Loyalty Tests and Expulsion
Forced Choices and Broken Membership: When Conscience Gets You Expelled
​​

​

A confession of belief is a voluntary expression of personal faith and commitment to Christ.

 

A loyalty test, by contrast, is an organizational practice that pressures members to demonstrate visible conformity through public affirmations, declarations, distancing from dissenters, or other acts of allegiance. It requires members to prove loyalty, often at the expense of personal relationships, independent judgment, or outside connections.

 

The former centers conscience and inward conviction; the latter centers performance and social compliance.​

 

​

Public Loyalty Tests to Leadership, Doctrine and Shunning

​

In a March 1st, 2026 meeting at Wellspring Church, the church leadership held what amounted to a public loyalty test. We describe it here not for sensationalism, but for transparency, so that those considering Wellspring, and those affected by it, can honestly evaluate its teachings and practices.

​

In early 2026, Wellspring church leadership responded to internal questioning, conflict and departure with a series of sermons. These sermons covered primary doctrinal issues such as Norman James’s 3-step gospel, as well as topics considered secondary issues in most Christian churches: tithing, charity and grumbling against the elders.

 

In the final sermon on February 22, Wellspring leadership reaffirmed the practice of “disfellowshipping” former members, including family members, a practice taught and modeled by Wellspring founder Norman James and his wife Rebecca.​

​

Upon completion of this sermon series, the congregation met for a so-called "decision day" on Sunday March 1st. According to attendees present at this meeting, a stacked loyalty test was presented to the congregation by the most senior elder-pastor.

 

In the first test, members were asked to raise their hands in agreement that the elders were "called by God" and that they would submit to their authority.

​

Several members asked the leadership if submitting to the authority of the elders meant affirming the practice of “disfellowshipping” former members - including family members. This practice is not formally documented in the church’s written statement of faith and belief.

​

According to attendees present, the senior elder-pastor responded by saying that "fellowshipping" with former members would not be tolerated, and that there would be consequences for doing so.

​

After the raised hands were counted from this first test, the elder-pastor stated that those who had not raised their hands were no longer members and instructed them to leave the building.

​

After the first wave of people left the building, a second loyalty test was presented. All remaining members were asked to raise their hands to affirm "everything" preached by the elders in the previous sermon series.

​

Again the hands were counted, and those who would not raise their hands in agreement with "everything" that had been taught were instructed to leave. This second wave then left the building, some in great sadness. 

​ ​​​

 

Public Expulsion and the Testing of Conscience​

​

Long-time members - including adults who have spent most or all of their lives in this church - were told, in a single moment, that they were no longer part of the body. Some were already on the edge and felt this was the final push. Others hesitated to affirm the entirety of what had been preached, out of conscience or belief, and their hesitation was treated as disloyalty. A number of those expelled wrestled with mixed feelings - loss, shock, and confusion.

​

This kind of “time of decision” or “settling” meeting is not new in Wellspring’s history. Under different leaders and in different eras (South Hills, Lakeview, Wellspring), similar high-pressure public moments have been used to purge those who will not fully align with the current leadership’s expectations on "disfellowshipping", doctrinal teachings or with Norman James’s three-step “gospel of the kingdom.”

​

We remember the tears, heartache, and confusion of these moments from our own youth, when families were divided and relationships severed under the direction of Norman James, in highly public “time of decision” meetings.

 

What changes is the cast of characters; what remains is the same pattern: conscience is tested not by the gospel of Christ, but by total agreement with a small group of men and their teaching.

​​

Whatever language was used, the practical outcome was the same: certain individuals and families were separated from the community, often abruptly, and the remaining members were pressed to demonstrate unity through visible compliance and public assent. 

​

 

This Is Not Shepherding – It Is Expulsion

​

Biblical shepherding does not look like this.

​

New Testament elders are warned:

• “Shepherd the flock of God among you… not lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:2–3)

• “Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy.” (2 Corinthians 1:24)

• “The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them… It is not this way among you.” (Matthew 20:25–26)

 

What happened in this meeting more closely resembles:

• a political party purging dissidents who will not affirm the party line, or

• a tight fraternal/social club expelling anyone who questions leadership’s direction or

• a corporate loyalty purge (“align with leadership or leave”)
   

The difference is that those expelled often pay a far higher price: shunning by family members, fractured marriages, and the loss of nearly every social and spiritual relationship they have.

​

This is not church discipline in any New Testament sense. Biblical discipline addresses specific, open sin and seeks repentance and restoration (Matthew 18:15–17).

​

What occurred here was different. There was no charge of public immorality. Instead, there was a blanket demand: publicly affirm that the elders are “called by God” and that “everything" they have been preaching is true - or leave.​

 

That is not shepherding or discipline. It is an expression of dominance and control.

​

​

​Public Loyalty Tests as a Control Mechanism

​

Public loyalty tests like this are a well-documented method of binding people to a leader and his teaching.

 

When you are pressured to raise your hand in a room full of peers, you are not only agreeing in the moment - you are being drawn into a public commitment that can later be used to:

• make you feel you cannot go back on what you “declared before everyone,” and

• remind you, in the future, that you already affirmed the elders and their doctrine “as a member.”

 

The structure is the same logic used with Wellspring membership vows, but now tied to total doctrinal alignment and unquestioning submission to a small group of men.

​

This is not a Christian public witness like water baptism, where a believer confesses Christ before the world. Baptism points away from human authority and toward Christ crucified and risen.

 

A raised-hand oath to elders and to “everything preached” points the other way: it functions as an unbiblical control mechanism, reinforcing social pressure and making later dissent feel like betrayal, not simply a matter of conscience.

​

What happened in that room was not the exercise of loving discipline. It was the use of public pressure to secure allegiance to human leaders and their system.

​

 

Scripture Calls Christians to Test Human Leaders – Not Swear Oaths to Them

​

The New Testament repeatedly calls believers to test teachers and teaching, not to swear unquestioning loyalty to them:

• “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” (1 John 4:1)

• The Bereans were commended because they “examined the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

• Paul warns that even an apostle or an angel must be rejected if they preach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8–9).
   

In the New Testament, we find no instance of the apostle Paul requiring public pledges of allegiance to himself or to his full body of teaching as a condition of remaining in fellowship. Nor is there any example of hesitation to make such a pledge being treated as grounds for immediate removal from the church.

 

Instead, the New Testament rebukes leaders who expel others to consolidate control, as in John’s warning about Diotrephes (3 John 9–10).

 

Paul’s pattern is the opposite:

• He points people back to the gospel itself as the standard (Galatians 1; 1 Corinthians 15:1–4).

• He invites examination of his teaching against Scripture.

• He refuses to place himself as lord over their faith (2 Corinthians 1:24).

 

What happened in this meeting does not reflect apostolic practice. It reflects a system in which loyalty to elders and loyalty to Christ have been quietly fused together.

 

 

Encouragement for Those Who Could Not Raise Their Hand

​

If you were in that room and could not raise your hand - if you could not, in good conscience, affirm that everything the elders have preached is true and that their call is beyond question - you need to hear this:

• Your refusal was not rebellion against Christ.

• It was an act of conscience before God.

 

The apostle Paul taught in his letters:

• “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.” (Romans 14:5)

• “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.” (Romans 14:22)

• “keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.” (1 Timothy 1:19)

 

To stay would have meant surrendering your conscience to a human authority and publicly tying your loyalty to a system you could not honestly affirm. As the apostle Peter said: “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

​

You may feel shame, confusion, or fear. But from a Christian perspective, refusing to swear total allegiance to the doctrine and office of a small group of elders is not faithlessness. It may be the first step toward bringing your loyalty back under Christ alone.

​

If you were told to leave, we feel your pain and your story is not over. You are not crazy for questioning a system that demands this kind of pledge.

​

Being told “you’re no longer members” of a group that demands this kind of oath does not mean you are no longer part of Christ’s church. Membership rolls and raised hands controlled by men are not the Lamb’s Book of Life.​​​​​

 

A Moment of Honest Reflection​

​

If you raised your hand - perhaps out of fear, shock, or because you truly believe the elders and their teaching are beyond question - this is not written to condemn you. But it is written to ask you:

​

• Can you reconcile what happened with the New Testament picture of shepherds who do not “lord it over” the flock (1 Peter 5:2–3)?

• Can you reconcile a demand to affirm that everything your elders have preached is true with Paul’s command to test all things and hold fast to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21)?

• When elders require a public oath that they are called by God and that their doctrine is entirely true, what space remains for their biblical correction, reform, or repentance?
   

In 3 John 9–10, John warns about Diotrephes, “who loves to be first among them” and “puts out of the church” those who will not align with him. That pattern is not commended; it is exposed.

​

When leaders expel a quarter of their congregation in a single moment - not for public immorality, but for hesitating to swear total agreement with them - we must ask whether we are watching shepherds act like Christ, or something closer to Diotrephes, party politics, and the dynamics of a private social club - or a cult.​

 

Scripture calls Christians to test what was demonstrated in the light of the gospel Paul preached and the way Jesus and His apostles spoke about power, conscience, and true shepherding.

​​

​

Broken Membership and Unequal Obligations

​

Church membership at Wellspring is framed as a covenant made before God - solemn, binding, and not to be broken lightly. Members are warned that leaving is spiritually serious, even sinful.

​

Yet in the March 2026 meeting, membership was revoked immediately for those who could not publicly affirm total agreement.

​

This raises a structural question: is membership equally binding on both parties?

​

If members are told their commitment is sacred and enduring, but leadership may dissolve that commitment instantly, the covenant does not function as mutual. It functions as conditional.

​

In a biblical covenant, obligations are reciprocal. Shepherds are not free agents over the flock; they are accountable to serve with patience and care (1 Peter 5:2–3). When permanence applies only to one side, what is described as covenant begins to resemble asymmetrical control.

​

Biblically, covenant language implies mutual obligation and faithful love - not unilateral power. Marriage, for example, is a covenant in which both husband and wife are bound before God and called to sacrificial faithfulness (Ephesians 5:25–33).

 

And the believer’s covenant relationship to Christ is grounded in His steadfast commitment: He does not revoke belonging because His people struggle, question, or grow in understanding; He remains faithful even when they are faithless (2 Timothy 2:13). Believers may pass through seasons of doubt and weakness, but Christ does not reject those who come to Him; He holds fast to His own.

 

If church membership is framed as covenantal, it should reflect something of that mutuality and steadfastness - not a structure in which permanence binds only the member while leadership retains the power to dissolve belonging in a moment.

 

​