This letter comes in response to your letter to Jon Trott and the leadership of Jesus People USA, dated September 10, 1993. Briefly, you submitted a two-page list of concerns and criticisms expressed by former members of JPUSA, and asked that interested parties in leadership reply to these statements.

This letter constitutes the reply of the board of directors of Jesus People USA, our council. This letter was drafted by Eric Pement and has been reviewed and elaborated on by the JPUSA council and other members of the community, both long-term and short-term members. We are thankful for the opportunity to respond to the questions and charges you have brought forth.

1. Insensitivity re pastoral care

Dr. Enroth, you begin by offering four brief quotes from unnamed sources. This pattern of unattributed quotes continues throughout your letter. We understand, but do not agree with, your argument about the need to eliminate background data for these quotes. Unfortunately, by not giving us any context for these statements (names, approximate dates, circumstances), they are rendered so vague that they cannot be addressed directly at all, but only generally in terms of how they line up with overall JPUSA policy, statements, and customs.

"Elders would sometimes humiliate us publicly and intimidate us privately." "Things were not handled in a discreet manner." "The smallest mistakes were always held over her head." Pastor's admonition to member: "You'll never amount to anything; you will always be a failure."

What would you do if I were to say that these words actually came from current members of your church, given to me under strict confidence? Your pastor(s) would be hard-pressed to deny them and would probably ask for details, like when and with whom these alleged offenses took place; or they may request a personal meeting with their accusers. Then suppose I reply no, that my confidants are fearful of their safety and of potential repercussions. What then?

We hope that at some point you will come to appreciate the impossible situation you have put us in, asking us to account for specific words and claims spoken by nameless people without context or history. It is also a situation which is against the norms of the New Testament model for Christian confrontation and correction within the Church, which requires that estranged parties meet with each other and, if necessary, bring witnesses as well.

It appears to us that four main areas should be addressed in your analysis and criticisms of our community. The first relates to your possible presuppositions and interpretive schema used in analyzing field interviews and conversations with ex-JPUSA members. Undoubtedly your interviews have resulted in a variety of criticisms and concerns about this ministry. We believe you should consider whatever complaints or problems you have heard in light of the fact that JPUSA is a full-time community, not a typical church.

Most Christians do not live with other members of their congregation, so they have much less opportunity for conflict or personal differences with them, and also have less opportunity to see them in their bad moments. The stresses involved in leaving a typical church are surely different than the tensions which would be created in moving away from home and family members one has lived with for many years. And the expression of dissonant opinions in, say, a Sunday school classroom or a church board meeting would certainly have different origins, nature, and consequences than expressions of dissonance between one's roommates, co-workers, and living companions. As you attempt to analyze our community more fully, we believe it would be wise to view the stresses and conflicts which inevitably occur in JPUSA life (as they occur in any communal group) in terms of family dynamics rather than church dynamics.

Second, we observe that the concerns/criticisms listed in your letter of September 10 (to which we now respond) are in large measure flatly contradicted in our published and formal ministry policies. Fundamental documents and basic teachings of Jesus People USA, such as the JPUSA Covenant and Cornerstone magazine, will be cited in opposition to many of the charges you have raised against us. Our pastors have signed their names to the reply you are reading now. We believe that if you intend to show that we are violating our own ministry standards, you will have to produce evidence of a similar nature; i.e., verifiable statements from our leadership or publications endorsing such things as public humiliation, spiritual elitism, double standards, etc.

It is not enough to allege that someone has been manipulated or insulted at JPUSA. You must prove your allegations with valid evidence or documentation which shows that our leadership supports, endorses, or willfully ignores abusive behavior.

Third, we will accept your statement that it would violate your professional ethics if you were to reveal to us specific persons, times, dates, contexts, and other details of the incidents which you now use as illustrations of abusive behavior. As we see it, this ethical dilemma could only arise if you promised to maintain the secrecy of certain interviewees in exchange for their testimony.

We do not deny that this is an acceptable principle (at times) for investigative research. However, information you have obtained by making such pledges is not acceptable when you intend to publish the results of your work or to confront the objects of your investigation. One must either break one's vow of privacy (a course we advise against), or else find different proofs and evidences from sources who may be named publicly. Those of us on the staff of Cornerstone magazine understand that as journalists, we may use an unnamed source to illustrate a point which has already been established by other sources which have been identified. However, it is not permissible journalistically or logically to prove your point from sources who cannot be named, identified, or corroborated.

Dr. Enroth, you have indicted our community with generalizations (i.e., your main categories such as "spiritual elitism") based inductively on fragmentary anecdotes of personal testimony. Logically, before those generalizations can be made, one must first establish that those fragments are historical or factual to begin with. We require more than just your assurance that certain incidents occurred--we also need to know the surrounding context of those incidents. As you well know, context and circumstance are vital to a genuine understanding or explanation of history. If you wish us to account for how, why, and especially whether these events actually transpired as you have described them, you will have to supply enough data so that we can determine whether your reports are being fairly represented.

Fourth, as we touched on earlier, there is also the matter of Christian ethics. It is not only logically incumbent on you to prove your generalizations through verifiable, contextually significant evidence, it is morally and biblically incumbent on you to confront us with real witnesses and specific charges when making these accusations. The Bible speaks of establishing truth "in the mouth of two or three witnesses" (Deut. 17:6, 19:15, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1). Every biblical case of witnesses being brought against a person, even false witnesses, included their personal presence for the trial or examination. The idea of "witnesses" who could not be identified is alien to the Scriptures.

As we have publicly and privately stated many times, we are more than willing to discuss our past history and events, and we welcome the involvement of the Covenant Church in hearing your charges and questions. However, if you wish to confront us or call our church to account with allegations of ministerial unfitness (which in essence is what you are doing), then you should follow the biblical steps in this process. Biblical accusations of wrongdoing are specific (2 Sam. 12:1-13, Gal. 2:11-16); accusations against church elders occur in the presence of witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19-20); and obviously, confrontations with estranged or sinning Christians should be done personally with a view to restoring them to normal functioning as believers, not at a distance with a view to meeting a book deadline.

In light of the foregoing, we have considered not answering the unsubstantiated, anonymous quotations which appear in your letter. And indeed (as we stated on page 2), it is logically impossible to answer them specifically, factually, or contextually. Nonetheless, we want to do everything in our power to show you our sincere desire to respond to your charges and questions in a spirit of Christian openness and honesty, even if it means bending over backwards in an unfair situation.

For this reason, we will begin by addressing the general issue of insensitivity in pastoral care and the vague charge that some person was publicly humiliated and privately intimidated by elders at Jesus People USA. The problem of having no context to view the allegations raised by your respondent in this quotation, and in successive quotes, will become apparent all too often.

Public humiliation is not a policy or feature of JPUSA life, not even "sometimes." We believe the idea or practice of public humiliation is offensive and unscriptural. Our worship meetings and community gatherings are open to visitors and nonmembers, and by any normal definition of the word, people are not treated as objects of public humiliation or scorn. We cannot even guess what your respondent was referring to or thinking of in his (her) use of the word "humiliate."

Likewise, in what way was your respondent "intimidate[d]"? What did the elders do or say that was intimidating? In what way did the person feel threatened, if at all? Nothing is specified.

The claim that a woman had "the smallest mistakes . . . always held over her head" is also unclear. By whom? By how many people? What was the job (bookkeeping, kitchen work, child care)? Is she referring to a personal conflict with another JPUSA member, or does she have reason to blame the ministry as a whole for this action? Did the woman ever try to make amends with the person(s) she felt were unkind to her? Is this nit-picking a trait of most JPUSA members?

Your illustration intends to imply this, but it goes contrary to our teaching, our general practice, and the makeup of our general membership. We make a conscious effort to emphasize the biblical message of grace, and we extend it to many people inside and outside the community. Holding mistakes over a person's head might be typical behavior of groups which emphasize efficiency or results; we do not. Our policy emphasizes people over programs or production.

Moreover, the claim that one of our pastors told a JPUSA member, "You'll never amount to anything; you will always be a failure" is very hard to believe. We know each other too well, and this is highly implausible. Even if the pastor thought this inwardly, it would make absolutely no sense for him to say it to the person. Dr. Enroth, if your respondents maintain that such statements were literally made to them, they have a moral obligation to confront the offender for his actions (Matt. 5:23-24, 18:15-17). It needs to be confronted by both parties and fully resolved. We will be glad to cooperate in seeing this process of confrontation and reconciliation accomplished.

2. Fostering dependency on control-oriented leadership

JPUSA is a church/community which has self-consciously adopted a presbyterian form of church government. This means that major decisions pertaining to our church and ministry are made by our board of pastors, as opposed to being subject to a community vote. We believe that plurality in leadership (having many pastors instead of only one) helps to protect us from unwise decisions which seem to be more likely where there is one-man leadership.

Bear in mind that we began as an independent community, and that we voluntarily placed ourselves under the leadership of the Evangelical Covenant Church--an action which would seem incompatible with the premise that our leadership is geared toward ever-increasing control of JPUSA members. Why would we bother joining the Covenant Church, where we could be subject to exposure, discipline, and correction?

Regarding the claim that "life at Jesus People USA was managed from above, controlled from above," it is true that in terms of administration, major decisions about the community's businesses and future projects are made by the JPUSA council (though no major business decisions are made without including our business leaders, nor are any major outreach changes made without including input from outreach leaders). Other details are subject to a coordinator or a group leader (or in work, a foreman) for periodic chores appointed to everyone--dishes, cleanup, serving senior citizens, laundry rotation, Cornerstone Festival assignments, etc. This does not seem unreasonable for anyone who has agreed to live communally. And by way of comparison, many of us have experienced far less "management" or "control" of our time, dress, and free speech in JPUSA work situations than in the secular work environment.

We do not feel offended when our community is compared to a beehive or an anthill. It is plain to anyone who sets foot in the door that there is constant activity--ministry businesses, cooperative schooling, ride sharing, community gatherings, evening classes, choir practice, group efforts to mail out Cornerstone magazine. Without some kind of management, the community would dissolve into either anarchy or become far less active than we are currently.

Management itself is not bad (mis-management is). And we believe the description you received would be more accurate if stated as "Life at JPUSA is managed from above [er, uh, is it ever "from below"?], constantly modified by circumstance and individual needs." If I sprain my ankle, I'm off dish rotation, senior serving, and dining-room cleanup. If a mother has a doctor's appointment, she switches laundry times with someone else. And precisely because we are a community, we have greater flexibility to accommodate special situations. If one of us has a friend with a two-hour layover at O'Hare Airport, he can take off work to go see him. If a couple needs a weekend alone, they can usually find someone willing to watch the kids while they're gone.

"They [JPUSA leaders] were God's voice to me." Your respondent may have thought this, but appearing as it does without qualifications, it is contrary to our public teachings and our personal beliefs. We believe pastors (not just JPUSA pastors, but pastors anywhere) are commissioned to care for and watch over the flock and convey God's words, values, and principles to their congregations by both example and precept.

We don't believe pastors are mind readers or that they have a direct pipeline to Heaven. We do not believe that we are commissioned to direct people's lives for them, that a person is incapable of hearing God's voice for himself, or that true spiritual direction can come only from JPUSA leadership. We have no interest in creating people who are emotionally or spiritually stunted, dependent on talking to a council member before he can know what God wants him to do.

More importantly, in JPUSA the pastors and council members may be questioned! If someone thinks she has received bad advice, or even if a leader is being rude or ill-mannered, we always say to take it to another person. There is recourse in JPUSA if a person believes something is not right in the way it's being handled. Go to a different pastor or to older, mature Christians if you think one of them is in the wrong. The JPUSA Covenant, signed by all adult members of the community, says clearly and definitively:

Yet always keeping in mind that we each must answer before God for our own actions, any member of JPUSA must never follow directions contrary to God's Word or his or her conscience, no matter who would advocate such teaching or action. "So then, each of us will give an account to God" (Romans 14:12).

One person said, "The counselor asked, 'What do you think?' I wasn't used to hearing that at Jesus People" in counseling. Your respondent may not have heard this phrase used often, but we believe the question, "What do you think?" appears quite frequently in our counseling situations. Be that as it may, we would add that in JPUSA, one of the mainstays of our counseling practice centers on four questions which are presented for the counselees to answer for themselves:

1. What did you do?
2. What does the Bible say about that?
3. What should you have done instead?
4. What will you do now?

Finally, one of your respondents stated, "There are 30-year-old men who are 16 years old emotionally." As a bare proposition, this statement is probably true. The context, however, does not indicate whether this was the respondent's opinion of JPUSA members, or some JPUSA member's opinion of the respondent. For the record, if you were to visit here, you would find that most of the thirty-year-old men here are emotionally mature and act their age.

3. Spiritual elitism

Jesus People USA does not believe that it has a "deeper truth and higher light" than the rest of the body of Christ. We do not believe we are more spiritual, more committed to Christ, or superior to other Christians. We also do not believe our church specifically or communalism generally is God's intention for all or even for most Christians. We do believe it is God's intention for some Christians, and that our church has a valid place in the body of Christ--a place which is not near the top nor supreme. Several of our pastors (Glenn Kaiser, Vic Williams, Neil Taylor, Dawn Herrin) have frequently, from the pulpit on Sunday morning, compared our community to the "toenail" or the "armpit" of the body of Christ. This is hardly the language of spiritual elitism. Many people--community members, casual visitors, and ex-JPUSAs--can be found who will attest to this.

Let us quote again from the JPUSA Covenant, a fundamental expression of our beliefs and practices:

A covenant with JPUSA does not equal salvation, nor does it bring a person into a special "elect within the elect," a higher order of Christians. It is the agreement of an informed individual, the member, and one small expression of the Christian Church, JPUSA, that we see God leading us together in service to Him. . . . [W]e at JPUSA realize that ours is only one kind of expression of biblical Christianity among many in the worldwide body of Christ. Ours is a particular call, and membership in JPUSA is for those who hear that call (pp. 1, 4, emphasis in original).

In fact, Dr. Enroth, you yourself were present at Cornerstone '84 when JPUSA teacher Eric Pement warned of the "one true church" syndrome as one of the marks of cultism, in which a group sees itself as the exclusive community of the redeemed or superior to all other churches (a warning, by the way, which we have given for over 20 years). In view of the fact that JPUSA positively affirms the unity of the body of Christ, and a nonleading role for our community within the Body, and that JPUSA negatively denounces the error of spiritual elitism in its classes and published materials, we do not believe the charges you have raised to the contrary can be credibly sustained.

The claim by one of your respondents that "nobody does better Christian work outside of this ministry" does not represent the views of our leadership. If indeed such a statement came from a JPUSA member, we believe some correction of that person's views or understanding is called for. (Perhaps your respondent would care to mail the reply you now hold in your hands to the person alleged to have said it.)

The assertion by another respondent that "my wife was told by more than one person that we were taking a step down in our service to God" for leaving the ministry, like your other illustrative statements, lacks any context or means of corroboration. If this anecdote is true (i.e., if it was truly said by JPUSA members at all), it would be worthwhile to know whether the persons who said this to the wife were adults, were older community members, were in leadership, and whether they apologized for the statements at a later time.

At the same time, it would also be important to know the context of the person's former work and his projected plans. If the respondent had told his peers that he had lost interest in Christian work or ministry, then it is plausible that some remarks about "stepping down in service to God" could have been made. (Tactless, but plausible.) However, without a context for the remarks offered, we can do little more than offer conjectures.

Something else needs to be said at this juncture. The JPUSA council cannot be held responsible or culpable for every single statement made by a member of JPUSA. In a community the size of ours, made up of close to 500 people, it is unreasonable that you should treat every insensitive, tactless, or wayward opinion as generally representative of the community's beliefs and values. Even if ten people make the same rude comments, this does not automatically imply that JPUSA endorses or fosters such viewpoints. We suspect you would want the same standard applied to your own church and to your colleagues at Westmont College.

In our opinion, you have not yet established what constitutes community endorsement or fostering of a point of view. Though, for better or worse, every community member can in some way be called a "representative" of the community, in point of fact not every statement or action by a community member truly represents the beliefs/actions of the majority or of the ministry's board of directors.

4. Dissent discouraged

Your concern about how JPUSA handles dissenting opinions was illustrated with two brief quotations:

"If you challenge the system, you might be brought into a room with the leaders and brow beaten--a kangaroo court." "As long as you agree with the leadership, you're OK."

• theological dissent, on major or minor doctrines (eternal security, tongues, deliverance, iconography, water baptism, inerrancy, Christian mysticism, etc.)
• re major ministry decisions or policies (e.g., closing down a JPUSA business, joining the Covenant Church, moving to the Chelsea House, courtship standards, etc.)
• re operational or business decisions (criticizing a business leader's decisions, questioning a foreman's right to revamp work crews or ask members to work late, conflict on Cornerstone editorial stance, disagreement with the money office being late in paying a bill)
• re ministry customs or lifestyles (earrings on men are good/bad, listening to secular music should be acceptable/unacceptable, girls should/should not be corrected for wearing short skirts, we should/ should not be doing more street witnessing, etc.)
• overall complaints (the plumbers work too slow, cars and work vehicles should be better maintained, kitchen is too dirty, food is too spicy, neighbor's kids don't get along with my kids, hallways are cluttered, co-workers don't pull their share of the load, etc.)
• nonredemptive criticism, in the sense of backbiting, sniping remarks, griping, or discord, in which there is no attempt to resolve a problem or reconcile with another person, but instead to "cut down" the ministry or someone else to a third party (i.e., slander).

First, we see a biblical mandate for wholesome speech and edifying conversation (Prov. 15:2-4, Rom. 14:19, Eph. 4:29, 5:5, James 3:13-18). Therefore, we believe loving reproof is in order when a person gives way to ugly remarks or what we have called here "nonredemptive criticism." For instance, when two people cut down a third for his appearance, this unkind behavior will be discouraged.

Dissent-as-complaint is another category. Often, a person's complaints have merit, and such remarks about certain community problems can lead to more effective functioning or appearance of our home. Complaints (or dissent) that lead to changes, and which seek solutions or upbuilding of others are never out of order. Complaints that lead to bickering, judgment, or hostility are out of order. Complaints are not squelched merely because they point out flaws in a person or a situation. The context and manner in which they are given is an important consideration.

Dissent or disagreement may occur in the context of JPUSA businesses or home operations. We know that some things run slowly and inefficiently here. In questions about community operation, we will disagree just as easily as our noncommunal counterparts in the business world. Yet because we will go home together after the shop closes for the night, we have a special interest in resolving these disputes promptly and amicably.

There may also be dissent or disagreement with certain standards which shape and define JPUSA as a church/community, both theological and cultural standards. Those would be represented by such things as belief in biblical inerrancy or the validity of contemporary Christian music. Within the bounds of Scripture, we have adopted biblically permissible beliefs or customs (communalism, common purse, presbyterian government, mild charismatic theology, that sort of thing). We don't believe these standards are biblically mandated for all Christians, but we do believe they are biblically permissible.

Anyone entering the community as a member is normally made aware of these standards. They are given in our Meet Our Family brochure, stated in the JPUSA Covenant signed by each member, explained orally by his or her extended family members, or given in the New Members class we hold periodically for those joining the community. We are glad to explain why we have chosen these beliefs and standards instead of others, but if a person has major differences with them, it is not likely that they would want to join our community to begin with.

Each year, JPUSA welcomes a large number of people who are here "indefinitely," meaning they have no idea how long they will stay. We do not insist that someone must agree with us to live here temporarily. For example, a few years ago a Baha'i couple lived in the room next door to Jeff and Tami Tucker for a month without serious jeopardy to the community life. They left on good terms. We have had Catholics and others who disagreed with us in major doctrinal areas live as members of the community for over a year. In community, we truly seek to accept both our members and our guests as they are, while asking them to accept us as we are (at the same time seeking to provoke one another to greater spiritual growth).

And we are evangelical Protestants with a fair number of young Christians in our midst. There is no doubt that someone who is both vocal and opinionated will be able to find someone equally vocal and opinionated to disagree with him (or her). It is neither wise nor typical for our members to try to force our standards and beliefs on people who disagree with us.

How a community treats dissenters, critics, and those who oppose it is probably a good barometer of the spiritual life and emotional maturity of the community. At the same time, Dr. Enroth, you should anticipate and make allowances for differing personality types and stages of growth by individual members of the community.

One of your respondents remarked about someone who might "challenge the system"--this phrase almost sounds heroic, but it says literally nothing about what the person objected to and how his or her "challenge" was expressed or carried out. The charge of being "brow beaten" before a "kangaroo court" of JPUSA leaders appears (as usual) without names, context, or any description of what happened. For the record, we do not have kangaroo courts; we do believe in biblical counseling and confrontation, which include following the steps of Matthew 18:15-18 in cases of personal disputes or unrepented sins. We would hope to be treated ourselves with that same concern for the biblical model.

5. Manipulation of members

The idea of "manipulating" personal lives is offensive to us. We have written against various types of personal manipulation in the pages of Cornerstone magazine (such as in the article "Shepherd without Compassion" in Issue 60, pp. 32-33). The Lausanne Covenant, which we at Jesus People USA accept as a mature, accurate portrayal of evangelical belief (and annually subscribe to as members of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions), states that because mankind is made in the image of God, each person "has an intrinsic dignity because of which he should be respected and served, not exploited" (Article 5). This means that people are not to be used or manipulated, not even for the "good" end of salvation. Bad means--using people as pawns or objects--are immoral to employ even if one is working toward a good end, such as a person's conversion or spiritual growth.

Contrast the idea of "manipulation" with the Bible's injunctions that members of the body of Christ ought to influence one another for good. The Word of God tells us to exhort one another (Heb. 3:13), to provoke one another to love and good works (Heb. 10:24), to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16), comfort and edify one another (1 Thess. 5:11), love one another (John 13:34), tell each other the truth (Eph. 4:25), and confess our faults to and pray for each other (James 5:16). This list could be greatly expanded, but the point is now established: Christians are commanded to influence each other for the good, but not to "use" each other for personal status or gain.

We emphatically reject any insinuation that biblical, godly attempts to influence our brothers and sisters towards righteousness and Christian maturity constitute "manipulation."

In light of this, consider the following quote, allegedly spoken by a JPUSA member: "Because it rubs you the wrong way, God wants you to overcome that. If you hate soup, we will feed you soup until you learn to love eating soup."

Could such a statement have been made at JPUSA? Possibly (maybe by one of the cooks!). But only someone who has never lived here could possibly take its words literally, as you, Dr. Enroth, seem to have done. The misguided impression is that we look for things that aggravate people and then do that very thing in order to make them grow or overcome their dislikes. This would be counterproductive and is not a ministry policy.

For hundreds of years, pastors have preached countless sermons on the biblical principle that God will bring you back through the same lessons until you learn to trust Him and be thankful, even for the little things. Were the apostles manipulating people when they told us to "do all things without murmurings and disputings" (Phil. 2:14)? Clearly not--the New Testament context is gratitude, self-sacrifice, and serving our fellow believers. Patience, forbearance, and long-suffering are described in the New Testament as virtues to be cultivated; they are virtues especially in need of fruition when living in community.

The nature of submission and JPUSA's pastoral leadership was also raised. One of your respondents claims, "They tended to target people who had a problem with submission. . . . They were trying to break me, over and over again. . . . They viewed me as a rebel."

Again, there is no name or context to evaluate this person's claims, so we will try to describe our thoughts on submission which are pertinent to this question. Given that we have a Christian community--not a typical church that meets for a few hours once or twice a week, but a Christian communal group with a common purse and a common home--given the foregoing, would you think that submission and insubordination are of minor importance? Even in employer/employee situations (perhaps at Westmont College), there are legitimate concerns about unauthorized, insubordinate, or rebellious behavior by those representing the employer. We are entitled to such concerns as well, since our fellow workers and business partners are also members of our church and our next-door neighbors. Allow us to quote from the JPUSA Covenant on this very issue, which (again) every member is required to read and sign:

Our "church government" is made up of a council of at least seven elders/pastors, responsible for the oversight and growth of the ministry, as taught by the Apostle Peter: "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as an overseer . . . not greedily for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock" (1 Pet. 5:2-3). The council is also the board of directors for corporate purposes, and on them rests the responsibility to amend the rules and bylaws by which the community operates. Also, numerous deacons, deaconesses, and other older community members bear much of the responsibility in both making decisions and carrying them out.

The leaders submit one to another, to other members of the community, and to God's Word, the Bible. There are no "big wheels" in JPUSA, but rather older community members attempt to imitate Christ in servanthood. "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Phil. 2:3). In turn, each member's commitment is to abide by decisions made by the elders in accordance with biblical principles: "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account" (Heb. 13:17). Yet always keeping in mind that we each must answer before God for our own actions, any member of JPUSA must never follow direction contrary to God's Word or his or her conscience, no matter who would advocate such teaching or action. "So then, each of us will give an account to God" (Rom. 14:12).

Finally, the claim a JPUSA pastor once said to a member of the ministry, "When God tells you to leave, I'll tell you to leave," is given to imply that we think that only our pastors can hear from God. As we've taken pains to show, this is not the case. We suspect your respondent is not remembering this conversation correctly.

6. Double standards

Your questions in this section raise a number of questions, moving from general to specific. The first is the general question of egalitarianism. One of your respondents asserts, "The official line was: 'We are all equal here. We have to get our money from the same office. We all have to work the same jobs.' In reality, it wasn't that clear-cut."

Your respondent apparently never knew the so-called "official line" at JPUSA. There is, to be true, an intentional effort on our part "to prevent a dual standard of living arising between members with substantial assets and those with little or none" (JPUSA Covenant). However, this effort does not mean that dollar for dollar, married couples or single JPUSA members will have the same net amount of personal property. Nor will they have the same opportunities.

Overall, we try to achieve some sort of general equality in financial areas. This means that there is a standard amount that each member, including pastors, receives for birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas, and also a recommended amount which should be raised for vacation expenses; we also show flexibility in adjusting to special needs or circumstances. For example, people who plan a vacation a far distance away naturally require more money than those who plan to vacation locally. On the other hand, someone's initiative in moonlighting, doing "side jobs" or personal handiwork, will alter the appearance of their room or dormitory in certain minor ways without disturbing our sense that there is a general equality of lifestyle among us. Other things which can cause an imbalance of sorts might be gifts from parents, health problems (e.g., asthmatics usually get an air-conditioned room), or items donated to one's ministry job.

Another respondent has stated, "There is definitely royal blood at the top," to illustrate the existence of double standards at JPUSA.

This is a fairly vague accusation, and it's not entirely clear what it is intended to mean. Oh, we gather that it functions as a jab at the Herrin family (Dawn, John, Katherine, Wendi, and their spouses and children), but it doesn't really say anything as such. However, since it comes under your heading of "double standards," it connotes that the Herrin family "at the top" somehow live like kings and queens.

Frankly, we would like to make a rather provocative request of you, Dr. Enroth. We formally invite you to test your assertion at our home. If this accusation were true, it should be evident in some visible, material manner. In other words, you should be able to detect a disproportionately higher amount of personal property among the pastors (or the Herrins, if you like) than among other families of comparable size.

Come here unannounced. Bring your calculator. We'll let you walk through the quarters of any three pastors and take a complete inventory. Calculate the value of the things on the wall, open the dresser drawers, look in the closets. Total it all up. Then, you must agree to go to three other non-elder families of comparable size (in number of children), and we'll ask you to take the same inventory. What do you think you'll find? That elders have bigger TVs, that they average 50% greater personal worth?

If your suspicion about council members being on the receiving end of a double standard is true, then this theory should measure out in dollars and cents. We invite you to take us up on this challenge.

7. Legalism/rigidity

Some former members of JPUSA have claimed that there was a certain legalism at JPUSA. Your respondents have made statements such as, "We are now in a church that emphasizes grace--that has been a breath of fresh air in our lives," and, "We dated according to the rules: one kiss a day; always have a chaperone."

Compared to a typical (noncommunal) evangelical church, we undeniably have more guidelines and community norms. But we ask you to consider that the structure and nature of our fellowship is markedly different than a typical church, and this may necessitate more guidelines and standards for community members.

Consider: we share property in common (cars, buildings), we share common debts (water, lights, phone), we share and rotate household and church work (maintenance, cleaning, group worship), and we share the same living quarters (dormitories, close living quarters). We also live in an urban section of Chicago plagued by alcoholism, drug sales, prostitution, and a mild degree of gang crime.

Dr. Enroth, if the members of your church decided to move out of Santa Barbara and into South Central Los Angeles and live together within a single dwelling, do you think there would be more guidelines and social expectations than there are currently?

We are more aware than you may think of the dangers which face communal living, and of the susceptibility we all have to temptation and moral stumbling. We are also a community under scrutiny, and we have an obligation to live lives above reproach--not just for the sake of the watching secular world but also for the watching Christian world. So for this reason, we don't allow our members to smoke or drink alcoholic beverages. Other churches might consider drinking up to the person's conscience; we find it a stumbling block and an insult to our families who have been wrecked by alcohol. We view the one-kiss-a-day guideline as a protection, along with a host of other guidelines for engaged and unmarried couples, for child discipline, for family chores, for traveling by pairs in the city, and so on.

Yet despite this claim of legalism, we too know what it means to exercise grace. Our rules are guidelines, not steel bars, and we intentionally allow flexibility for personal circumstance. In cases of hardship or special situations, we do make exceptions and adjustments here and there. We know very well about sin, very well about personal need and weaknesses; and as much as it lies within us, we seek to emphasize God's grace and mercy. The grace, the mercy, and the undeserved love of God are a constant theme in our pastors' sermons, in twenty years of Cornerstone articles, and in our day-to-day experience.

If someone who formerly lived here has found a greater love for God and appreciation of His grace, we give thanks! We don't claim to have the final truth (except insofar as God's Word is final for all of us) or to have preachers more "anointed" than anyone else. Many can preach with greater clarity and insight than the pastors here; we don't begrudge or deny God's work outside the JPUSA community. Following the example of the Apostle Paul, we offer thanks for all those who love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, wherever they may be.

8. Painful exit process

The following statement from the JPUSA Covenant represents our official position on those who choose to withdraw from the community for various reasons. There is no desire on our part to make departing members feel alienated, rejected, or out of God's will for leaving.

After a time of searching the Scriptures together and prayer, if the member still feels the community's teaching (based largely on Reformed evangelical theology) is in variance with his or her understanding of God's Word, that particular member will do best to find fellowship with Christians more in agreement with his or her stance. This does not imply judgment on our part, but only the desire to help the member and our community continue on in their respective walks of faith. "Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5b).

Any individual member may end his or her membership and leave the community at any time. We encourage anyone wishing to do so to communicate with older members of the community as to his or her reasons, not so we can "convince" him or her to stay, but so that we can together pray over God's continuing will. As that person's Christian family, and as friends who have lived and learned together, we want to be honest and open even in a time that may be taking us different directions. A person who has come for "rehabilitation" purposes and decides to leave or give up their faith in Jesus Christ often finds it hard to face fellow believers and tell them the truth. Nonetheless, we would rather have their departure be with good wishes and our prayers.

The final decision on membership is committed to the discretion of the council. In the event that a member, in the judgment of the council, acts or speaks in a manner inconsistent with our published statement of faith, or violates the moral and behavioral standards of JPUSA, the council has the option to end the membership of that individual. At that time, we try to direct such a person to a place more appropriate to his or her needs. We remind these individuals that God's plan does not begin and end with JPUSA, but that He has a special place for every Christian.

The same could be said for the anonymous accusation that someone was told, "I would amount to nothing, I would backslide," if he/she left JPUSA. This allegation runs counter to our views as published in the JPUSA Covenant, and the latter clause indicates a presumptiveness that we do not think represents sound judgment. We affirm categorically and for the record that backsliding has nothing to do with leaving JPUSA; it has to do with leaving the Lord and returning to sin, as defined in Holy Scripture (see Jer. 3:21-22).

Another respondent has told you, "Some people are afraid to leave because they are too old to start over or they don't have enough education, no resume, no job skills, and no credit history."

It is odd that you would see this trait as peculiar to JPUSA or indicative of abuse. There are many groups of people to whom this description might apply, not all of them religious: housewives, teenagers, farmhands, etc. If you think about it, this generalization probably could be made about Roman Catholic nuns and foreign missionaries. It does not logically follow that an individual's reluctance to leave his environment or vocation means his environment is abusive.

Our next response is that most people who stay here for an extended length of time normally do acquire job skills which they use after leaving. As an exercise, we compiled a list of sixty ex-JPUSAs, what they learned while they were here, and what occupations they are supporting their families in now, and found that a large majority are supporting themselves with skills acquired while in the ministry. We are confident that this will bear out statistically if you survey the circle of ex-JPUSAs you are in communication with now. In addition, we have always given assistance to anyone leaving the ministry who has requested help in preparing resumes or needed job referrals or letters of recommendation.

Dr. Enroth, if your respondent was not making a casual generalization but knows someone in particular who would truly like to leave JPUSA but is held back due to fear of the future or lack of skills, we would be glad to cooperate in helping that person. We are making a conscious effort to be generous in easing the transition from community life to noncommunal living.

The concept of "pain" in the process for someone who leaves JPUSA or who is asked to leave, especially after a long period of membership, does not reduce to a simple conclusion that "all pain indicates abuse." If we find that a member comes to strongly disagree with something which is long-established or basic to our beliefs and lifestyle, we will very likely--and very gently!--suggest to that member that he or she may be happier in another fellowship. As author Jean Vanier writes,

A community must not fall into the trap of thinking it can be the saviour of all. It must not feel guilty if, after discernment, it says 'no' to someone. But there is a way of saying 'no', with compassion; there is a way of taking time, listening, explaining why the person cannot stay and offering suggestions where he or she could go. It is such a wounding experience to be turned away. We must always remember that (Community and Growth, Paulist Press, 2nd rev. ed., 1989, p. 268).

While in community there were relationships which supported them day in and day out, in prayer, in discipleship, at work and home. With the passage of time, their friends at JPUSA became part of the most crucial turning points of their lives--perhaps at the time of their rededication to Jesus Christ, when they fell in love for the first time, being engaged, were married. Friends from the community were there when their children were born, when their parents passed away, when they were hospitalized, and at their homecoming and birthday parties. Community members lived in the room next door, down the hallway, and on each floor of the building. Loved ones taught their children, cooked their meals, gave them self-esteem on the job, handled the bills from the phone company, etc. Friends at the community dropped them off late for doctor appointments and were the first people they called when the car had a flat tire and no spare. Friends at the community were there when you needed them and there when you wished they would go away. The same people you worked next to all week were the ones you sang with on Sunday morning. They were just always there.

Any time a person leaves such an intense environment, it is inevitable that there will be some pain and difficulty in adjusting to life on the outside. There may be regrets about having left the community, or regrets for having stayed so long. There will almost certainly be a sense of loneliness, of loss, of being put through major changes in adapting to a noncommunal lifestyle. We at JPUSA are aware that the exit process is a common complaint; and of all your complaints, Dr. Enroth, it is one for which we have the greatest empathy. It is our earnest wish to make departures from JPUSA as pleasant and smooth as possible. Perhaps it cannot be painless, simply by the very nature of the transition being made. Perhaps also there are things we could do better, or something we have overlooked in this regard.

It bears notice that we have approached the leaders of the Evangelical Covenant Church and asked them to review the process of departure from JPUSA and offer suggestions which might help ease the transition from community to noncommunity life. We have requested that they draw up a list of specific suggestions of what would be proper behavior on the part of the community, as well as proper behavior on the part of the departing member. For what it's worth, we have observed over the years that often (not always, but often) after a departing member or family have announced their decision to leave, they no longer desire to participate in normal community events--birthday parties, classes, picnics, midweek community gathering, or church on Sunday morning. Everyday inconveniences which are a normal part of community life (such as misplaced car keys) may be taken as offenses, and people sometimes cease making adjustments that they made earlier. Otherwise normal conversations become strained. As this noninvolvement continues for several months while preparations for their departure are continuing, we have seen some families feel separated and isolated from the community as a whole, and their sense of alienation and dissatisfaction with the community and its values becomes increasingly more vocal. Understandably, this creates a palpable strain on their relationship with the ministry and their personal friendships within it.

The amount of discord tends to increase--not "dissent" as you would call it, but nonredemptive castigation of the ministry, its people, and its policies, with no thought of seeking solutions or prayer for the parties under discussion.

If you also see this as an area of controversy, we are open to any input, queries, or concrete suggestions you or various ex-JPUSA members might have on how best to solve this difficulty. Though we do not believe that your specific "illustrations" were on target, we do concede that the overall concern of how the community can ease the process of leaving is one in which we have an interest.

9. Shunning/ostracism

JPUSA categorically does not have a practice of shunning or ostracizing members who are leaving or who have left the community. Statements endorsing or approving of shunning ex-members do not appear in any of our published literature, interviews, or taped materials. Moreover, our ministry's teacher on cults and new religions, Eric Pement, is on record in both video and audio tape rejecting the practices of groups (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) who do shun those who have been expelled from their organizations.

One respondent asserted, "Some of the people wouldn't even say hi or look in our faces. . . . People would go down the back stairs in order to avoid us." A context and identity here would be most helpful. Your respondent does not indicate how she knew that people were avoiding her, and seems to draw a serious conclusion for someone using a back stairwell.

Having additional context about a situation can be helpful. For instance, Katherine Williams heard a similar complaint about people "avoiding them" from one woman who was leaving with her husband and family. Upon asking if any of the people she was referring to had been her close friends or anyone in leadership at the ministry, the woman answered no, the avoidance had come from people in the ministry she had not known very well and who were not in leadership. We do not deny that the exiting process has strained some relationships with departing members, as we noted in the previous section. However, we emphatically deny that ostracism or interpersonal avoidance is something that we endorse, suggest, or at all desire within our community.

Your final respondent stated, "I left feeling hurt and alienated; all those years of hard work and fellowship and suddenly we were treated like dirt." This community has a conscious commitment to love, hospitality, self-sacrifice, compassion, and other biblical virtues, and many exhortations to this in the JPUSA Covenant, the Meet Our Family leaflet, and throughout our literature and preaching. If your respondent still feels this way, we urge him (or her) to contact us privately or the specific persons they believe were guilty of the mistreatment, in the spirit of Matthew 5:23-24 for biblical reconciliation.

This concludes our formal response to your questions.

Once again, we extend to you the offer to meet with us in person to discuss your concerns in further detail. This invitation is open regardless of the status or contents of your manuscript with Zondervan. We heartily believe the Lord's will is for healing, reconciliation, truth telling, and biblical restoration, and we wish to cooperate with you in pursuit of these goals. We encourage you to confront us in a biblical manner and to bring witnesses, moderators, or other parties you deem necessary. We would not be averse if you wanted to contact a third-party mediating agency and ask them to decide on meeting terms and objectives, so that neither of us can be accused of furthering a private agenda or imbalance in our dialogue. This response has been the composite work of the pastoral board of Jesus People USA, with input and suggestions from several other people.

Yours in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The letter was signed by the council members and several others, including Eric Pement and Jon Trott.

First published in Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), Vol. 22, Issue 102/103 (1994), p. 65-72. © 1994 by Cornerstone Communications, Inc.

Electronic version may contain minor changes and corrections from printed version.