I heard the story of an ex-member from my movement. Nothing she said was really new to me. She described a struggle in trying to apply the Faith teachings to her life, and how she had completely lost sight of the grace of God. She had come to the conclusion that if God is like the Faith movement describes Him, then she no longer wanted to have anything to do with Him. But God, mercifully, had led her to discover His grace when she came into a different setting.
I fully agreed with most of what she had to say, except I believed that it was possible for the Gospel of grace to be combined with the Faith teachings. I knew firsthand of the disastrous consequences of these teachings for a person who is not firmly rooted in the grace of God. But I argued that we should not throw out the baby with the bath-water. My answer to the problem was that you could just add a stronger emphasis on the grace of God. Some had already started to do exactly this, and that was something I had welcomed. I actually felt quite confident after this first round.
Then another former member told his story. He had noticed that there were some problems in the behaviour of the youth pastor, and having had a disagreement with him about the particular matters, he had gone to discuss the issue with the main pastor. This led to a series of humiliations and threats from this main leader, including one session where he warned this man’s wife not to listen to her husband. The leader informed her that she must beware of the demons of criticism that her husband had. Finally, the man made a serious suicide attempt but, miraculously, he was found in time and hospitalised.
What struck me most was the fact that the main leader who was responsible for all this had refused to apologise afterwards or show any kind of sympathy with the victim. This came as a great shock to me. Up till now, I had respected this particular pastor as a very godly minister even though I realised he had certain human weaknesses. However, he was speaking as a minister of God and I believed, therefore, that he was being led by the Spirit, and that he was speaking the very words of God. I believed this man was an apostle sent by God to restore Biblical truths in Scandinavia.
After I had listened to this former member, it began to dawn on me that what I had believed about this particular minister could not be true. Someone who is led by the Spirit of God could not behave in that way, or if he did, he would surely have to ask for forgiveness afterwards and show some sort of sympathy with the person who had been a victim of all this.
All of a sudden, the whole thing made me realise that all the other statements and prophecies this pastor had made could not be trusted as though they were the words of God. The whole foundation for my involvement in the Faith movement was instantly shattered. I felt like someone whose close relative has just been convicted of murder or something of that nature, and I was grief-stricken.
There was no way I could dismiss the story and evade the implications because there were many witnesses to the events, including the victim’s wife, and they could all testify that what was being said was true. I fell silent. This was very serious, indeed.
Another former member told a similar story. He had also been questioning some things in the movement. Then one day his car overturned on a bend, though he was not seriously hurt. Afterwards, the pastor told him that he would be less fortunate next time unless he stopped questioning things in the church.
I floated backward and forward between the mind-set of the Faith movement and my independent thinking. When I interpreted the information according to the movement, I assumed that the victims had been controlled by demons of criticism, as the pastor had told them; and if this was true, it would have been necessary for him to take firm action because one cannot be soft with demons. If this were the case, then there would be no need to apologise because the people concerned were the cause of their own suffering. They had gone against God’s anointed servant and, thereby, they had let the demons in. Firm action by the pastor was vital or else the demonic influence might spread to the entire congregation, and he was thus only doing his duty in protecting the flock against evil influence, according to the thinking of the movement.
