• Narrative Control: Wellspring continues to manage its image by removing critical online reviews, extending its long-standing pattern of information control.

• Rebrand Without Reform: Wellspring Church (formerly Lakeview Christian Life Church) has rebranded itself to improve public perception, but we believe its beliefs and practices remain unchanged.

• Lack of Accountability: This church has not publicly acknowledged or repented for past abuses or the harm that shunning caused to former members and families.

​

Narrative Control

​

Although the current leadership of Wellspring Church may seek to control its narrative, the voices and painful experiences of those affected by this church must not be lost to time or quiet revision. They are voices worth hearing - a warning cry to others and a reminder of what can happen when control is mistaken for faithfulness.

​

The founder of this church is gone, however the system he created remains. It is the opinion of WellspringQ that the current leadership is carrying forward the core doctrines and corresponding patterns of control established by the founder. In our limited view and experience, the underlying spirit of this system remains fundamentally unmoved. 

​

If anything, that spirit seems even more deeply entrenched, tightening as the group grows smaller rather than being tempered by reflection.​​ Perhaps there will be adjustments to the doctrine that appear conciliatory, yet still preserve the church's distinct identity and maintain control. The practice of shunning may grow more selective and subdued, quieter than before yet still effective for its intended purpose. ​

​

Consistent with its practice of shunning, Wellspring Church has moved to eliminate dissenting voices online by actively removing negative reviews from its Google business profile. In doing so, it silences the experiences of former members while artificially inflating its public rating. What appears to be a positive reputational score is not organic or transparent, but a carefully managed and one-sided marketing effort.

​

Rebrand without Reform

​

Rather than reforming the structure or addressing its underlying issues, this church leadership seems intent on refining and managing it more effectively - like skilled executives optimizing a legacy organization. The methods of control have evolved: quieter, more calculated, less overtly forceful, yet ultimately just as powerful in producing the same outcomes. In some ways, this quieter precision may make the system even more effective than before.​

​

This same instinct for control now reaches outward. Having refined its internal systems, this church has turned its attention to managing how it is seen from the outside. In recent years, effort has been focused on image management - reshaping public perception while maintaining the same core doctrines and behaviors. In the business world, this is called a rebrand and a public relations campaign.

​

In business terms, the negative reputation, public criticism, and loss of trust have been transferred to a former business entity, with responsibility placed on others in the former leadership team. The old entity is then closed, its “bad debt” written off, while a new one is launched with a public relations campaign designed to attract fresh followers.​ ​

​

This rebrand has not addressed a core issue: a sustained contradiction between public claims and lived practice. For decades, Wellspring has denied practicing shunning while maintaining teaching and community structures in ways that reliably produce it. It has identified itself as Trinitarian while teaching a different gospel dependent on Oneness theology.  It has spoken of God's love, while governing through fear - fear of loss, fear of exclusion, and fear of spiritual consequence. Over time, these contradictions were not corrected but preserved, and the cost of naming them has fallen disproportionately on those with the least power.

​

It appears that Wellspring Church has not responded to criticism with repentance or reform, but instead has continued to suppress dissent and protect its control over the narrative. Where public claims and lived practices remain in conflict, those inside and outside the community are left without clear or honest information. Without genuine contrition and meaningful change, we believe Wellspring Church will continue to function in the same way and produce the same harmful outcomes for people in the future.

​

For this reason, a public record is necessary - not to attack, but to bring into the light what has long been obscured, and to protect those who might otherwise enter the community unaware of the theological contradictions and relational consequences that await them.

​

Lack of Accountability

 

In the limited view of WellspringQ, we have not seen either the leadership or the congregation take personal responsibility for their roles, choices, actions, and inactions that resulted in severe harm to many individuals and families. To date, there has been no acknowledgment of the full weight or gravity of that damage. We have not seen any formal, public repentance or admission of wrongdoing from Wellspring Church for abuses and serious harms carried out in the name of God.

​

This lack of accountability is reflected in how the church presents itself publicly. Member biographies and positive reviews frequently rely on ambiguous language, such as attending for “many years” or “a long time”, that suggests external experience or independent evaluation. In reality, many of these individuals were born and raised within Wellspring and have spent their entire lives inside the same closed belief system. Any referenced experience outside the church was typically within a former sister congregation sharing the same doctrines and practices established by founder and self-proclaimed “apostle” Norman H. James.

​

In one of His last recorded promises, Jesus said, “Behold, I make all things new” (Revelation 21:5). Few words in Scripture carry such beauty or audacity, the assurance that time, decay, and even evil itself are not the final word. That promise makes shallow imitations of renewal feel especially hollow. Readers can readily see that when one institutional name is replaced by another, whether “SHCC,” “LCLC,” or “Wellspring”, such cosmetic changes bear little resemblance to the kind of transformation Jesus described.

​

“New” means different. It means what was damaged is restored and what was corrupted is made whole. Yet Wellspring continues to practice shunning, and serious harms associated with its leadership history have not been fully named, addressed, or repaired. By any honest measure, the most basic threshold of true newness has not been crossed.

​

If You Are Considering Shunning

​

Scripture presents church discipline as a narrow, sober, and explicitly restorative practice, never as a license to sever personal relationships indefinitely. Even the strongest biblical texts addressing discipline (such as Matthew 18:15–17) are framed by repeated calls to humility, restraint, and self-examination. Galatians 6:1 places responsibility squarely on those exercising correction, warning that discipline must be carried out “in a spirit of gentleness,” with awareness of one’s own vulnerability to error.

​

For this reason, it is critical to distinguish between biblical discipline and the practice of withdrawing relational contact under spiritual or communal pressure, commonly referred to as shunning. Whatever theological language is used to justify it, the consistent testimony of many former members of churches like Wellspring Church is that once relational separation is enacted, the damage is often permanent. Even when reconciliation is later attempted, the years of silence, exclusion, and loss cannot be recovered. Time does not reset simply because intentions were framed as spiritual.

​

Scripture repeatedly warns that the misuse of spiritual authority can destroy rather than heal. Love, the New Testament insists, “does no harm to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10). Those who exercise spiritual authority are explicitly warned that they will be judged with greater strictness for how they treat others in God’s name (James 3:1). Decisions made under the banner of obedience do not remove moral responsibility; believers remain accountable for the foreseeable harm their actions cause.

​

If you are considering withdrawing from a relationship with someone - especially a family member - who is leaving your church, this decision must not be treated lightly or abstractly. Scripture consistently places a serious moral obligation on how believers treat those closest to them, warning that “if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his own household, he has denied the faith” (First Epistle to Timothy 5:8). These are not theological problems to be managed, but parents, children, siblings, and loved ones. Scripture does not grant moral distance from the consequences of one’s actions simply because those actions are framed as obedience to spiritual authority.

​

Relationships broken in this way are not guaranteed to heal later. Some losses are irreversible. In a life that Scripture itself describes as “a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14), preserving connection where possible is not a compromise of faith. Love, patience, and mercy are not optional virtues but defining marks of Christian faithfulness. Maintaining relationship where possible is not spiritual compromise; it is often the clearest refusal to confuse control with obedience, and the clearest alignment with Christ’s command to love one another (John 13:34–35).

​

​​​