• Wellspring Church shuns: This church shuns due to fear, pride, and a distorted view of God, shaped by its inherited Oneness framework, combined with long-standing patterns of control within the leadership.

• Families are Divided: Wellspring claims it "does not practice shunning", but former members - including family - often experience “disfellowshipping” or "cutting off" that results in relational isolation.

• Because pressure feels like choice: Because in a high-control environment, engineered compliance feels voluntary, creating the illusion that shunning is a personal choice rather than an expectation.

 

For a pastoral response to Wellspring’s sermons on shunning, click here.

​

Many have left Wellspring Church over the years for a variety of reasons. Some reject its teaching. Others object to the level of control the church seeks to exercise over members’ lives. Some will not comply with the expectation to shun or reduce contact with family members. Some cannot endure being pressured into restricting their family relationships. Others depart quietly for reasons unknown.

 

Regardless of the cause, those who leave are often labeled by leadership and influential members as “deceived” or “harboring a root of bitterness” who "knew better". This language signals to remaining members that the individual should be avoided, reinforcing the practice of shunning. As a result, families within Wellspring Church are often fractured when loved ones choose to leave.

​

 

Why does Wellspring Church shun?

 

In the view of WellspringQ, the pattern of shunning does not arise from one simple cause, nor does it come entirely from malice. Many dynamics took root within the leadership shaped by Norman James, and these dynamics often appear in communities where people genuinely desire to honor God but have been shaped by a narrow or incomplete view of His character.

 

Much of the shunning seems to grow out a fear of being misled or judged, and a kind of protective pride, believing they must guard what they have been taught. But it is also true that some of the actions and decisions made by the leaders of Wellspring Church, both those in official positions and those with informal influence, both past and present, were not accidental or benign. They carried elements of intentional control, exclusion, and at times even malice, causing lasting harm.

​

A significant part of this pattern flows from a misunderstanding of God’s nature - shaped in part by the Oneness framework they inherited. That framework, combined with Norman James’ unique baptismal formula, places Wellspring Church theologically outside of a scriptural and historic Christian understanding of the Trinity, of baptism, of what it means to be born again and thus a part of God's kingdom. This separates their community from the wider Christian church. Many in the community sense this intuitively, and therefore believe that anyone who leaves Wellspring Church is abandoning God’s kingdom or rejecting the “true” understanding of what it means to be born again.

​

This framework, shaped by Oneness teaching and Norman James’ own distinct doctrines, can make God seem solitary, distant, and primarily demanding, rather than relational, gracious, and triune. But the Triune God is relational within His very being - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally loving, giving, and delighting in one another. Because He is relational within Himself, He is relational toward us.

 

God extends patience, mercy, and compassion even to those who do not yet walk in full understanding or agreement with His perfect will. This includes the dear people at Wellspring Church, whom God loves deeply and continues to pursue with kindness. As God has loved us, so we are called to love one another - with the same patience, mercy, and gracious openness that flows from His own heart.

​

When fear, pride, and a limited view of God’s nature mix with patterns of control, even sincere believers can feel compelled to withdraw rather than draw near. Yet the heart of the Triune God remains open, welcoming, and overflowing with grace - toward all of us.​

 

 

When “Disfellowshipping” Functions as Shunning

​

Wellspring Church avoids the term shunning as the word associates them with groups commonly recognized as cultic or authoritarian. Instead, it uses terms such as “disfellowshipping” or “cutting someone off.” Yet the underlying pattern is substantially the same: normal fellowship is withdrawn, relationships are restricted, and former members are kept at relational distance.

 

The Jehovah’s Witness organization also calls this relational separation “disfellowshipping.” Scientology calls it “disconnection.” Similar practices can be found in certain fundamentalist Mormon groups, some Exclusive Brethren assemblies, and in a number of high-control Oneness Pentecostal movements.

​

Many people have suffered due to the practice of shunning at Wellspring Church. Many families have been torn apart. People who leave Wellspring Church are invariably blamed by the leadership for the separation. Many divorces, supported by the leadership, have occurred as the result of one party leaving the church, while another remained “faithful” to the church. 

 

Grandparents are not allowed to see grandchildren; parents are not allowed to see children. Brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, are left outside the lives of those who still remain inside. It's hard to even communicate how it feels to be cut off by people that you love. People just miss seeing their family - it's difficult to never see your brother or your daughter or your father. It's not supposed to be that way.

Almost every family that continues to attend has been touched, in some way, by the severe practice of shunning. The shunning of former members is encouraged, most often by the use of select verses taken out of context. These verses, that speak of "not associating" with "sinning members" or "factious men" are used to support cutting off people that are not in sin.

​

Most groups that practice relational separation appeal to a small cluster of New Testament passages about church discipline - especially 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Thessalonians 3, and Romans 16. The key difference between traditions is not the verses themselves, but how broadly they are applied and whether they are used to justify long-term withdrawal from people who simply leave the church.

 

Many of those who are shunned are not people living in open sin, but simply individuals who disagree with the practice of shunning itself, or who hold a different view on some point of doctrine or practice. In reality, open sin is rarely the reason someone is shunned. The most common reason is simply that a person has stopped attending Wellspring Church.

 

For this, they have lost their community, their friends, and sometimes even their family. The assumption becomes: ‘They broke their commitment to the church, so we must cut them off.’​ In this way, shunning becomes a tool used by leadership to silence dissent, to remove the influence of those who ask questions, and to test the loyalty of those who remain - including the families of the people being shunned.

​​

 

Why does Wellspring Church claim they do not shun?

 

Wellspring leadership and influential members frequently respond to concerns about shunning by stating that the church “does not believe in shunning.” Members are effectively taught not to use the term, and allegations of shunning are often met with immediate denial and defensiveness. As with many of Norman James’ and Wellspring’s teachings, the claim rests heavily on controlling the definition of the term shunning.

 

In sermons and internal conversations, the term is often associated specifically with the practices of Amish communities (Meidung), where members may avoid certain forms of contact with someone under church discipline. By framing the word this way, Wellspring can claim that it does not "shun" - because Wellspring members are typically permitted to “interact” in public, meaning they can say “hello” or exchange brief, polite conversation, even while meaningful relationship and fellowship are withdrawn. In other words, they do not typically 'turn their back' physically and refuse to speak to a former member they see in public. ​

​

For example, a Wellspring member may “disfellowship” an immediate family member simply for leaving Wellspring. They may no longer eat together. Invitations to weddings, holidays, or family gatherings may be withdrawn. They may refuse to discuss any meaningful spiritual, doctrinal, or church-related issue. Yet if they see their family member at a grocery store or restaurant, they may smile, exchange pleasantries, and ask a few brief questions about work or family.

 

In these rare instances, Wellspring members are often hesitant to divulge details about their own lives, but may still engage in short, polite conversation, almost as if speaking with an old co-worker or distant acquaintance. This is sometimes justified as merely interacting “in the marketplace” - an internal phrase used at Wellspring to permit brief incidental public contact while withholding actual relationship.

 

In this way, Wellspring leadership and influential members claim they do not practice shunning because members are typically permitted to engage in a short polite conversation in public settings if they unexpectedly see a former member.

 

Even in regards to this infrequent, incidental contact, it should be noted that some former members report they are intentionally avoided even in public settings, even by family members. Any public interactions are often the result of a former member approaching an existing Wellspring member, including their own family members. 

 

Former members sometimes refer to this pattern humorously as the “Hi-Bye”: a form of outward politeness that masks a deeper relational cutoff. Importantly, this dynamic is not limited to former friends or acquaintances. In many cases, it extends to immediate and extended family members as well. This includes parents, siblings, adult children and grandparents. 

 

With this understanding in mind, the distinction between shunning and disfellowshipping​ is largely semantic. Former members consistently describe a pattern in which close relationships abruptly change after leaving the church. Social invitations disappear. Meals together stop. Conversations are reduced to brief, surface-level exchanges during chance meetings in public places, while real relationship and fellowship are withheld. 

​

As experienced by many over a period of decades, Wellspring denies practicing shunning while simultaneously teaching and reinforcing behaviors that functionally produce it under different terms.​ Whether it is called “shunning,” “disfellowshipping,” or “withdrawing fellowship,” the defining feature is the same: meaningful relationships are deliberately reduced or ended because a person is no longer part of the church. Changing the terminology does not change the lived experience of those on the receiving end of that separation.​​

 

 

How Wellspring’s Practice Differs from Amish Meidung​

​

Ironically, the practice Wellspring distances itself from - Amish Meidung (often translated “shunning”) - is often more limited in scope than the relational separation described by former Wellspring members. Within Amish communities, Meidung is generally tied to church discipline and is intended to be corrective, encouraging a person to return to fellowship. While social restrictions can be significant, family relationships often continue, and restoration to the community is the stated goal.

​

Another important difference is that Meidung generally applies only to baptized members. Those who have not been baptized are not ordinarily subject to it, and because Amish baptism is typically delayed until a person is old enough to make an adult commitment - often around ages 18 to 21 or into the early twenties - the practice is more limited in scope.

​

By contrast, Wellspring’s practice of “disfellowshipping” former members can function as a far more permanent rupture. People who leave the church - sometimes simply for reasons of conscience, relocation, or disagreement - may find that long-standing relationships effectively end. Communication becomes minimal or disappears altogether, and the distance can persist indefinitely, even within families.

​

In addition, Wellspring often encourages or pressures church membership at a significantly younger age - sometimes between 16 and 18 - while later treating departure from that commitment as spiritually serious enough to justify relational withdrawal.​

​

 

The Bounded Choice presented by Wellspring Church

​​​

Members will often say, "We do not shun" or “No one forces me to shun.”

 

On the surface, that may feel true to them. But one of the characteristics of high-control religious environments is that coercion rarely looks like force. Instead, the doctrine, teaching, and behavior of the community create a powerful blueprint for what is expected.

 

Members learn how they are supposed to act because they hear broad policies from the pulpit, receive personal guidance in private meetings, and observe how influential members behave. Over time, the combination of teaching, social pressure, and fear of spiritual consequences shapes the mind so deeply that compliance feels voluntary, even when it is being powerfully engineered.

​

Members who remain too close to ex-member family are often viewed with suspicion, especially when the former member has expressed criticism or concerns about the church. To reassure themselves that they are not under undue influence, many members tell themselves, “This was my choice.” But in high-control religious settings, the only “choices” available are the ones permitted by the environment.

 

What feels like personal decision-making is often a bounded choice - the illusion of freedom while only one option is actually acceptable. In such a system, the appearance of autonomy masks the reality that alternative responses are discouraged, punished, or simply unthinkable. 

 

Ultimately, shunning is not an expression of faith in the God revealed in Jesus Christ - it is an expression of control. It grows out of power, pride, and a sense of spiritual superiority. Shunning is fueled by fear and by allegiance to a distorted image of God as fundamentally conditional in His dealings with us - loving only as conditions are met, demanding endlessly, and reflecting not the gracious heart of Christ but the imprint of Wellspring’s founder.​​

​​

To this day, Wellspring Church has not publicly acknowledged the long-standing pattern of shunning friends and family members - including believers who follow Jesus Christ. Nor has there been any meaningful admission of the pain caused by members distancing themselves while, at the same time, denying that such shunning ever occurred. The lived experiences and first-hand testimonies of many people, spanning decades, remain unaddressed.

​

Honest recognition of these realities would open a pathway toward truth and restoration - both within the community and in its relationship to the wider Christian church. It is not a matter of debate or negotiation; it requires a willingness to lay down defenses and let the truth speak for itself. Until these realities are faced with clarity, humility, and a spirit willing to yield to what is right, the same patterns will continue unchecked, and others may be harmed in the future.

​​​​​​

​

​​