• High-Pressure Tactics: Members face intense, coercive meetings marked by power imbalances and intimidation. These practices create fear, humiliation, and lasting harm - echoing tactics seen in cults.

• Ambush Meetings: Private counseling sometimes turn into surprise confrontations by multiple leaders.

• Patterns of Control: Authority is exercised without accountability, reinforcing fear, silence, and compliance.​​

 

High Pressure and Coercion 

​​

In our experience, this church has used extremely high-pressure tactics, which many experienced as brute force and deeply harmful. Imbalanced power dynamics, inappropriate gender dynamics, surprise meeting dynamics and straight up bullying people. It's difficult to explain this area with logic, it is brute force and it is ugly. Some of these real stories are 30 years old, some are recent. From our perspective, once someone gives this church influence over their life, that influence can be used in ways that feel coercive.

​

In one situation, a wife of many years was led by her husband into what she thought was a small private meeting, only to be met unexpectedly by a large group of men in leadership. It's one thing if you know the terms of an engagement beforehand, but quite another when a private counseling session turns into a surprise board meeting and you're the entire agenda. In the business world this is called an "Ambush Meeting" and considered a dirty trick - in a church it seems totally out of place. In the business world, people expect competition, strategy, and even manipulation. But in a church environment, people come in trusting - they don’t anticipate that kind of behavior.

In another case, a young wife and mother was called into a closed door meeting where she met a large group of men in leadership who laid down the law for 2 hours. It's pure intimidation. This kind of behavior is absolutely, totally off-limits in a normal church. It would be seen as a massive breach of trust, a totally inappropriate imbalance of power and abusive behavior that would result in major repercussions for a leadership team. 

​

In another example, a young man was called into a meeting regarding concerns he had raised, only to find himself alone in a room with ten men in leadership, all significantly older. There was no allegation of moral failure or overt sin; the issue was his questioning of the system and its teaching. He had no advocate present and no advance warning of the meeting’s format, creating an extreme imbalance of power. 

​

In another instance, a young couple was called into a private meeting with senior leaders. During the conversation, one of the leaders questioned why the husband continued to maintain contact with a family member who had left the church, noting that other relatives had chosen to distance themselves. When the individual clarified whether this meant being expected to shun that family member, the leader responded with a gesture of agreement rather than correction. No explicit command was issued, but the exchange communicated that relational distancing was expected and regarded as normative within the community.

​

In another account, a member was questioned by leadership about why they continued to maintain a relationship with someone who had left the church. During the exchange, the leader asked, “Why would you want to continue the friendship with them?” and followed with, “I can’t tell you what to do, but I would not have a relationship with them.” While framed as personal opinion rather than instruction, the statement came from a position of spiritual authority and carried clear normative weight. No explicit command was given, yet the message communicated was unmistakable: continued relationship was viewed as suspect and discouraged.

​​

 

A Pattern of Domination and Control​

​

These accounts are not exceptional; they are representative. They reflect only a small fraction of the stories shared across many families, over multiple decades, and spanning different leadership eras. The consistency of these experiences - repeated across generations and circumstances - demonstrates that the dynamics described here are not isolated failures or misunderstandings, but entrenched patterns of pressure and control. The cumulative weight of these testimonies makes clear that this system has repeatedly produced the same harms, affecting far more people than any single section or page can fully capture.

​

We remember similar encounters involving our own family members at this church. Even as children, we sensed that something was deeply wrong, yet there was nowhere to turn. There was no higher appeal to a district leader, no broader church government, and no national body to provide oversight. There was not even a peer church in fellowship that could challenge what was happening. Our family members were alone in a room where men in authority took turns asserting their power, reinforcing one another as they brought the full weight of that authority down on them.

 

These were real people we loved who were deeply hurt, trusting a system that - intentionally or not - caused significant strain on their mental health, relationships, and families. The patterns many of us witnessed over the years often resembled the dynamics documented in other high-control groups: strong personalities facing no meaningful accountability, power being exercised downward, and vulnerable individuals bearing the weight of that imbalance.

 

In healthy environments, harmful behavior is checked by peers or leaders who protect the weaker members of the community. But in this closed system, former members often felt there was no one to intervene, no one with the authority to challenge those misusing their influence. Across decades of stories, the same themes of control, intimidation, and unequal power consistently appeared, leaving many to conclude that these patterns have remained largely unchanged.​​

​

​