”
Charismatic Leadership
On the non-culty-side:
People at Friday Night are generally willing to question Dave and disagree with him.
On the culty side:
Dave has a special title (“Papa”). No one else in the group has a special title. Unlike other churches that may use special titles for certain offices (e.g. “Father” in a Catholic church), Dave’s title is applied to just him as a kind of special honor that has nothing to do with a pre-established office in the church.
The “Papa” title fits a broader theme of cult leaders taking on surrogate father roles with their followers (David Koresh / Waco Cult, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Sun Myung Moon of the Moonies / Unification Church, Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate, and many more).
There have been at least two occasions that the entire group went around and said something positive about Dave. One instance was in 2017 for Dave’s 60th birthday. These were during actual Friday Night meetings, not birthday parties. This would go on for over an hour. One of those times, it may have been for both Dave and Kathy, but this has never happened for anyone else in the group.
Dave is widely considered by people inside the group to be a prophet, despite having a history of false prophecies that even highly committed, longtime members are largely unaware of.
Exclusivity / Superiority
On the non-culty-side:
No information.
On the culty side:
Dave has said (and I quote): “If Calvinism is true, then I don’t know God!” The subtle implication is that Calvinists don’t know God, which is an attack on not just their theological position but their legitimacy as believers.³
Dave sometimes persuades people that they weren’t real Christians until they came to Friday Night. That may be true in some cases. But this dynamic can also serve to delegitimize the person’s life / experiences outside the group.
One person would refer to Friday Night as a spiritual dojo.
I myself used to say that while Friday Night was small in number, it was training people more to be the spiritual equivalent of green berets or Navy seals.
³ John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Secrecy
On the non-culty side:
No information.
On the culty side:
Getting into the inner circle means becoming privy to otherwise hidden “knowledge,” like Dave’s teaching on polygamy, lust, and porn. However, recently Dave has started teaching these kinds of things out in the open (while instructing the hearers not to say he told them, which gets back to secrecy).
Dave also brought up a weird idea about the Trinity to our Monday Night group that to me sounded suspiciously close to tritheism.
Other
Sometimes cults use specialized insider terminology. We see this at Friday Night with “edification appointments.”
Dave and Kathy seem to have an answer for virtually every problem. I can’t remember any time I went to Dave or Kathy with a question and they said, “Hmm, that’s a good question, I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” Or simply: “I don’t know.”
One common trait in cults is that the person leading the group has no credentials. Dave refers to himself as “God’s joke,” since he didn’t go to seminary, etc.
Many cult leaders are polygamous. Even if Dave never fulfilled this desire, the desire was clearly there (see Cara’s Testimony)
There is a strong theme of “the ends justify the means” that runs through the various testimonies we have compiled, which is common in cults.
Spiritual Abuse and Enablement in 1 Samuel 2-3
by Quinn
Context:
After the Exodus from Egypt, God instructs Moses to build a tabernacle,¹ a kind of portable sanctuary. It would be the dwelling place of God among the Israelites and their center of worship and sacrifice until Solomon’s temple replaced it hundreds of years later.
The tabernacle would be moved from place to place during the wilderness wanderings. After the Israelites crossed the Jordan River into the promised land, the tabernacle remained in Gilgal for seven years.² From there, it was moved to Shiloh, where it remained for the entire period of the Judges.³⁴ This story picks up with the tabernacle resting in Shiloh and the ark of the covenant inside. Samuel is still a boy at this time. Two of the priests at the tabernacle, Hophni and Phinehas, are deeply corrupt. Their father, Eli, is also a priest.⁵
Text:
1Sam. 2:12 ¶ Now the sons of Eli were worthless men; they did not know the LORD
1Sam. 2:13 and the custom of the priests with the people. When any man was offering a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come while the meat was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand.
1Sam. 2:14 Then he would thrust it into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. Thus they did in Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there.
1Sam. 2:15 Also, before they burned the fat, the priest’s servant would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give the priest meat for roasting, as he will not take boiled meat from you, only raw.”
1Sam. 2:16 If the man said to him, “They must surely burn the fat first, and then take as much as you desire,” then he would say, “No, but you shall give it to me now; and if not, I will take it by force.”
1Sam. 2:17 Thus the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD, for the men despised the offering of the LORD.
Verses 18-21 are on a different topic
1Sam. 2:22 ¶ Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting.
1Sam. 2:23 He said to them, “Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people?
1Sam. 2:24 “No, my sons; for the report is not good which I hear the LORD’S people circulating.
1Sam. 2:25 “If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the LORD desired to put them to death.
1Sam. 2:26 ¶ Now the boy Samuel was growing in stature and in favor both with the LORD and with men.
1Sam. 2:27 ¶ Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Did I not indeed reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt in bondage to Pharaoh’s house?
1Sam. 2:28 ‘Did I not choose them from all the tribes of Israel to be My priests, to go up to My altar, to burn incense, to carry an ephod before Me; and did I not give to the house of your father all the fire offerings of the sons of Israel?
1Sam. 2:29 ‘Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?’
1Sam. 2:30 “Therefore the LORD God of Israel declares, ‘I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever’; but now the LORD declares, ‘Far be it from Me — for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed.
1Sam. 2:31 ‘Behold, the days are coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father’s house so that there will not be an old man in your house.
1Sam. 2:32 ‘You will see the distress of My dwelling, in spite of all the good that I do for Israel; and an old man will not be in your house forever.
1Sam. 2:33 ‘Yet I will not cut off every man of yours from My altar so that your eyes will fail from weeping and your soul grieve, and all the increase of your house will die in the prime of life.
1Sam. 2:34 ‘This will be the sign to you which will come concerning your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas: on the same day both of them will die.
1Sam. 2:35 ‘But I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in My heart and in My soul; and I will build him an enduring house, and he will walk before My anointed always.
1Sam. 2:36 ‘Everyone who is left in your house will come and bow down to him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread and say, “Please assign me to one of the priest’s offices so that I may eat a piece of bread.”’”
The beginning of chapter 3 is on a different topic
1Sam. 3:11 The LORD said to Samuel, “Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle.
1Sam. 3:12 “In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end.
1Sam. 3:13 “For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them.
1Sam. 3:14 “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”
Summary / Interpretation:
Hophni and Phinehas use their position of spiritual authority for personal gain. They steal (2:13-14) and even extort (2:16) meat that people brought to sacrifice. Demanding raw meat (2:15) appears to have to do with taking the valuable fat portions that were supposed to be burnt in sacrifice to God (see Leviticus 3:9-11). There were other portions that the priests were allotted to eat (see Leviticus 7:29-34).
Additionally, they would have sex with the female tabernacle workers (2:22). While the text does not explicitly describe the encounters as rape or sexual assault, it seems reasonable to assume that their priestly authority played a significant role in enabling the sexual interactions.
We are used to reading the Old Testament law in context of the gospels – Jesus healing on the Sabbath,⁶ Jesus talking about David eating the consecrated bread (and that being okay),⁷ the priests in the temple breaking the Sabbath and being innocent,⁸ etc. We can get into a frame of mind of thinking that those detailed Levitical laws maybe weren’t the most important thing in the world. But Hophni and Phinehas’ abuses were not just technical infractions of a rigid legal structure. Given they were priests, it seems fair to assume they would’ve had detailed knowledge of the law, which they went on to violate in both letter and spirit. They showed selfish contempt for God’s holiness and arrogant disregard for the people.
The modern equivalent of this might be a pastor who misappropriates funds donated for a ministry purpose for his own personal use. Or one who uses his spiritual authority to get close to women and take advantage of them sexually.⁹
Eli hears about his sons’ abuses and talks to them about it, but his main concern seems to be with his sons’ wellbeing (2:22-25). The sons do not listen to Eli, as it appears God has already made his judgment (2:25). That’s a scary thought. Verse 26 appears to indicate the passage of time – perhaps God is giving Eli a chance to come to his senses and realize he has a responsibility to do more.
Eli is rebuked for honoring his sons above God (2:29). While you could interpret verses 23-25 as Eli rebuking his sons, God says in 3:13 that Eli did not rebuke them. Eli’s response appears to be too soft and ineffectual for God to let him off the hook. With Eli being a priest himself as well as Hophni and Phinehas’ father, I assume he had the ability to remove them from power but chose not to.
This is a cautionary tale not only for church leaders but those who choose to either disengage or engage softly with abusive leaders. At the same time, we should be mindful of the fact that Eli was in a position of power. He was not a victim. And he is the only one we see God holding responsible for being an enabler. Additionally, the story reminds us that as serious as enablement is, it’s the perpetrators who face the most severe penalty (2:25, 34).
Notice also that victim blaming is absent from the text. The victims are not criticized for being too trusting of the priestly leadership, or for the fat offering they intended to make being consumed by the corrupt priests. Nor is there mention of God holding the women responsible for sexual sin.
Footnotes:
1) Exodus 25:8-9
2) Joshua 4:19
3) Joshua 18:1
4) Some info from Easton’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, 1897.
5) 1 Sam 1:9
6) Mark 3:1-6
7) Matthew 12:1-8
8) Same verses.
9) In our country today, there are some states where a clergy member can be charged criminally for sexual contact with a parishioner, even if the parishioner is a “consenting” adult. This can include situations where the clergy member uses spiritual influence to exploit someone’s emotional dependency, or has sexual contact with a person they are providing spiritual counseling to. This is sometimes referred to as “adult clergy sexual abuse.” In cases of child sexual abuse, which would be criminal regardless, penalties can be increased on account of the abuser being in a position of trust or authority.