This letter regards the recent television broadcast about our church, which was contrived by ABC and

our
chief accuser, Larry Wilcox the son of Wayne Wilcox. We would like to respond to some of the charges made
against us; the desire to keep this as brief as possible precludes answering them all.
For the sake of having some sort of intelligent discourse, the old canard about mind control should be
disposed of first. We realize that no one convinced by this accusation will be easily persuaded by our words; and
for many, the opinion of so-called "experts" will suffice to overcome any lingering doubts. However, we feel
compelled to point out that people use this tactic in order to avoid the real issues: by merely accusing us of being
brainwashed, they can disregard any argument that we may present. We are thus barred from even speaking
about the things that are important to us, being reduced instead to a defense of our sanity. We therefore begin by
asking if it is possible, even in principle, for this accusation to be incorrect. I f it is in fact incorrect — and we
believe it to be grossly erroneous — then our reasoning must be squarely engaged, and not simply dismissed as
parroting. Below, therefore, we give our refutation of this notion, and will then follow with a defense of our
lifestyle and beliefs.
Our main problem with the accusations of mind control is that they are much too vague. How precisely
are we guilty of using coercion or intimidation to bring in or retain members? Usually these terms are associated
with physical or psychological mistreatment, hard work, sleep deprivation, etc. If it is being insinuated that we are
involved in these sorts of tactics, we defy our accusers to document it. In the absence of evidence of such actions,
we are entitled to call for the retraction of this charge.
Perhaps instead our antagonists would state that we use certain phrases as "scare tactics" to keep people;
accusing us, for example, of teaching that anyone who is not part of our church, or who does not come with us, or
who leaves the assembly, will "go to hell." In fact, no one in or out of the church would be able to point to a
specific instance of our elder ever making such statements. Neither do any of the rest of the older members say
such things. If any other brothers or sisters tell people these kinds of threats, the church is unaware of it, and we
would actually discourage it. Indeed, we even avoid statements such as "You'll go to hell for smoking a
cigarette," because these sorts of phrases are far too simplistic, and are rarely stated with Christian charity. The
reason people will be condemned to hell will be that their life is largely incompatible with the will of their Creator,
and that they have rejected God in order to center their existence around their own desires. Particulars like drugs,
smoking, and immodest clothing are unrighteous, and are therefore displeasing to Christ; however, they are only
parts of the big picture. In order that we will not be accused of being vague ourselves, we will specify later in this
paper our understanding of what a Christian life entails,
At this point, our adversaries will no doubt respond that, although we may not express the above
statements explicitly, the message is still implied. If this is all they possess as evidence of mind control and
coercion, it would appear that the accusation has lost its poignancy. What began as implicit charges of physical
and psychological abuse has been transformed into charges of using threats of words; and then, when this is no
longer tenable, the accusations simply become more and more vague until they are essentially meaningless. We
are now told that we are guilty of holding and teaching certain doctrines which we believe to be correct, and that
we warn people that contrary beliefs are wrong.
No kidding. Yes, we confess that we lack the ability to do the mental gymnastics necessary to suppose
that several mutually conflicting beiief systems can somehow all be correct. It shouid also be pointed out that we
are entitled to our beliefs; that our fellowship is far from unique in virtually any doctrine it holds, and that many of
us had been either trying to follow, or at the very least had been considering, Yeshua's lifestyle before we even
met the assembly. This being the case, we reject robustly any charge of using mind control or coercion. Now,
having thus dealt with this absurdity, we are in a position to get down to business and discuss the real issues. We
will begin with the most basic, and move towards specific points.
The foundational beliefs of our church start with the conviction that a personal, conscious Creator has
made us, and communicated to us a divine message in the form of the Holy Bible. We do not hold any message
to be Scripture, or canon, outside of the 66 books of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Prophecy is still possible
because the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still operable; however, we would reject as spurious any "prophecy" that
conflicts with the written Word of God. Further, our church holds, as it is written in the Scriptures, that God
came to earth in the flesh, in the person of Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew), to offer us salvation; and that this salvation
is available only "through faith in His death on the cross and physical resurrection from the dead. Moreover, we
believe in the bodily ascension of the Messiah after His resurrection, and in His imminent return. None of these
statements can be construed as unique to our church by any stretch of the imagination. We consider them both
true, and intellectually defensible; and many millions of Americans themselve's would agree with us.
1.
 We further believe that following Christ means more than merely professing empty faith towards Him.
Yeshua said Himself, "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46; see also
Titus 1:16; James 2:14-26; I John 2:3,4.) Christ also stated that if we love Him, we will keep his words (John'
14:23,24,15; see also I John 5:3). Thus, all true Christians have the desire to obey what their Savior has
commanded; and a life without this obedience is a manifestation o f a life lacking the true faith of God, and
therefore lacking His salvation. In other words, no one will be saved who does not take the Holy Scriptures
seriously. This position is admittedly more controversial among professing Christendom; but it is still by no
means unique to our church.
Our love for our Creator is what compels us to want to obey our Savior, Yeshua (Jesus). This, in turn, is
what has brought us to teach a message of forsaking all and living by faith. Upon what do we base this doctrine?
Firstly, upon Yeshua's own words: ^Matt. 6:19-34; 10:16-25; 16:24-26; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23; 12:32-34;
14:33; 21:34-36; Matt. 28:19,20. Our antagonists will naturally accuse us of tearing these verses out of context;
but we have yet to hear a coherent exegesis of these passages that shows them to be teaching anything different
from what we see them to be plainly saying. We believe even a child could tell you what it signifies to "forsake
all you have." (Luke 14:33) The most common response is that, this passage is speaking figuratively, whatever
that means. We ask, therefore, exactly how the phrase "forsake all" spiritually implies to pursue a secular career,
work long hours for money, and purchase houses and cars for one's own personal reasons?
Secondly, we base our lifestyle upon Yeshua's example: Luke 9:57,58; I Peter 2:21; I John 2:6, etc. Is
the life that Yeshua lived peripheral to the Gospel? Was His lifestyle an exception to the Christian way of life, or
should it be considered the rule? We hold it to be a very important part of His message. It strikes us as patently
absurd that Christianity should be the only religion in which it is considered heretical, or at least aberrant, to live as
its founder did.
Thirdly, we have accounts of how people put Yeshua's message into action, or how they responded to.it:
Matthew 9:9; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 9:59-62; Acts 2:44,45; Acts 4:32-37, etc. To top it off, we hive indications in
the epistles of this same message, in verses such as I I Corinthians 6:10, I Timothy 6:7-10, and James 2:5. The
message of this lifestyle is thus so plainly set forth in the Scriptures that failure to notice it seems to us
inexplicable; and we believe that it is for this reason that many of the people that we meet who have been earnestly
reading the Scriptures have already been considering this way of life themselves.
In any case, this is the manner of life that we believe the Scriptures teach; and i f we are to take the Word
seriously, these verses must be obeyed and not ignored. We believe, therefore, that the typical evangelical
"American Ideal" lifestyle is incompatible with Christianity. In the light of these verses, being a company
executive is just as irreconcilable to the message of Yeshua as living in fornication, or being an idolater
(Ephesians 5:5). Thus, no one who lives that sort of lifestyle has any inheritance in the kingdom to come.
Whether they are part of our fellowship or not is of no significance; what is important is whether or not they are
following Christ and obeying God's commandments. Those who hear and obey the Word, whoever they are,
wherever they are, whether they have ever heard of this fellowship or not, those are our brothers and sisters (Luke
8:21). Those who reject Christ by rejecting His words (John 12:48) are not our brethren.
Because of our straightforward manner concerning obedience to the Scriptures, we have attracted to
ourselves a good deal of opposition. Most of our principle adversaries are parents of those in the church, such as
James Foster the son of Edward Foster, Charles "Mickie" Rooney the son of Charles Edward Rooney, and Larry
Wilcox. The latter in particular has spent a considerable amount of time communicating with various people,
stirring up trouble against us, and accusing the church. Apparently, he is unaware of the seriousness of bearing
false witness (Deuteronomy 5:20).
One common accusation against the church has been that we have kidnapped some of our members, a
charge made by Mr. Wilcox, Mr. Rooney, and others. Indeed, some years ago, a young woman desired to come
with us; but since no brethren were in that city, she arranged with us over the phone to catch a Greyhound bus to
come to where we were, which was across the country. However, her dad was willing to call even this
"kidnapping", a claim as ludicrous as it is imaginative. We challenge these people to either document these
charges, or retract them. The fact is that we have never been involved with any such type of crime.
There are also several former members who have turned against the fellowship, as, for example, Allen
Larson, Stan Avery, and Jim Guerra. Mr. Guerra has even had a book against the church published, which is
rather disturbing, considering the fact that we not only did him no harm, but even paid off a college debt for him
of several thousand dollars. To his bearing of false witness he has thus added the sin of rewarding evil for good
(Proverbs 17:13).
2.
 Our adversaries have been aided by a wide range of people, including federal agents, doctors, lawyers,
government officials, district attorneys, journalists, and a great host of others. Most often, however, they have
involved the police, or better put, misused them. We employ the term "misuse" because it is the police who are
supposed to be protecting people's rights, rather than abusing them. An example will help to illustrate.
In the fall of 1975, the brothers were staying at a campground near Mt. Lemmon, just outside of Tucson.
Arizona. One morning about 5:30, a number of relations showed up at the camp, accompanied by swarms of
police and social workers. One sister recalls seeing about 30 vehicles of different sorts; and a brother recounted
that they had even employed a police airplane to search out some brethren who were away from the main camp.
After daybreak, they were also discovered and rounded up. At some point, some of them were allowed to leave
the camp site; but after getting to the main road and beginning to hitch-hike in towards town, they discovered the
ordeal was not over yet. The police had set up a road block some distance off to intercept the brethren, forcing
them to get out of the cars in which they had gotten rides, sometimes over the protests of the owners of the
vehicles. The local media also got involved there, filming the brothers and sisters, and mocking them over the air.
The elder and a number of other souls were arrested without charges; and some were held against their will in
motel rooms in Tucson to be coerced from their beliefs.
Our adversaries have misused the police in other cities as well, as, for instance, in St. Louis on 7 March
1977, in Boston in February of 1990, and in Phoenix in early 1991. In Chicago in January 1991, FBI agents
literally broke down the door of a house in which some of us were staying. They had come to search for a
member; and when a brother merely asked for a warrant, he was answered with blows to the abdomen, and the
statement that they didn't need to possess one.
Just a few weeks ago, in fact, two police officers, one of them a captain, came to the door where a couple
of brothers were living. Presumably, someone's parents had sent them, for they told the brothers that they had a
report that a woman was being held captive in the house. A brother told them that they needed a warrant; but they
retorted that they were coming in anyway. Of course, they found nothing, and no charges were filed. The
disturbing thing about all this is how commonly we are treated as criminals based on hearsay, and that we are
now almost constantly being hunted, Nazi-style, merely because our lifestyle is different.
We do wish to express that we are not "anti-police". We hold no grudges against any law officers, and
we are aware that many of them do abide by their legal principles. Indeed, on more than one occasion, certain
officers have been quite reasonable towards us. In Morgantown, West Virginia, some parents attempted to have a
county sheriff help them to take their daughter out of the church. He informed them, however, that he would not
involve himself in such activity, adding that this was a religious rather than a legal matter. In another instance east
of Norman, Oklahoma, an officer gave a brother some money to help the church. Others as well have shown us
kindness, have listened to our side, and have dealt with us quite even-handedly. On one occasion, the police even
asked the brothers if we wanted our persecutors arrested! (We declined.)
Our complaint is rather directed towards our adversaries, who have used slanders in order to drag the
police into harassing us. If we were guilty of even a small fraction of the crimes of which we have been accused,
we would no doubt have long ago been incarcerated. It remains, however, that after ail the years of our ministry
being on the road, no one can indict our fellowship with either criminal charges, or unethical behavior. The recent
ABC telecast lasted half an hour, which is pienry of time to present a powerful case against us, if one actually
existed. The fact is, the show failed to point out a single illegal activity with which our church has been involved.
None of the charges that our adversaries lay against us would stand up in any court of law; "kidnapping by
telephone" certainly would not.
Our adversaries also neglected to give a specific instance of our fellowship violating any portion of the
Holy Scriptures. The closest they ever come to this consists of a vague reference to the commandment to honor
one's father and mother. By vague we mean that we are left uninformed as to precisely how the church is
disobeying this commandment. No one in our fellowship teaches that souls should be disrespectful towards their
parents. However, we simply do not believe this passage implies that a person should obey every whim of a
parent even if it means disobeying Scripture. Should we steal something if Dad bids us to do so? Certainly not.
Ought we to live a life that we believe to be contrary to God's Word just because Mom would prefer us to be an
executive? The Messiah has told us to forsake all and live by faith; and we find no scriptural support for the
position that we should ignore Christ's commandments to do whatever our parents decide.
A slander in need of special attention, which was mentioned on ABC's recent program, is that anyone
who contacts family relations will be excommunicated by the elder. Even if this statement were altered to say that

3.
 any member who contacts them will be surely reproved, it would still be incorrect. As it stands, the accusation is
so patently false as to be absurd. Since this subject is rather complex, we will elaborate.
It must first be pointed out that most, if not all, of the former members who so vehemently accuse us did
in fact write, call and even visit their relations while they were with us. Several of them even lived with our broth-
er Daniel Lewandowski at his mother's house, who kept her home open to the brethren until the day of her death.
Further, on several occasions, friends and family relations of our members have also come to be with the fellow-
ship. Since none of these statements can possibly be denied, the accusation is blatantly untrue on the face of it.
We do consent that such contact is limited, but that is a far cry from the original slander. It is also true
that, since we are careful to keep our location undisclosed, any calls made or letters sent are from wisely chosen
places. This is a matter of pragmatics, not of seeking to be furtive. Because we are convinced that our lifestyle is
the way God wants us to live, and because, in many cases, our relations are willing to use force to keep us from
living it, we go to some pains to avoid their interference. The use of force has included breaking into houses to
search for souls, physically dragging members away and stuffing them into getaway cars, unlawful
imprisonment, and other deeds. Our sister Joanna Hepner was taken away by police because her parents had
used false information to obtain a warrant for her arrest; and she was subsequently held captive in a hotel room.
Fearing that an impartial judge would rule against them and allow Joanna to go freely back to the church, her
parents went in contempt of court, taking her against her wishes out of the state, and kept her in other places
unlawfully. She was kept up at night, often with water splashed in her face; she was hit, had her clothing taken
from her, was shouted at, threatened and mocked; and in general endured "physical and psychological
mistreatment" for months. She did manage to escape, and eventually met up with us again; but, needless to say,
she has not felt particularly inspired to contact her family to tell them where she is.
The above is one example, but it is by no means isolated. Over the years, brothers and sisters have suf-
fered abuse from family members more times than we care to think about. Only a few days ago, in fact, a brother
was taken illegally by his relations. On 4 April 1998, our brothers Daniel Garcia and Jason were out together,
when suddenly Daniel's dad, Narciso Garcia, appeared with some other men, and proceeded to tackle Daniel, and
handcuff him. Jason tried to help Daniel get free of them; but they sprayed Jason with pepper gas, put Daniel in a
car, and drove off. We thank our God that he returned just a few days later. After taking him many hundreds of
miles away, his captors stopped at a rest area. There happened to be a highway patrolman there, and Daniel
approached him to inform him that he was being kidnapped. Once the officer had investigated the matter, he
commanded Daniel's parents to drive him back to where they got him — immediately. They did so.
Daniel had maintained no wall of silence towards his parents. He had written them, and had even spent
several hours once in New Orleans speaking with them. They had told him that he could live this lifestyle that he
had chosen, and even invited the brothers to come visit them at their home. While this had not happened yet, it
was not out of the question. However, with this development, we doubt that Daniel will be desirous to visit his
parents anytime soon.
Moreover, as of this writing, yet another member of our church has been forcibly taken from us. On
April 9th. Greg Badger arrived at a house where his daughter Stephanie was, accompanied by men who sprayed
the brothers with pepper gas and threatened them with a baseball bat. Mr. Badger took his daughter away by
force, and we have not seen her since. At this point, therefore, we must confess that we are less encouraged than
ever to let parents know of our whereabouts.
What is ironic is that the very tactics that parents have accused us of without any evidence — coercion,
intimidation, kidnapping, physical and psychological abuse — they are guilty of themselves. I f we were in fact
involved in any such activities, our church would certainly be in the wrong; but, with God as our witness, we are
innocent in this matter. However, people are actually committing every one of these crimes against us; by what
tortured logic, therefore, can they be considered blameless? As always, the sole justification is that we in this
fellowship are not following the typical American way of life.
Put yourself, just for a moment, in our shoes. We see a lifestyle clearly delineated in the Holy Scriptures
that we desire to live; yet almost no one we know wants to let us live it. If new members decide not to give out
their intentions to live this way, not wanting anyone to stop them, the church is often accused of "kidnapping";
but if they do let it be known, almost invariably nearly every conceivable means of hindering them is employed.
When we keep our location secret, parents cry "mind control"; but when our location is discovered, they not
uncommonly show up to try to take away our members by force. Few of our parents actually know much about
what the Scriptures say, or have tried to raise their children on biblical principles. However, when we have
brought up verses to them about living Yeshua's lifestyle, they often begin quoting the passages about honoring
4.
one's father and mother, apparently meaning that all the rest of the counsel of the Scriptures should be sacrificed
to their will. How they extract that understanding from this one principle is unclear.
There you have it. The entire case of our accusers against us is reduced to a difference of interpretation
concerning how to deal with one's parents. Evidently, however, that is enough to brand us as criminals in their
minds. Never mind that we partake of no illegal actions; never mind that no one can find an unambiguous
violation of the Scriptures in our lifestyle; and never mind the success that we have had in turning people to
Christ, and away from drugs, alcohol, fornication and other immorality. All that matters to those opposed to us is
that we do not live a typical secular lifestyle, nor go along with our parents' wishes when we believe it conflicts
with the Word of God. We ask therefore, on what grounds are we considered "evil"?
We protest that people are treating us as if we were essentially less than human, without any legal rights
whatsoever. Members of our church have been stalked, chased, spied on, slandered, mocked, kidnapped,
mistreated, and threatened — one parent has even stated his intention to use a shotgun on the brothers. Others
have been accused of mental incompetence, upon no other grounds than the scriptural convictions they have held.
This is all despite the fact that no one has ever produced any valid charge against the church, as noted above. The
pretense of "mind control" is used as a cloak to arrogantly dismiss all of our most cherished beliefs, and to
commit any crime against us that people wish, for any reason, at any time. Would you call this liberty? Would
you call it Christian? Do you call it fair?
We would appreciate to at least be told for what crime we are being dealt with as criminals. The charge of
brainwashing or coercion is farcical. Any accusation of kidnapping is indefensible. The statements about getting
quality food from dumpsters are generally correct, though grossly caricatured. However, since this practice is
neither illegal, immoral, unethical, or unscriptural, the whole topic is irrelevant. The criticism that we do not
honor our parents is too vaguely put to be meaningful. The claim that we are not allowed to show emotions is so
ludicrous as to not warrant comment. As for the slander that we compel people, "for seven hours a day," to read
the Bible, sing and copy scripture in small uniform handwriting, we respond that this can only be considered a
willful distortion. Former members know perfectly well that each individual decides how they will spend their
time. While various tasks are periodically assigned or requested, and prayer and Bible study are encouraged, our
understanding of serving the Creator who loves us has never consisted of enforcing such mindless, mechanical
drudgery.
None of the other censures against the fellowship which were enumerated on ABC's program fare any
better. In fact, no case that we have yet heard against the church has been convincing; so far the accusations have
been either incoherent, misinformed, or inaccurate. Indeed, it would appear that those who despise the fellowship
have had to tax their imaginations to find ways to malign us. When unable to find any real fault with the church,
they took to ad hominem attacks against our elder. They then referred to older brothers as "lieutenants," and
presented the subject of structure in such a way as to give our church a Mafia or quasi military appearance. We
do live together, eat together, work with each other, etc., in accordance with what the Scriptures teach about order,
peace and charity (I Corinthians 14:33,40; 16:14). However, for the information of our accusers, our fellowship
consists of individuals who are intelligent, spontaneous, resourceful, and innovative. Our lifestyle is interesting,
fresh, challenging, and full of life; it is by no means made up of rigid forms, or monotonous routines. When we
arise in the morning, we appreciate having the liberty to ask God in prayer about what we should do for the day.
This is considerably more inspiring to us than the thought of being obligated to endure "another 9 to 5" workday
for money, like so many Americans are doing.
It is apparent that much of our side of the story was deleted from the broadcast. We really do not mind
participating in open dialogue with reasonable people; but when we are openly slandered with accusations which
are easily refuted, and when our responses are censored (as we perceive that much of our brother Jonathan's
were), it is fair to ask if we are dealing with propaganda ministers rather than journalists. If we are allowed to be
accused, certainly it cannot be too much to request that we also be allowed to answer the charges laid against us,
without our responses being either distorted, or entirely omitted.
In any case, we are not worried about the ultimate outcome. So far, the attitude of many of those whom
we meet has been fairly positive, who have seen through the program as mere sensationalism. We are reminded
of the passage about receiving both evil report and good report (II Corinthians 6:8).
As mentioned at the beginning of this letter, we cannot answer every charge and keep the response within
a reasonably brief length. For now, therefore, we will limit our defense to these words, and await the answer.

In the name of Yeshua (Jesus) our Savior,

5.