• Patricia Beall Gruits taught that believers enter into covenant with God through repentance, water baptism, and Holy Spirit baptism. Her teaching concerned the believer's relationship with God, not an irrevocable commitment to a particular congregation.

• Norman H. James taught that Wellspring possessed the only valid baptism and the true requirements for entering God's kingdom, making departure from the congregation equivalent to breaking covenant with God.

• Christopher Otis continued this teaching in his sermon "Breaking Covenant," using departure from Wellspring as grounds for withdrawing fellowship from former members, including within families.

​​​

​​

Patricia Beall Gruits

Entering into the New Covenant with God

​

The distinctive theology of Wellspring Church has its roots in the teachings of Bethesda Missionary Temple in Detroit, Michigan, particularly the writings of Patricia Beall Gruits and James Lee Beall.

​

In her book Understanding God, Patricia Beall Gruits explicitly taught that believers must experience three distinct but related baptisms "as an entrance into the new covenant" (p. 180).

​

She then explained how believers enter into covenant with God: “We enter into covenant with God by becoming partakers of the death (repentance), burial (water baptism) and resurrection (Holy Spirit baptism) of His son, the Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 181).

​

Gruits also taught that circumcision of the heart was the sign of the new covenant (p. 359), and that this spiritual operation took place through water baptism (pp. 183–184, 358).

​​​​​

These teachings from Patricia Beall Gruits became foundational to the distinctive understanding of being born again and entrance into God's kingdom subsequently adopted by Wellspring Church.

​

Gruits's teaching of entrance into the new covenant differed from the gospel proclaimed by the New Testament apostles. But the issue here concerns something further: the difference between entering into covenant with God and being bound to a particular local congregation.​​

​

Gruits was describing a covenant between the believer and God - not a permanent covenant between the believer and a particular local congregation. Her teaching did not establish that leaving Bethesda Missionary Temple or transferring membership to another Christian church constituted breaking the new covenant with God.​​

​

This distinction becomes important when examining how covenant language was subsequently used at Wellspring.

​

​

Norman H. James

​

From Covenant with God to Covenant with the Local Church

​

Norman H. James, the founder of Wellspring Church, adopted and adapted the theological system developed at Bethesda Missionary Temple.

​

His doctrinal handbook retained Gruits's teachings of entering the new covenant through repentance, water baptism, circumcision of heart, and Holy Spirit baptism, while incorporating his own distinctive baptismal formula. 

​

James taught that water baptism had to be administered in Jesus' name "for the remission of sins and the circumcision of the heart." He regarded his specific baptismal formula as necessary for a valid water baptism, which he also considered essential to being born again and entering the kingdom of God.

​

This teaching carried significant implications for his understanding of the Church.

​

Scripture declares that there is "one body" and "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:4–5). James interpreted these passages through his distinctive baptismal formula. Because he considered other baptisms invalid, other Christian congregations were not recognized as fully belonging to the kingdom of God, regardless of their profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

​

In this framework, Wellspring was not understood as simply one Christian congregation among many. It was regarded as possessing the true gospel and the only valid formula for entrance into the kingdom of God.

James also taught that believers were bound by a membership commitment to the particular local congregation in which God had placed them. Because Wellspring was regarded as possessing the only true understanding of the requirements for entrance into God's kingdom, leaving the congregation was characterized as departing from God's kingdom itself - and therefore breaking covenant with God and His people.​

​

​Under Norman James's teaching, the distinction between belonging to the kingdom of God and belonging to Wellspring Church was effectively erased.​

​

Members were taught to maintain their standing within the kingdom and to remain separate from those considered outside it. Together, these teachings created powerful spiritual pressure to remain within Wellspring and withdraw fellowship from those who departed.

​

This represented a significant development beyond Gruits's description of entering the new covenant. James connected his distinctive baptismal doctrine with an obligation to remain in the local congregation, effectively treating continued membership in Wellspring as a measure of faithfulness to Christ.

​

​

Christopher Otis
 

Covenant Breaking as Justification for Shunning

​

This understanding of covenant was carried forward by Christopher Otis, who was a pastor under Norman H. James's leadership for decades. Otis later played a role in the removal of the James family from church leadership and adopted the title of elder-pastor.​​

​

In his 2019 sermon Breaking Covenant, Otis described membership in the local congregation as a binding commitment before God, comparable to the covenant of marriage.

​

He argued that God sovereignly places believers in a particular local congregation and that departing from that congregation constitutes breaking covenant. Throughout the sermon, Otis drew upon biblical descriptions of covenant unfaithfulness, including Israel's spiritual adultery, and applied them to individuals who had left Wellspring.

​

Under this interpretation, departure from Wellspring was not treated as an ordinary change of church affiliation. It was characterized as a violation of a sacred obligation. Otis also connected this alleged covenant breaking with the rejection of Wellspring's distinctive doctrinal teachings, including its requirements concerning water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism.

​

These became two overlapping grounds for condemning former members: rejecting the congregation's particular understanding of the gospel and leaving the congregation itself.

​

The resulting accusation was sweeping. A person could be considered unfaithful to God not only for rejecting Wellspring's theology, but also for departing from Wellspring while continuing to profess Christian faith.

​

 

The Consequences of Covenant Breaking

​

The consequences of this teaching extended well beyond the question of church membership.

​

In his Breaking Covenant sermon, Otis characterized former members as covenant breakers and defended the practice of withdrawing fellowship from those who departed.

​

The theological reasoning is important.

​

If leaving Wellspring is defined as breaking covenant with God, then refusing ordinary fellowship with former members can be presented as obedience to Scripture rather than as a decision imposed by church leadership.

​

And if the leadership determines that departure itself is sin, then former members can be placed under condemnation regardless of whether they continue to believe in Jesus Christ. The institution effectively becomes the judge of whether a believer has remained faithful to God, with continued membership serving as a measure of covenant loyalty.

​

At Wellspring, the doctrine of entering into covenant with God became intertwined with a separate teaching that believers were obligated to remain in their particular congregation. This institutional understanding of covenant was then used to justify withdrawing fellowship from those who departed.​​

​

The consequences have been especially serious for families divided by the practice of shunning. Ordinary desires to maintain relationships with parents, children, or siblings can be treated as compromises with covenant breakers, rather than as natural expressions of familial love.

​

​

The New Covenant Is Established Through Jesus Christ

​

The New Testament presents the new covenant as God's redemptive work through Jesus Christ.

 

At the Last Supper, Jesus declared: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:20)

​

The book of Hebrews identifies Jesus Christ as the mediator of that covenant: “Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant.” (Hebrews 9:15)​​​

​

​Jesus Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, and His sacrificial death is its foundation.

 

Entrance into the new covenant is not dependent upon the distinctive baptismal formula of a particular congregation or a requirement to speak in tongues. Nor is the covenant established through membership in any local church.

​​

The apostle Paul describes believers as being incorporated into Christ's body through the Holy Spirit: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)

​

Belonging to the body of Christ is not determined by allegiance to a particular congregation or its distinctive doctrinal requirements.

​

Christ is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18). No local congregation occupies that position.

​

Scripture teaches that believers should gather together, encourage one another, and respect faithful spiritual leadership. But these responsibilities do not establish an irrevocable obligation to remain in the particular congregation where a believer first came to faith or was placed under spiritual leadership.

​

The New Testament does not teach that leaving one congregation to worship with another is, in itself, breaking covenant with God.
​

No congregation has the authority to transform its own membership boundaries into the boundaries of Christ's body or the kingdom of God.​​​​

​​

​

Christ Is the Mediator of the New Covenant

​

The new covenant is between God and His people, established through the blood of Jesus Christ, who is its mediator. It is not a covenant between a believer and a particular local congregation.​

​

Patricia Beall Gruits taught that entrance into the new covenant was a three-step process. Norman H. James went further by teaching that believers were bound to remain in the local congregation in which God had placed them.

 

Christopher Otis continued that institutional covenant teaching and used it to justify withdrawing fellowship from those who left or were "disfellowshipped".

​

Entrance into the new covenant rests upon the finished work of Jesus Christ, not upon the baptismal requirements defined by Patricia Beall Gruits or Norman H. James. This is the good news of the gospel.

​

A believer may leave Wellspring Church without leaving Jesus Christ. A believer may reject Wellspring's distinctive teachings without abandoning the gospel. And a believer may worship in another Christian congregation without breaking covenant with God.​

​

The church belongs to Jesus Christ, not to the leaders of any one congregation.