“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” ― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV link
[I cannot stop the video at the bottom post from automatically turning on. You may want to watch it first or pause it.]
Brandon introduces us to the reasons behind the Against Calvary Temple website. Next week, we will be featuring a couple of stories from survivors of this entity. Like the people in the video, I cannot bring myself to call it a church. Please join TWW in praying for these brave people.
Here is the link to Against Calvary Temple
There are several reasons I am against Calvary Temple.
Heresy
Concerning the name, the early church fathers often called their refutations of various heresies “Against Heresies.” Irenaeus wrote a two volume work called Against Heresies; Tertullian had works called Against all Heresies, Against Marcion, Against Hermogenes, Against Praxeas; Epiphanius wrote Panarion, also known as Against Heresies. There are many others. An observation of their choice of words: they were not “In Friendly Disagreement with Heresies."
Questionable doctrine
Second, during the spring of 2012, it seemed apparent that the ex-Calvary Temple community could use another provocative, persuasive, and public stance against the false doctrines that Star Scott seamlessly slipped into his sermons with little opposition from the outside world or the congregation. We believe it is the God given responsibility of every person to think critically about the gospel being preached to them, to test that gospel to see if it is from God, and to respond to the preacher of that gospel loudly if it is a false gospel.
Star Scott has a line.
“How many of you know that if someone—if anyone—brought the Bible to us and said ‘see, it says this but you’re doing that,’ if anyone did that, how many of you know that we would change?”
As often as he says that line, it’s no wonder the congregation believes it. He claims to love the Word. He allegedly wants to live by the Word. And he purports that the only reason ex-congregants never correct his doctrines is because those doctrines are exegetically, hermeneutically, and theologically air-tight. They are not, which is the third reason I am against Calvary Temple.
The church is a cult and people need to know.
Lastly, during my exit interview with Calvary Temple, they told me
“Brandon, if you really think that we are a cult, then if you love us, you will do everything in your power to get us out of here. You will plead with us, you will beg with us, you won’t rest until you’ve pulled every last one of us out of here and seen us freed from this place.”
Therefore, in the spirit of Church tradition, out of my God given responsibility to think and speak, in response to Star Scott’s own challenge, and because of my love for my friends and family, I am against Calvary Temple.
Is it wrong to stand up against a church, pastor or fellow Christian?
There are many people—Christians in particular—who think it is wrong to be against a church, a pastor, or Christian. There are several verse-snippets that are hurriedly tossed in your direction if you speak against any of the three entities just mentioned:
- love covers a multitude of sins
- don’t take your brother to court
- go to him one on one
- let God take care of it,
- and lastly my favorite “who are you to touch the Lord’s anointed.”
Leaving the unraveling of the proof texts and the reconstruction of the proper interpretation of those verses for another time, I will say that I believe that since most of the people I ever knew and loved are people I grew up with at Calvary Temple that I have a responsibility to tell them if they have fallen into gross error.
How to determine the authority of various leaders.
The Bible gives us tests for determining the authenticity of those who claim to be apostles, prophets, pastors, or teachers. According to Paul, an apostle cannot preach a false gospel, or they are no apostle at all. Prophets need to always be right (Y2K) (ed. note Scott predicted disaster at Y2K) and to have good fruit. Pastors cannot be greedy or contrivers of false stories or prideful. Teachers need to be apt to teach. A causal glance at the life and teaching of Star R Scott will inform even the least astute that he fails each and every one of these tests. Therefore, we have a responsibility to expose him.
What is the purpose of the Against Calvary Temple website?
While Star Scott’s errant doctrine is certainly the focus of our website, our broader purpose is to help former members find a landing point, to answer questions from current members, and to warn newcomers to the area that there are many dangers to signing up with Calvary Temple. We have tried to keep our focus on doctrine, mentioning specific acts of sin only insomuch as is required by doctrine. That being said, there is enough sexual, physical, mental, and spiritual abuse at Calvary Temple that we must speak of it in order to accomplish our broader purpose.
FAQs
In the three years that we have maintained Against Calvary Temple, we have received a few frequently asked questions from members of Calvary Temple, and we thought that now would be a good time to answer them.
Q: Does your pastor know you’re doing this?
A: Believe it or not, that really doesn’t matter. But yes, he knows about it, he encouraged us to start it in the first place, he gave his blessing when we did start it, and he prays that it would continue to be effective.
Q: What about Matthew 18? Have you gone to Pastor Scott one on one about his alleged false doctrine or sin? If not, how can you justify having this site for the whole world to see?
A: Matthew 18 does not apply because Star Scott has removed himself from stage one, stage two, and stage three. In fact, Matthew 18 should not be used as a passage for why we cannot do this, but rather a passage for why we must do this. Star Scott has removed every other conceivable venue for “telling it to the church.” He has removed himself from church authority (except for his rubber stamp associate pastors), removed all dissenters, and does not allow any communication with shunned sheep. In church history, the Ninety-Five Theses were not Matthew 18. Against Marcion was not Matthew 18. Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not Matthew 18. Every time Star Scott has criticized another minister from the pulpit, it wasn’t Matthew 18. When a false prophet is being exposed, we understand that the application of Matthew 18 doesn’t fit the context.
Q: How can you touch the Lord’s Anointed?
A: This phrase seems to be taken from David’s encounter with king Saul, in which he said that he would not touch the Lord’s anointed. A few problems with the cross-over into Church Age living: one, David literally meant touch, as in kill, king Saul; two, the New Testament pastor is not an Old Testament king; and three, even if he were, David went on a few verses later in the same story to call Saul out in front of a few thousand of Saul’s subordinates, so it must not have meant to David what it seems to mean to you.
As a second response, I don’t believe Star Scott is the Lord’s Anointed. Based on the Scriptural tests mentioned previously, Star Scott is a false apostle, false prophet, false pastor, and false teacher. Which honestly sounds like he probably is not a Christian. In which case, again, Matthew 18 doesn’t apply.
Q: What about Gamaliel before the Counsel in Acts 5? Aren’t you afraid you are standing against God?
A: We have gotten comfortable after 2,000 years of reading the historical parts of the Bible to assign lessons, heroes, and villains that oftentimes were not assigned by God. And if they had been assigned by God, Gamaliel might very well have been assigned as a villain—he was a Pharisee after all. But more than that, we don’t know if what he said was meant to be taken as a truth or a non truth, because Luke was simply recording what Gamaliel said, not the truth value of what Gamaliel said.
I would submit to you that, if it is taken in the way that this question seems to imply, then you are saying that I should not speak against Star Scott because God will “take care of him.” Of course, when you think that one through, doesn’t that mean that there would be no Mormons, no Jehovah’s Witnesses, no Jim Jones? It is true that Jim Jones is gone, and I suppose you could make the argument that God “took care of him,” or that it “came to nothing,” in the words of Gamaliel.
But if I assume your premise is true then I would return your question to you this way: what if God is in the process of “taking care of” Star Scott like He “took care of” Jim Jones? Do you want to be there when He does? Do you want to spend the next twenty years of your life in a deteriorating cult that is coming to nothing? Do you want to raise your children in a deteriorating cult that is coming to nothing? Thinking about it that way, the responsibility is returned to the individual to have to choose who he or she will follow, as opposed to hoping that if Star Scott is wrong, then God will strike him dead one day.
While much more could be said, that, in another nutshell, is Against Calvary Temple. God has His hand in the affairs of men and women, and He often uses other men and women to influence each of us. We pray that we are having a positive influence on the Calvary Temple problem, and we pray that you would join us in our struggle to see the abusers brought to justice, the captives brought to freedom, and the church itself brought to nothing.
Here is another excellent video on the most recent protests against Calvary Temple. The allegations are deeply disturbing. Here is a link to the written story as well. Here is an interesting development.
The Loudoun County Sheriff's Office has confirmed that they have recently reopened the case of alleged sexual abuse at Calvary Temple Ministries, a decade after they closed a case involving similar accusations.
Lydia's Corner: The One Year Bible has changed its format. We will need to figure out how to use it in this website. Bear with us.
The breaking up of families part just tears me up. What exactly is “Christian” about marriages splitting up and children and parents shunning each other because someone left a particular church? Only cults operate like that. Someone doesn’t cease being a Christian because they leave a church. Unless said “church” is a cult. Then those leaving become apostates in the cult’s POV.
About David and the ‘Lord’s anointed” comment. David had already been anointed by Samuel as the next king. If he had assassinated Saul he would have been establishing a precedent for assassination for the kings of israel. He was wise to not go down that road, seeing it might have eventually put his own life in more danger. So David took the high road, and the safer and smarter road, and did it in an act of bravery and set himself up as even more of a hero than before. Smart man.
That has nothing to do with preachers.
“Touch not God’s anointed.”
I heard that many, many times at a former church I attended. Heard it from the pulpit, heard it in the hallway, heard it in pastors’ offices. Thus declared, and sometimes, loudly, crippled the parishoners and enabled the pastors.
Very, very sad that this was used as a weapon and as a tool of defense.
There are guys in the pulpit who don’t have any more business standing in the pulpit than a rabid dog….and some congregations might be better off with the rabid dog.
These folks who say it isn’t anyone’s business to judge ministers are the first to line up and go after women who have been called to be ministers…and through their actions, I am convinced many of these ladies are called to be pastors.
(Done) Just Watching wrote:
Yes. That phrase is commonly used in certain denoms as a thought-terminating cliche. Once invoked, no one need (or dare!) think critically about the info presented.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
In Moonie-speak, a Thoughtstopper.
In a church I was in 30 years ago, the pastor frequently used “touch not the Lord’s anointed” as a way to stop any criticism of him or his ministry. Turned out he was a serial adulterer, and we were the fourth church he had to leave because of his behavior.
__
“Darkest Hour Before the Dawn?”
hmmm…
Speak-out against the Madness?
Please join TWW in praying for these brave people deemonstrating with the plackards in front of the Calvery Temple in Sterling, Virginia, who have finally stopped drinking and passing out da KoolAid?
(Krunch)
A forgone conclusion, long time coming?
(sadface)
Surely this present abusive darkness will not stand the light of day…
Sopy
__
Picket this?: “Long Time Gone?” (Crosby, Stills & Nash) –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLfpzMeYlDI
;~)
—
Here’s the latest essay on how I learned Evangelical Christianity is struggling with child sex abuse.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/how-i-learned-evangelical-christianity-is-struggling-with-child-sex-abuse-an-incident-at-milwaukees-elmbrook-church-in-1999/
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In Calvary Chapelnese, a “word of advice.”
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
“What exactly is “Christian” about marriages splitting up and children and parents shunning each other because someone left a particular church?”
+++++++++++++++++++
perhaps it’s fueled by things like
““If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14
and
“Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” Luke 12
I really hate verses like these, and plenty ascribed to Paul. At times, it’s almost as if they didn’t completely get the power of their own influence. As if they didn’t realize how dangerous their words could be when adhered to by certain kinds of people in certain kinds of circumstances.
I believe Jesus is God. But sometimes I wonder if, in a small way, his humanity didn’t get in the way just a little. If perhaps very occasionally his state of mind (occasionally depressed, frustrated, agitated) or state of body (head ache, recovering from food poisoning, the common cold, overtired, etc.) may have impacted his word choice a bit. Perhaps occasionally he could have phrased things differently and a bit better. (I fully expect to be vehemently disagreed with)
__
“Religious Mummies Rising…”
hmmm…
Is The Congregation Really On Your Side?
huh?
The ‘News’ Reporting on an ‘Alleged’ 501(c)3 Religious Racing Joker Preacher NPD Dude (TM) with a thirst for Power and an Affinity for Young Harley Quwin’s?
What?
501(c)3 Religious Joker on the loose, and the ‘abused’ count on the rise?
So what else is new?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
The luminious light shines skyward…the call goes out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNcrvPs1548
;~)
—
This is the dark-side of evangelical churches : personality cults develop and pastors who are accountable to no one. Now they can claim they are accountable to God, but this can become anything since they are God’s annointed, and who can question them? I have witnessed pastors abuse Matthew 18 and become judge, jury, and executioner in church discipline cases. I am uncertain a pastor can claim this authority, yet they have, and who dare question them? So the personality cult morphs into a cult Because there is no check and balance for pastoral authority.
Recently, in my community, there is a automobile dealership that did a customer wrong. The customer, a local business owner, paid his employees to picket the automobile dealership. What is more, the wronged party who owned a business that painted advertisements on vehicles, painted on his huge trucks that so and so automobile dealership had done him wrong. I have seen organized pickets against abusive churches and cults, and bad press against these out of control of pastors. This is what it is going to take, and then some against out of control pastors and their cults. And they can attempt to slap anti defamation suits against their accusers, but what can they do when their accusers have the truth on their side?
@ elastigirl:
I dislike those verses, too. I think Western evangelicals misapply them in spiritually abusive ways. Even today, in certain Muslim cultures a person can be betrayed by his/her own family and face death, or at least isolation, by becoming a Christian. I think those verses would better fit that type of situation. Control-freak abusers like to fling those verses at people leaving their particular cult, even if said people go to another church in the same denomination.
To add another thought concerning, Touch not the Lord’s Annointed…..David was speaking about not KILLING Saul. So if anyone ever uses that against you, just say, I promise you I have not intention on killing anyone….so we all good!
While the extreme description of Starr and CT is well beyond anything I have experienced, I understand how difficult it is to address these things when you are in the midst of it. It often takes time and distance to process what you experienced before you are able to articulate the problems that you were made to deal with. And this is often used against victims of any myriad of abuses.
You will hear statements like, “If it was so bad, why didn’t you say something when it happened???” Which implies, it must not have been so bad after all…therefore you are just acting “bitter”. But the reality is when you are neck deep in the midst of being abused/gas lighted/manipulated you are practically incapable of addressing it. So we should always be willing to recognize that it is AFTER time and distance that people can finally say what happened to them.
Corbin wrote:
I thought that’s what the barrage of Bible bullets (“SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!”) was for.
And all too often in Islam, the praise-phrase “Al’lah’u Akbar!” gets looped as a thoughtstopper.
“All duckspeak; pure Orthodoxy, pure INGSOC.”
Mark wrote:
Deep Pockets.
More $$$$$ to pour into shysters, and he who spends more WINS.
“TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”
LInn wrote:
So “Touch Not GAWD’s Anointed!” is a sign you’ve got an abuser and/or a crook in the pulpit.
@ elastigirl:
Like Paul’s words, I think Jesus’ words (and sometimes his actions) are misunderstood by some and misapplied. He was speaking into a culture that is different from ours in many ways. Other people use the hard sayings of Jesus as clobber/thoughtstopper verses.
As BeenThereDoneThat said, Jesus’ words reflect the reality of a person deciding to follow Jesus instead of the family or tribal religion. There might well be family division and, if the numbers of Christians become threatening, there might be war. I don’t think for a moment that Jesus was saying that division and strife is a good thing or that anyone should use his words as spiritual blackmail against people that person wants to control.
When a pastor uses the word “bitter”, I take that as an admission that he is guilty of at least a cover up, if not actually being the abuser. And we should treat that like a confession. (but not repentance!)
elastigirl wrote:
I agree with you to some extent, but I think this is one of those instances where Christians just glide over something where, if you applied critical thinking, you might pause and say, “Hrmm.” This is Jesus, the supposed moral example for mankind, being kind of a d**k. Yeah, he said a lot of good things, but how many times do you need to say or do things that are kind of appalling before people actually step back and say, “Hrmm – could it possibly be that this guy isn’t a perfect deity?” [let’s just put to the side that the God of the Bible is a horrible tyrant, which I think actually fuels a lot of the Calvinists who seem really attached to the ‘judgement’ model]. And it’s not just those verses about splitting up families. There’s an instance where he’s pretty rude to someone who just wanted to get healed of some affliction. The time when he killed a fig tree in a tantrum for no good reason. When you get down to it, Jesus was cool sometimes, and a douchebag other times. But everybody raised in the Christian paradigm can’t see that clearly for some reason. They take the story of his crucifixion and sacrifice (assuming that it happened just as written in the bible, no critical thought required there) and say that because of that sacrifice, he’s the moral ultimate. But, even assuming that it actually happened that way, is it really that much of a sacrifice to die, if you know you’re going to re-spawn in 36 hours? And that your supposed sacrifice will save the entire human race from an unjust penalty that you (as God) set them up for in the first place? There are ‘ordinary’ humans who have sacrificed more for less – given up their single life, without the knowledge that they’ll be back shortly, in order to save just one or two lives of their brothers in arms or family members. Aren’t those sacrifices even more profound?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Most definitely. Whenever I hear that from the pulpit in the context of “don’t say anything against the pastor,” I’m gone. Thankfully, old age has the benefit-hopefully-of bringing more discernment. My current church, where I have been for 15 years, has a balanced, many folks responsible, approach to leadership.
An Attorney wrote:
“An admission of guilt” would be more accurate.
Deb? Dee? Guy behind the curtain?
Is there a way to embed that video WITHOUT the auto-play default?
Where you have to click it to start it playing?
Because it auto-plays every time the page refreshes (such as after adding a comment).
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
There probably is no ‘easy’ way to do that. The Gordian Knot of accessibility might even make Alan Turing roll over in his grave.
@ Gram3:
“I don’t think for a moment that Jesus was saying that division and strife is a good thing or that anyone should use his words as spiritual blackmail against people that person wants to control.”
++++++++++++
agreed. True, he was speaking into a very specific culture quite removed from ours. I don’t think he anticipated that so many of his words would be jotted down and circulated amongst billions(?) of people thousands of years later, to be read so literally, overanalyzed, with unintended meaning read into them.
I think he spoke thus because he was speaking into the moment (in history). Not to us at all (although lots of it is very relevant to us.).
Verses like the ones being discussed sure make a good case for historical/cultural considerations when reading the bible.
Star goes on the offensive:
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/threats_of_blackmail_against_sterlings_calvary_congregants_investigated898
Mod: Full URL replaced tiny url. Please DON’T use URL shorten services in comments.
(Sorry, the article is about Starr 2 – son of – not Starr 1 who is the head “pastor” of the cult.)
@ Richard:
“But, even assuming that it actually happened that way, is it really that much of a sacrifice to die, if you know you’re going to re-spawn in 36 hours? And that your supposed sacrifice will save the entire human race from an unjust penalty that you (as God) set them up for in the first place? ”
++++++++++
I’ve thought along those same lines. I strive for objectivity. I believe in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit, & try to make sure i’m breathing clean air, maintaining a clear head. Scrutiny, etc. Even so, I think that I (and perhaps you) have been affected by art and film where Jesus is concerned, to our detriment.
What you described, and the way you described it, is a distillation of Jesus in art. It is like from a children’s story book on the subject. it’s what is said when doing the flannelgraph. It’s not real. I don’t think it’s all that accurate, even.
It is entirely possible that Jesus’ scope of understanding of what was going to take place/taking place was limited. I’d venture to say that WE have the advantage over 1st-century-Jesus in understanding the theological/cultural/historical scope of things.
Jesus was a human being. I believe he is/was God, as well… but that his Godness was sucked away and allowed to drip back in little by little as he matured. Even at 33, I believe he recovered only a fraction of his Godness.
I tend to think he didn’t completely grasp what was happening, & what was going to happen. Perhaps a glimmer, but very limited. The crucifiction/”resurrection story”, which has been dramatized, sung about, illustrated, told and retold was a complete zero to him. It didn’t exist yet.
I imagine it was something akin to someone about to embark on some new chapter in life. What’s to come is in the realm of the imagination. and what one imagines, based on scant data, in extremely partial, blurry detail is completely different from what actually ends up happening in full focus technicolor. The experiences that happen in the moment as this ’embarkation’ plays out are loaded with feelings, thoughts, and all manner of sensory things you could never have anticipated.
I think there was much surprise in it all for Jesus. I think he was caught off guard to large extent. I think the rejection and abandonment of his friends & God himself (experientially, at least) was excruciating. I think knowing his mother was watching was excruciating. I don’t think he was ready for all this to happen. I think he had so much more he wanted to do, so much more of life he wanted to live.
But I also agree with you — I think there are people who have given up and suffered more for the sake of love and what is noble, right, and true.
Through a glass darkly wrote:
Starr 2 as in Heir to the Throne of Calvary Temple?
Somewhere on the Web, there’s a list of how to become CELEBRITY Pastor/Dictator of your own Mega. At the top of the list is “Be born the son of the CELEBRITY MegaPastor and make sure your name ends with “Junior”. Second is “If the CELEBRITY MegaPastor has no sons, marry one of his daughters.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Don’t know too much about this within Pentecostal or Charismatic, but this has been common in the conservative and fundamental Baptist realms for quite awhile. Jack Hyles at First Baptist Hammond had a crazy son who didn’t succeed him but was succeeded instead by the husband of his daughter, Jack Schaap, who is justifiably in prison. Hyles’s crazy son David, attends a church First Baptist Jacksonville which had in its history a famous father son duo of Homer Lindsay and his father. We don’t typically see dynasties at one church in the SBC, but it is common in the IFB. This dynastic succession may not be only in fundamental churches, but in independent charismatic/Pentecostal churches?
elastigirl wrote: