Tactics Dave Might Use
by Quinn
Here are some tactics we think Dave might use in the aftermath of this public rebuke. We have already heard rumors of several of the items on this list happening. However, the list is based on our total experience and knowledge of Dave. Since I was part of his inner circle for 4 years and heard how he talked about people who took issue with him (and later heard their stories), I think I have a pretty good idea of the possibilities.
Ad Hominem Attacks on the Witnesses
False character attacks, e.g., falsely claiming one or more of the witnesses is no longer a Christian. If he does this, it will almost certainly be said in an indirect way designed to plant the idea while leaving room for plausible deniability.
Character attacks rooted in some kind of actual truth, e.g. truthfully claiming a witness is no longer a Christian. The problem is that even if every witness had abandoned the faith, it wouldn’t exonerate Dave – in fact it would raise the question of why people who spend a lot of time around Dave tend to end up hurt, angry, and questioning God.
Pointing out that the witnesses are angry / highly emotional. Dave’s accusation could be true or false. Regardless, if a witness is angry, that does not invalidate his/her testimony.
Pointing out that some of the resources we list on our website are from “worldly” sources (e.g. a book about cults written by a non-Christian).
Motive attacks: “so and so had a negative experience and is looking for someone to blame.” This again attempts to delegitimize the witness rather than addressing the evidence.
Claiming that the witnesses are vindictive and have no desire for reconciliation. The reality is Dave is unwilling to repent, which is the prerequisite for reconciliation.
Saying that Dave / Friday Night is “making disciples” and focused on following Jesus while the other side is focused on fault-finding. This would be attempting to provide spiritual cover for unrepentant sin, and to delegitimize the Biblical process of church discipline.
Claim that a given witness only responded negatively to Dave’s actions because of past trauma.
Deception
Claim to not remember events
Lie by omission
Say things that are technically true but misleading
Tell outright lies (this is less common than the three above but still absolutely something he’s been caught doing)
Claim we are attacking prophecy in general rather than just Dave’s prophecies
Try to quickly change course / change his views on prophecy / change the way he has operated for decades in order to peddle a false narrative that that’s how things have always been. With how many people in the group have only just shown up in the past year, it would be easy for him to do this.
Fake Apologies
Hypothetically apologize (e.g. “I don’t remember what happened but I’d be sorry if it happened”)
“Plead down” – admit wrongdoing but to a far lesser degree than the evidence shows (e.g. “I misspoke” rather than “I lied”)
Acknowledge that his actions caused emotional pain without admitting wrongdoing
Admit that he has “room for improvement” and “blind spots” but not patterns of abuse of power, lying, slander, spiritual manipulation, dodging accountability, inappropriate interactions with women, etc.
Projection
Accuse the victims of lying and slander.
Talk about the damage the witnesses are doing to the body of Christ, when in reality the damage has already been done (by Dave) and the witnesses are simply holding him accountable in line with 1 Timothy 5.
Playing the Victim
Paint himself as a persecuted prophet.
Draw a parallel between himself and Jesus. For example, he might reference John 6:66, which describes when many of Jesus’ disciples withdrew from Him.
Draw a parallel between himself and Paul. For example, he might reference 2 Tim 4:10: “for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.”
Tearfully mourn the loss of relationship with the victims, without admitting fault or refuting the allegations.
Talk about how he has no intention of returning evil for evil but intends to return a blessing instead. This is a backhanded way of accusing the witnesses without providing evidence.
Spiritualization
Take attention away from the discussion of evidence / testimonies by saying what we really need to do is pray / fast / etc.
Claim that what’s happening is a spiritual attack. If people believe this, it will incline them toward just praying instead of investigating the evidence.
Instruct people to pray about whether to read the witness testimonies or not, suggesting that they will be walking into a spiritual battlefield where they could be led astray by the enemy. He might suggest that only those who are more mature in the faith should read the testimonies.
Make Those Who Question The Problem
If someone wants Dave to stay on topic and provide simple answers to simple questions, they will most likely have to aggressively interrupt him and tell him to stop changing the subject and answer the question. If they do that, Dave might use their “aggression” against them. This can include him suggesting that they’re only upset at him because of their past trauma, relationship with their father, or issues with authority.
Make someone feel that if they want convincing, detailed answers to all of the allegations against him, that somehow they are the problem.
If someone indicates they believe some of the witness testimonies, Dave might ask them how they’re doing spiritually. If their answer is anything but “better than ever,” he may seize on that and suggest that they are believing Satan’s lies because they’re in a bad place spiritually.
Deflection / Avoidance
Put the focus on a few less serious allegations and tell a somewhat believable story about them, and then simply avoid discussing the more serious allegations.
Change the subject – he’s good at doing this in a subtle way.
Dominate the conversation by going on long monologues / telling stories. Sometimes it will seem like his monologue is going to answer a question, but in the end he evades it.
Talk about how he doesn’t feel called to pursue vindication with regard to the charges against him – that those who truly know his character will stand by him.
Say that Friday Night isn’t for everyone, but that many people have had positive experiences. This paints a “negative experience” as simply someone’s emotional response or preference, as opposed to their credible testimony of Dave harming them through his sinful actions and then taking no responsibility.
Simply saying “God will judge,” as if God did not implement a process for the church to hold leaders accountable.
Other
Make reference to his own track record / good fruit of his ministry. The problem is that Dave’s track record / fruit is exactly what the witness testimonies call into question.
Say people can’t judge his motives, even if the evidence points strongly in one direction and his story doesn’t make sense.
Encourage people to give him the benefit of the doubt, even if his story doesn’t make any sense.
Kathy may jump in on this one and defend Dave as well, talking about “believing the best”.
Buy people’s loyalty. This could take the form of a financial gift to help them in a time of need, a favor, elevating them to a position of prominence (like inviting them to a discipleship group), or praise / flattery.
Or, potentially the reverse: start asking for more of someone’s time and energy.
Complain that he wasn’t given a chance to tell his side / debate / face his accusers / etc. See FAQ for what we did.
What he’s unlikely to do
Talk in detail about the specific content of the accusations in a way that does not severely distort the facts.
Encourage people to listen to and communicate with the witnesses.