PREVIEW: EXPOSING "THE CODE" OF THE CROSSING CHURCH-PART THREE

Please take the time and effort to get the Gospel right: your eternal destination depends on it!

[If you have experienced spiritual abuse at The Crossing or any other church, you can contact Jeremy Rogahn from the Facebook page, Back Door Ministries Support Group. This group meets every Friday evening to help deal with the grief, anger, and wounds that result from spiritual abuse. This is a GREAT group of people and will give you full support and help your healing process regardless of your situation]  

=======================================================================

If you are new to this blog, or you just haven't checked in for awhile, this is what I am up to. Over the next few months I am going to put THE CODE of The Crossing church under a spiritual microscope, and examine each point through the lens of Scripture, answering the question, "what exactly is wrong with THE CODE?"

[If you want to catch up, read part one and part two. Yesterday's post is important too] 

I am doing this because I believe THE CODE is a key component in the conception, nurture, birth, and growth of Eric Dykstra's heretical, abusive, legalistic, non-gospel preaching cult. And to keep the metaphor intact, I am sure other Christians ( including myself), would like to see The Crossing church  as it is right now, be put to death by a lethal injection of God's Word. 


[I want to clarify my comment so it won't be taken out of context. When I am talking about "The Crossing church being put to death by a lethal injection of God's Word" I am using that term metaphorically as it applies to The Crossing church as an abusive and predatory entity. I am in no way advocating the actual execution of Eric Dykstra!]

A CONTRADICTION EXPOSED IN THE CROSSING'S "STATEMENT OF FAITH"

Recently upon reviewing The Crossing's "Statement of Faith", I came upon two points in that statement that contradict one another; this will be addressed in the next two, maybe three posts. If you don't know what a contradiction is, then you may want to review my page titled, "The Law of Non-Contradiction For Dummies! , otherwise you will not understand the enormity of the problem that Eric Dykstra has on his hands.


Here are the two points in their Statement of Faith that are problematic. Point number one declares,  

"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life. (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21) 

I have no problem with point number one; it is the biblical, orthodox position on Scripture. The problem occurs when we compare point number one with point number twelve. 

 "We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ, are responsible to God alone, and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority".

As you will soon discover, these two points together make up one seriously big headache for Eric Dykstra. He has painted himself into a corner that he cannot biblically or logically argue his way out of it. As the old saying goes, "he is stuck between a rock and a hard place".  

EXPOSING THE PROBLEM BIBLICALLY

Before I can expose the problem logically, I must first biblically establish a critical premise in the Law of Non-Contradiction equation.    

A FEW IMPORTANT DETAILS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

Look over the official "Statement of Faith" posted on The Crossing's website in the link above.  Notice that there is supporting Scripture at the end of point number one; Scriptures that are used to support a particular doctrine are called "proof texts"...

[And just to note, proof texts are taken out of context frequently by false teachers . Dykstra does this all the time. That's why it is important to understand the sense in which the biblical author intended his reader's to understand the text.]  

"We believe that the Bible is the verbally and totally inspired Word of God, inerrant in it's original manuscripts. The Bible is our supreme and final authority in faith and life. (2Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21) 

That is a true, biblical statement supported by the proof texts in parenthesis. Now let's take a critical look at point number twelve...

"We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ , are responsible to God alone, and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority."

Take notice that there are no proof texts to support point number twelve. Even though point twelve contains three distinct doctrines, only two of of the doctrines can be supported by proof texts.

"(1)We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ, (2)are responsible to God alone, and that (3) each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority."

The three doctrines cited are all quite different from one another, aren't they? So why is it that three unrelated doctrinal statements are crammed together into point number twelve? 

 Also notice that the last part of point twelve-number three-is located at the very end, after the two subsequent doctrinal points. Again, I have to ask, "why?"

Did you also take note that the entirety of point number twelve is a single sentence,? That's odd because the three doctrines embedded within the sentence are not even related.
 

Are you ready for another interesting observation? Notice that point number nine...

"We believe that all Christians are indwelt by the Holy Spirit when they receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord"

...is not supported by proof texts either. It's interesting because there are proof text's available in the Scriptures that support point number nine also. 

I am curious as to why there are no proof texts to support point number nine, while the authors seemed to be careful to provide proof texts to support points one through thirteen, with the exception of twelve? Did the author or authors simply forget to provide proof texts for points nine and twelve?

Did you also notice how many points are sandwiched between point one and point twelve? I believe there is a reason for this.

At first glance, The Crossing's Statement of Faith looks legitimate, looks biblical, doesn't it? But upon closer inspection, there's something not quite right about it. What's going on here? 
 

IS THIS BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN? 

No one knows for sure except those responsible for researching and assembling The Crossing's "Statement of Faith". But I do have a theory. In light of all the accusations flying around that The Crossing is an abusive cult with a radical, sociopathic leader, let's see if my theory makes any sense.

My theory supports the idea that The Crossing's Statement of Faith is by design, not by accident. I believe that it was carefully constructed to fool people into thinking the entire Statement of Faith is biblically orthodox. But it is not!  

DECEPTION?

A first-time, chronological reading of the document gives the impression that it is entirely orthodox, because it is! Well, except for that one tiny, little, itty-bitty sentence segment stuck at the end of point number twelve...

(3) "...each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority." 

Notice that there are proof texts supporting all points until you get to point nine, everything looks legit. By the time you get to nine, you read it and maybe you notice that there are no proof texts. 

But that doesn't matter now because everything else you have skimmed over appears to be Christian and is supported by proof texts. In fact, even though point number nine lacks proof texts, it is biblical isn't it? So why the fuss?

THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

Did you notice too that point number twelve is a single sentence? Even though the three doctrines embedded in that sentence are unrelated,  I believe it was strung together as a single sentence to give the impression that the entire statement is biblical. After all, even though there are no proof texts, doctrines number one and number two in point twelve are in fact biblical...

"(1)We believe all Christians have direct relations with God through Jesus Christ (biblical), (2) are responsible to God alone (biblical)...

 In fact, point number nine appears very Christian-like, and it doesn't have any proof texts. So why would you ever doubt that a part of point twelve is unbiblical?  Here is the part of point number twelve that doesn't square with point number one...

 "...(3) and that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority."

REALLY?

• Is it O.K. then, if a church's authority is rooted in its pastor only rather than God's Word?  
• Is each church really independent and therefore free to teach and practice whatever they want in the name of Jesus Christ? 
• Does that doctrinal statement mean that all the people in the whole world who are Christians have absolutely no authority to interfere when a pastor of a church is deceptive, heretical, abusive, legalistic, disobedient, blasphemous, and irreverent in the name of Jesus Christ?
•  Is it really true that every church, by necessity "must" be free from interference by any outside authority? Does that mean that even the police cannot interfere? What about the Lord Jesus Christ?
• Where in the Bible exactly, are the proof texts that support these ideas?
• Yes or no: Is Jesus Christ an authority above and beyond the authority of pastors and churches? 
• Does Jesus Christ have supreme authority over all His creation?
• Does Jesus Christ communicate His moral imperatives through His written Word alone, thereby exercising His supreme authority providentially through His true disciples? 
• Are Christians called by Jesus Christ Himself to embody the principle of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and rebuke another church if it is unfaithful to the Word of God?
• If The Crossing truly believes that, "...each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority",  isn't that refusing to submit to  Christ's supreme authority through His written Word and providentially through His true disciples, therefore denying His Lordship?
• Doesn't point number twelve blatantly contradict point number one in The Crossing's Statement Of Faith?

APPLICATION FOR CROSSING ATTENDERS

If you attend The Crossing but you have a hunch that there is something wrong with Eric Dykstra's beliefs and practices, then please get honest with yourself, admit that you are in a bad place, and do something about it. Those questions I just asked are rhetorical.

As I said in my last post, I'll provide some spiritual ammunition, but it's up to you to use whatever spiritual ammunition you can find and use it to confront Dykstra. I am sure there are plenty of people that feel trapped at The Crossing and are not happy with Dykstra. I encourage you to find these other dissenters, ask the Lord for strength and wisdom through His word, and confront Dykstra! 

  

CLIFFHANGER TIME

As much as I would like to biblically address the problem at hand, this post is already running way too long! Therefore tomorrow morning I will pick up where I left off today, supplying the biblical proofs necessary to refute that last part of point twelve, "...each church is independent and must be free from interference by any outside authority". 

Until then, blessings to all, Casey