​This page offers a pastoral response to a 2019 sermon entitled "Covenant Breakers", preached in multiple locations and on several occasions, by Christopher Otis, Elder-Pastor of Wellspring Church in Bridgeville, Washington, Pennsylvania. In this message, he lays out a framework for disfellowshipping and shunning former members, including family members, and calls current members to withdraw fellowship from those who leave.​ The recording for this sermon is available here.

​

This sermon stands in sharp contrast to the repeated claims made by Wellspring leadership and its influential members that they do not practice shunning, and that any suggestion otherwise is a misunderstanding. The content of this sermon directly contradicts those assurances, not only acknowledging the practice but prescribing it as a faithful response. ​​​

​

This page also notes the continuity of this teaching under elder Brandon Otis, whose 2026 sermon on shunning/avoidance echoes the same core framework articulated in Christopher Otis’ 2019 “covenant breakers” sermon.

 

That framework - defining “fellowship” as intimate “keeping company” and directing relational withdrawal ("disfellowshipping") from those who leave - fits within the congregation’s longer doctrinal lineage associated with its founder, Norman James, whose teaching shaped the church’s categories of “the kingdom,” authority, and separation.

​

 

1. 2019 Sermon Summary: What this Sermon Teaches

 

In this sermon, Christopher Otis does several key things:

​

• He equates church membership with a covenant before God that is directly comparable to a marriage vow.

• He teaches that those who leave the church after making such a covenant are “covenant breakers,” “adulterers,” “harlots,” and “enemies of the cross of Christ” who are “worthy of death” in God’s eyes.

• He calls members to refuse fellowship with former members, including family, and to “not even eat with such a one”, applying biblical texts about serious sin to people who have left the church.

• He warns that those who maintain ongoing fellowship with former members are compromising, disobeying Scripture, exposing their children to “death,” and even hindering the ex-member’s repentance.

• He declares that in future, those who have “broken covenant” are not welcome at church weddings, funerals, school events, or other gatherings.
   

All of this is framed as obedience to God’s sovereignty, God’s word, and God’s standard - and as necessary to preserve the “true church” and prevent spiritual collapse.

​​

​

2. Membership as Covenant, Leaving as Adultery

​

A central move in this sermon is to redefine church membership in covenantal and marital terms:

• Membership is described as a covenant vow before God, like a marriage vow.

• Breaking membership is described as covenant-breaking, which he directly links to Romans 1 (“untrustworthy” / “covenant breaker”) and Jeremiah 3 (Israel as an adulterous wife).

• Those who leave are repeatedly labeled as harlots, adulterers, and covenant breakers whose actions are “worthy of death.”

 

From this, the logic becomes:

• Joining = entering a God-established covenant.

• Leaving = adultery against God and His people.

• Remaining family contact = tolerating or endorsing adultery and covenant-breaking.

 

A biblical response

​

In Scripture:

• The new covenant is grounded in Christ’s blood, not in a local membership ceremony.

• Marriage imagery in the New Testament (Christ and His Bride) refers to Christ and the whole church, not one local congregation or denomination.

• The apostles never equate local membership commitments with marriage vows nor teach that leaving a local congregation is tantamount to adultery.

• To declare that leaving one particular church equals spiritual adultery and “worthy of death” is to go far beyond what Scripture says and to place disproportionate spiritual power in the hands of that institution.

 

 

3. Shunning as the Required Response

​

Christopher Otis then argues that because leaving is “covenant breaking,” the only faithful response is to withdraw fellowship:

• He applies 1 Corinthians 5 (“do not associate… not even to eat with such a one”) to former members who leave the church, not just to those in clear, ongoing, biblically defined sin.

• He applies 2 Thessalonians 3 (“keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life”) to those who no longer submit to the church’s authority or traditions.

• He warns that those who continue to spend time with ex-members - particularly children, parents, or grandparents - are:

  • supporting their sin,

  • risking their own spiritual health, and

  • confusing the next generation.

 

In this sermon, examples are given of:

• Grandparents being told they should not spend normal holiday time with their grandchildren if the parents have left the church.

• Members being told to stop “feeling sorry” for those who left and instead grieve primarily for “God’s law” and the “righteous who have made hard decisions.”

• Churches deciding that former members who “broke covenant” are no longer welcome at funerals, weddings, school functions, or other church events.

 

A biblical response

​

The New Testament does teach church discipline (for example, in 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 3), but:

• Discipline is directed toward clear, ongoing, unrepentant sin (such as sexual immorality, idolatry, extortion, etc.), not toward people who disagree, question, or leave a particular group.

• The purpose of discipline is restoration, not social annihilation. Even in 1 Corinthians 5, the goal is that the person “may be saved” and eventually restored to fellowship (which in fact happens in 2 Corinthians).

• Scripture never teaches that merely leaving a local church (or joining another church) is equivalent to moral sin, adultery, or apostasy.

 

To apply the harshest possible biblical categories to all former members - and to command ongoing family severance as the only faithful response - is to stretch Scripture beyond its context and to weaponize it in ways that cause deep, lasting harm.

 

 

4. “Enemies of the Cross”: The Language Used for Those Who Leave

​

In this sermon, those who leave are described in extreme spiritual terms:

• They are said to be “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3).

• They are described as arrogant, chaff to be burned, and people whose lives are “worthless and close to being cursed” (Hebrews 6 applied to them).

• Their motives are summed up as “not wanting the requirements of the cross” and seeking an easier form of Christianity without the demands of holiness, praise, and submission.

 

This sweeping characterization:

• Ignores the many former members who left because of abuse, conscience, doctrinal concerns, or spiritual manipulation.

• Assumes that all leavers are in deep moral sin (“in many, many cases there were moral sins,” “they escaped before they were disciplined”), even when no specific sin is named.

• Encourages current members to interpret every departure as rebellion against God rather than as a possible response to unhealthy leadership or false teaching.

 

A biblical response

​

In Scripture, Jesus and the apostles warn strongly against:

• False teachers who use harsh judgments and heavy burdens to control people (Matthew 23).

• Leaders who “lord it over” the flock instead of shepherding gently (1 Peter 5:1–3).

• Wolves in sheep’s clothing who devour the flock (Matthew 7:15).
   

Scripture also recognizes that leaders can be in the wrong and that believers sometimes must leave unhealthy situations or confront false teaching (Acts 20:28–31; Galatians 1:6–9). To portray all ex-members as enemies of the cross simply because they left this one church is neither fair nor faithful to the whole counsel of God.

 

 

5. Tying “God’s Sovereignty” to Wellspring Membership

​

Throughout this sermon, Christopher Otis frames everything in terms of God’s sovereignty:

• God “sovereignly placed” each member in this local body.

• Those born into the church are said not to be “accidents of birth” but sovereignly chosen to be “fitted together” here.

• Members are told that their membership commitment is a declaration that they believe God placed them here, and that their vow is essentially unbreakable.

 

The result is:

• To question the church is to question God’s sovereign will.

• To leave the church is to rebel against God’s placement.

• To maintain relationship with leavers is to side against God’s sovereign choice.

 

A biblical response

 

God is sovereign, but:

• Scripture never teaches that God’s sovereignty locks every believer into a single local church forever.

• Christians in the New Testament sometimes move, scatter, or reform congregations; the Spirit leads people in many ways (Acts 8, 11, 13).

• Sovereignty is about God’s gracious initiative in salvation and being born again, not about cementing people permanently to one human leadership structure.
   

When “God’s sovereignty” is used to sanctify institutional control and make ordinary membership decisions feel like life-and-death rebellion, the language of sovereignty is being redefined and misused.

 

 

6. How This Connects to Wellspring’s Oneness Framework

​

This sermon does not stand alone. It fits within the larger Oneness Pentecostal doctrinal system Wellspring Church inherited from its founder, Norman James:

• Wellspring teaches the Oneness Pentecostal formula that being born again requires:

  • Repentance

  • Water baptism “for the remission of sin and circumcision of heart,” using their particular Jesus-name formula

  • Baptism of the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues as evidence

• They link this process directly to entering the Kingdom of God.

• The local church is described as the place where those who have truly entered God’s Kingdom are gathered and fitted together.

​

Within that framework:

• Only those who undergo these steps, in the form and formula prescribed by Wellspring, are viewed as having truly entered the kingdom of God.

• The local congregation becomes the place where these “Kingdom people” are gathered, formed, and ruled.

• Leaving Wellspring is therefore framed as stepping outside of God’s Kingdom or outside of God's will.

• Shunning and relational severing are then justified as “protecting” the Kingdom from those who no longer “walk in it.”

 

In other words, the practice of shunning at Wellspring is not random, nor is it merely a misunderstanding. It emerges from the convergence of two forces:

​

1. A formula-based, Oneness-derived doctrine of being born again, in which access to God’s Kingdom is tied to a specific process controlled by the church.

2. A belief that Wellspring Church itself represents the restored, true expression of God’s Kingdom, so leaving the church is equated with leaving God.

 

But the doctrinal framework alone does not account for everything. Wellspring’s pattern of shunning is reinforced by human factors - the pride of believing they alone possess the truth, the desire to protect the institution, and leadership structures built around authority rather than mutual submission.

 

These dynamics amplify the theological framework into a system of control, where dissent feels dangerous and departure is treated as betrayal. Shunning, then, is not simply a doctrinal conclusion; it is the predictable outcome of doctrine mixed with fear, pride, and an authoritarian culture.

 

This culture did not arise on its own; it was cultivated over decades by Wellspring’s founder, and in our view continues under the current leadership, sustained by the same patterns of theology, authority, and practice.​

​

​

7. The Pastoral and Human Cost

​

Whatever the intention, the effect of this teaching is:

• Parents feeling they must cut off relationship with their adult children to remain faithful.

• Grandparents missing years with their grandchildren.

• Siblings and close friends torn apart, with holidays and funerals becoming battlegrounds.

• Members living under constant fear - fear of being labeled rebellious, of being shunned, or of being seen as unfaithful if they express concern or doubt.

 

Former members report:

• Deep grief and confusion,

• The sense of being erased from the lives of those they love,

• The accusation that by leaving Wellspring Church, they have become enemies of Christ Himself.
   

This is not the spirit of the Good Shepherd, who: “will not break a bruised reed, and a smoldering wick He will not quench” (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20).

​

​

8. The Good News: Christ, Not a Church, Is the Gate

​

In the New Testament:

• Jesus Christ is the gate to the Kingdom of God, not a membership roll.

• We are born again by the Spirit of God through the living and abiding word of God (1 Peter 1:23), not by a humanly controlled formula or a particular set of leaders.

• The Kingdom of God belongs to Christ, not to any church; it will outlast every institution and denomination.

 

A person’s standing with God is grounded in:

• Christ’s finished work,

• God’s gracious initiative,

• The Spirit’s indwelling presence, not in lifelong submission to a single local structure.

 

For those inside Wellspring who feel trapped between their love for family and their fear of disobeying the church, hear this:

• Christ is Lord, not any church.

• Your conscience belongs to God, not to men.

• Your worth is not defined by the approval of Wellspring Church.

​

​

2026 Sermon Links Departure from Wellspring to “Leaving God’s Will” and Sin

​

In a February 2026 message, elder Brandon Otis taught on shunning/relationship withdrawal and leaned heavily on the same cluster of “separation” passages used to justify cutting off fellowship from former members (including 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3, Romans 16, and Titus 3). While explicitly stating that the church “does not believe in shunning,” he drew a sharp line between ordinary “interaction” and “fellowship,” defining fellowship as intimate “keeping company,” and repeatedly emphasized directives such as “do not associate,” “keep aloof,” “turn away,” and “not even to eat with such a one.”

​

This teaching closely tracks the framework laid out in Christopher Otis’ 2019 sermons, which likewise treated departure as a spiritually serious breach and applied church-discipline texts to justify a changed relationship with former members - up to and including refusing normal social fellowship (“not even to eat”) while maintaining the rhetorical distinction that this is “biblical” practice rather than “shunning.”

 

In both messages, the practical directive is the same: former members are to be kept at relational distance - even by family members - because church leadership and influential members frame withdrawing fellowship as obedience, holiness, and “unity.”

​

In this respect, the 2026 message continues the language, doctrine, and pattern traceable from Wellspring’s founder, Norman James, through subsequent leadership to the present. This “disfellowshipping” aligns with shunning as documented in high-control religious groups and cults.

 

Whatever the label, the effect is the same - many former members describe experiencing it firsthand. While the language is controlled, the conduct remains unchanged. Importantly, this is not a recent development; former members describe it as a longstanding practice reaching back decades, to the very beginning of the church’s history.

​

A central feature of the 2026 message is the expansion of “sin” to include leaving a specific local congregation. Otis defines sin as “missing the mark of God’s will,” cites “God has placed the members… in the body” (1 Corinthians 12:18), and argues that a person who “decides on their own to leave that church” is “leaving God’s will” - concluding, in his words, that “leaving his will is sin,” and that such departure is “disobeying the will of the Lord,” often attributed to “bitterness,” “unforgiveness,” or doctrinal compromise.
​

But the conclusion that leaving a particular church equals leaving God’s will does not follow from the passages cited.

​

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul is describing how the Holy Spirit distributes gifts and functions within the body of Christ. The text explains the diversity and interdependence of believers within the universal body, not an unbreakable mandate to remain in one specific local congregation for life.

​

The New Testament consistently locates Christian unity in Christ Himself. Believers are united by “one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:4–5). Through the Spirit, Christians are baptized into Christ’s body (1 Corinthians 12:12–13), a reality that transcends any individual local assembly.

​

Likewise, the passages dealing with church discipline address specific, observable sins. They do not identify leaving a congregation as one of those sins. Scripture never teaches that departing from a particular church constitutes rebellion against God or grounds for relational avoidance.​

​

By redefining departure as sin, the framework effectively places continued attachment to the institution on the level of obedience to God Himself. Remaining becomes righteousness; leaving becomes moral failure.

 

Once that assumption is in place, withdrawing fellowship from former members appears not as punishment or control, but as obedience and faithfulness. Yet that conclusion depends entirely on the initial premise - that God’s will requires remaining in this particular church - something Scripture never states.

​​

​​

A Call to the Sheep, to the Children of the King

​

The kingdom belongs to Jesus Christ, not to any congregation that claims to guard its borders. 

 

If you are waiting for a “call,” hear it now: “Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.” (2 Corinthians 6:17).

 

When allegiance to an institution is elevated above allegiance to Christ, when conscience is bound by fear, and when departure is labeled rebellion against God, believers must examine whether they are being yoked to men rather than to the Lord.

 

Come out, in the name of Jesus Christ - come out of fear, out of coerced conscience, out of spiritual bondage, and flee any net that would bind you to men instead of to Christ.

 

You are called out not into isolation, but into the care of the Shepherd - to a place where the sheep may safely graze and be nourished. And Jehovah Jireh, the LORD who provides (Genesis 22:14), will provide a place of light, truth, and refuge for those who follow Him.

​

Christ is King of the Kingdom of God. None other wears the crown.

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

Fair Use / Copyright Notice

​​

This article contains quotations, paraphrases, and analysis of a sermon delivered in multiple locations in January 2019 by Christopher Otis, Elder-Pastor of Wellspring Church in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania , as well as analysis of a sermon delivered in February 2026 by Brandon Otis, an elder of the same church. These excerpts are used under the “fair use” provisions of U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. § 107) for the purposes of theological critique, public interest, education, and religious analysis. No audio files or full transcripts are reproduced, and no part of this material is used for commercial gain.​

​

 

Public Commentary on Wellspring Church teaching on Shunning

 ​

​