Ever Heard of Ellerslie?

I had never heard of it until I looked at the website. It scares me. It reminds me of what I went through training for Neighborhood Bible Time. A season of highly intense focus does not a disciple make, much less a hero. This organization seems to be playing to people's desire for holiness in order to ensconce them in self-righteousness. "A School of Honor?" "Hero-training facility?" Do A, B, and C in our special environment with our special program and you will emerge a great Christian!

The Bible is clear that discipleship is not an intensive seminar; it is a lifelong process. It does not proceed primarily through manufactured crises, but through God's Spirit teaching through the Church, the sacraments, and the Scripture, all in the process of everyday life. The roots of this sort of thing - whether camps, NBT, or Ellerslie - is the Finneyan notion that sin is just an obstacle, and if we could just get our legs toned enough, and get a running start with the right amount of determination, we could leap over it or knock it over. Then we'd be "victorious Christians" who don't struggle with that sin anymore. The expectations are inspiring, but the disappointment afterward is crushing.

From their application form here is their code of honor, or behavioral requirements for attendees. Tell me what you see...I'll tell you what I see, CULT principles scattered throughout (bold and italics mine):

Just to wet your whistle here is a response to a FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS inquiry (little doubt these are self-generated questions to provide a platform for explaining certain eccentricities of the "school"):

Interesting and truly frightening for the orphan children.

"Hey little ones, I am going to bring you here and guess what? That's right, you're going to be our little "spiritual experiment. We are going to have you singing with smiles that we teach you are necessary and required, we are going to have you reciting long passages from the Bible and giving your testimony of how grateful you are that Ellerslie saved you from your former life which will justify our "spiritual experiment. Not to mention we will give you the gospel so that it will make us untouchable regarding criticism, aren't you little ones excited?"

Hmmmm...where have we seen (Texas) this (rhymes with Hester)...this before? Anyway moving on.

I have been reading more extensively about Eric Ludy, the President of Ellerslie. I encourage those of you interested in learning about the fundamental personality and mechanical elements of a CULT in its infancy, do some online research and reading about Eric Ludy and Steve Gallagher, the Dean of Ellerslie:

Here are some examples of dangerous philosophical precedents that will be carried over into Ellerslie by Ludy and Gallagher:

Gallagher (controlling, manipulative, narcissistic, self-expiatory)

http://www.purelifeministries.org/index.cfm?pageid=206

"Spiritual leader" is code word for some other human having control over a subordinate. There is no such teaching in the Bible that we need to confess our sins to anyone but God. There is no such thing that a person "need to confess his moral lapse to his spiritual leader". "If we confess our sins to God, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

Some might contend, but doesn't the Bible teach that we are to "confess your sins, one to another". Yes it does but this assumes that means something it does not mean. What it means to "confess your sins, one to another" is to admit to or name the sin to the person against whom it is committed. That means if you have sinned against someone, let's say you have stolen a dollar, you are to return it and confess that you stole it. You admit it to that person and that person only. It refers to direct sins against another person. It does not refer to sins that have no direct person as an object of offense, those are sins against God which generally are most of our sins. Those are to be confessed before God and God alone.

The concept of a "spiritual leader" is a control mechanism and used far beyond Christian cults and religious cults but with cults in general. This spiritual hierarchy is established simply so that there remains a superior spiritual monarchy or oligarchy to control the organism. This is not taught in the Bible anywhere or at any time. Some might attempt to extrapolate certain parts of the Bible, either in the OT or NT and make some analogous or comparative justification, but that is simply a disingenuous and abusive use of God's Word to justify a CULT principle.

A bit diluted but still a rather substantial CULT practice of isolating the disciple from other ideas and exclusively bombarding them with your proprietary doctrine. Notice the slyness of this CULT principle. The best lie is always built upon some truth. Yes, viewing certain forms of entertainment can be sinful for some people at some times but Gallagher takes a sophisticate issue of liberty and morality and obliterates it, reforming it to fit his agenda.

After all, wolves are easy to spot, but a wolf in sheep's clothing...well. And notice the question and response. The question assumed TV is bad already, and without having to justify why TV is verboten he simply states how concerned he is with Christians "immersing" themselves in television. No one asked about immersing themselves in TV but this is his method, to counter with a false portrayal of what watching TV is. To him it is always about being immersed as if self-control or moderation is impossible.

As you read about Gallagher and Ludy you will notice a common theme to which Charlie aptly referred:

So one of the two main elements in an infant CULT is "control mechanics". There must be a philosophy of control and that normally entails the principle of either a "spiritual monarchy" or a "spiritual oligarchy" to whom others must answer and subordinate themselves. But the control mechanisms will fail if there is not one or more willing narcissistic/megalomaniac personalities to fuel it. Hence in looking at Ludy, the second of the two necessary elementsfor a CULT's birth and growth can be observed.

Ludy (narcissistic, megalomaniacal, austere, ascetic,)

Ludy can be observed displaying fantastical self-descriptions that are typical of a narcissist/megalomaniac. Ludy will simultaneously declare his simplicity and humility while announcing the possibility of his literary "Luther" like prowess or endeavors. Here is one quote:

http://www.ericludy.com/ericludy.com/About_Me.html

About his most recent child's birth and name:

http://www.ericludy.com/ericludy.com/Blog/Blog.html

While standing alone these comments might seem to be the reasonably benign pronouncements of a proud father but they don't stand alone, rather they punctuate a series of self-aggrandizing reflections. Instead of saying she was born on father's day, it is apparently important that Ludy characterize the birth as one being where the infant makes the choice to be born, not on her birthday, but on Ludy's "father's day". And as if writing some children's novel he casts the name of Avonlea in some fictionalize super superior context all stemming from the ever royal family of Ludy.

In an interview with Harvest House Publishers Ludy responds (bold mine):

http://harvesthousepublishers.com/books_nonfictioninterview.cfm?ID=73

Even at an early age Ludy, by his own admission, is besought with visions of grandeur as he imagined he might possibly be "God's agent of change on planet earth". It is critical to note that while Ludy pleads with his audience that he had an epiphany and understood he was self-built, it appears quite glaringly that the dismantling of the "old Ludy" and the rebuilding into the "new Ludy" didn't involve a capitulation of his grandiosity.

And so he concludes that as a result of this transformation, one might expect Ludy to speak with words such as "instead of being self-built, it is now not about me but about the Lord". But this is not what Ludy does. Here Ludy once again centers himself with all objects revolving around Eric Ludy. Ludy says, "I want every single person on planet earth to taste and know what I have discovered in the intimate exchange of my life for the life of God". Ludy paints himself as the prototype, the discoverer and the illuminate.

So with Ludy and with Gallagher you have the birth of Ellerslie. Ellerslie is the empire, the body into which they can pour their convoluted philosophy/theology and the maladjusted personalities, fueled individually and corporately by self-loathing, the need to manipulate, asceticism, narcissism and megalomania, thus it will have all the impetus to succeed because there are always empty vessels, suckers on the other end of the phone, lost souls online and vulnerable sheep looking for redemption in all the wrong places who will enlist and ultimately be crushed by such mechanisms.

Someone might wonder why all the fuss. Well first because I see danger here and while there is not a likelihood of readers or members here running to Ellerslie, I guarantee you that you will be hearing much more from Ludy, Gallagher and Ellerslie. They have big plans and it is founded on an age old platform of using God as a tool for self-improvement and turning the Gospel into a call for moral crusading and impressing God with our self-control.

Secondly, it interests me greatly in a personal way. A personal intellectual pursuit of mine, a hobby if you will, is studying rather extensively psychological and sociological dynamics in general and specifically their relationship within the church. I have found in some fundamentalist and evangelical quarters (too often mind you) some CULT principles in operation. So from here one might want to compare just the two main elements of an infant CULT and ask themselves do they see this or anything they might discover undesirable in Ellerslie, arising in the ministries with which they are involved and make pertinent decisions.

Well Anne, you probably won't ever attend the CULT setting they call a school so you probably have no reason to be scare of it but those future victims of the master manipulators, Ludy and Gallagher certainly have a reason to be scared. It is sad that they don't even know what they are heading into. But again this is how CULTS are established. Always a slow process with certain elements based in some grain of truth so that the wolves always have their sheep clothing on.

I have already said why, as you characterized as "picking on these things", I "pick". It was contained in my earlier post, however I will re-post it:

I am not sure who Willard believes the "we" are that really think that Jesus' teachings are irrelevant to their everyday life, I certainly don't so he may be creating a straw man to make an argument. I haven't read the book. No doubt there are some people in churches, believers and non-believers that are indifferent to our Lord's transformation for our lives but I don't think those positive toward loving their neighbor as themselves are opposed to any teaching on the topic and I believe that within the church there are many interested souls on the subject, so no, I don't think it would be shocking at all. In fact, I believe many are hungering for sound exegesis and application. Whether Willard can go further than providing a book on listing all the problems without actually publishing a book containing solutions, namely a book on how to love one's neighbor as one's self, or whether Willard even understands properly the biblical perspective on the doctrine remains to be seen.

As to the mild amount documentation I posted, understand Anne, I simply touched upon what was a rather large volume of the same narcissistic, manipulative and self-elevating language of Ludy and Gallagher so there is much more where that came from. How much do you need? On your behalf I will happily PM you much more or post it but I believe the point is quite clear, at least I find few contending.

But to your question, I find it interesting that of 6, 7 and 8 you would pick #6 as the most reasonable and possibly "biblical". This is just what people like Ludy are experts in, being wolves in sheep's clothing. In fact, #6 is the LEAST biblical and I will explain why:

First, and not even biblically, you have one of the major tenets of CULT principles and that is to strip the new disciple of their previous person and identity. In others words, you are to become nothing and everyone else superior. This is a psychological tool of manipulation. Anyone that has been in the military knows how it works and in some context it is actually appropriate, but NOT in God's body. It removes from you your legitimate standing in a community and creates for you a subordinate role so much so that EVERYONE PRESENT is to be viewed as of greater value than one's self.

But more importantly this is anti-biblical, it is counter to our Lord's teaching. While it appears "spiritual" or noble it is only because it is a familiar human means to achievement in some contexts but with regard to our spiritual enlightenment and advancement in our walk with the Lord, it is based in asceticism which is a doctrine of men and devils as a means toward spirituality or spiritual advancement.

Our Lord taught us to love our neighbor, how? As our selves. So if we take a position that we are less valuable or important than others we are actually NOT obeying our Lord by wrongly viewing ourselves as of lesser value. Because if we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we must preserve value for ourselves at least equal to that of others. This requirement of Ludy's and Gallagher's is actually teaching error and impressing upon students that this is acceptable.

Secondly and more importantly the word "value" is completely out of bounds. Ludy and Gallagher equate submission to authority or deference and service to others as a "value" based context, it is not. They are wrong, hence the very strong red flag and constant egocentric theme of both men. You don't have to view yourself of lesser value to others to either submit to their authority or serve them. That is garbage but worse it is CULT methodology. Teaching members of an organization to devalue themselves is not a principle founded in discipleship, illuminating or helping one grow, rather it is an abusive practice in treating members as objects to serve the organization, its goals and its leadership. Just ask an abusive husband and his abused wife how it works. These are just large scale abusers, only they have couched it with pious words.

Our Lord values us and we too should value ourselves as his children. He never instructs us to submit or serve and base it in the value of others or the devaluation of ourselves. In fact the very opposite is taught and that principle is not based in value but in LOVE.

We are to love ourselves and others mutually and serve one another in love. This is the edict and directive of our Lord. While we do have contexts of authority, what is being prescribed here are not contexts such as with police, leaders or serving our brothers and sisters with mutual respect and value through love.

Anne, these people are exactly what Paul spoke of when he said to Timothy:

These are wolves in sheep's clothing and are experts at attracting vulnerable sheep.

i like talking to you here on SI, so this is not personal. not that you are making it so, I'm just clarifying

of all people i've met on SI, YOU are one of the few that would actually read thru this book, and you will be intrigued by it. please read it! he has a brain like yours.

i don't know. could we get a clarification from Ludy? you are typing in a lot between the lines here, meanings that are really not clear from what is actually stated here.

actually, i would like to try and write Ludy himself and ask him to clarify his statement. that would be interesting. it may take a week or two, or never happen if he doesn't answer, but i'l post it here if the dialogue takes place.

I was only vaguely familiar with this group but interestingly my few sources that encountered the group brought to my attention in past conversations, rather quickly, the issue of cult principles being used. Obviously the common objection to anyone discussing the merits of NBT and stating objections would be that because they are evangelistic they are immune from criticism. In other words, "How dare the work of God be criticized?". And of course my retort as the retort of many would be, "The work of God doesn't involve manipulating people".

These methods and this paradigm seem too often happily adopted in fundamentalist and Evangelical quarters.

An interesting quote from their website:

http://www.nbtime.org/evangelist.html

Your statement about the "holiness effect" or lack thereof reminds me of just how extensive this erring view is even among churches. It is as if the transformational work of the Spirit of God through the Word of God simply is insufficient in its process, being too slow and too weak. I do understand that even our Lord isolated himself on a few occasions but that was not from being disallowed by another but by his choice to be without distraction (and other reasons his divine mind, which I do not know and are not revealed in Scripture, determined). It was not to isolate himself from normal relationships as if he could accelerate spiritual growth or spur some revival and such relationships were obstacles in the way of God's work.

All disciples need to be taught dilberation in their walk and neither Ellerslie or NBT or any group using their model recognize its necessity, encourage it or have room for it. I will still assert Ellerslie is a Christian cult in its infancy. I accept others who, at this time, would not come to this conclusion, but I am comfortable stating so.

I'm about a month late noticing this thread, but fwiw, saw the video and I don't see what the big deal is. The emphasis on honor and--yes, gender roles--resonates deeply with me.
Now what they actually do I have no idea, but it's interesting to me that folks who also have no idea are so quick to start saying "cult." I wonder what's there that inspires that?
(I also have no idea what they believe beyond "the Bible" honor, and truth, but these are excellent starting points for a school of any sort)

Alex, you're too uptight, my friend. I may be guilty of skimming too much of the thread, but if you'd like to win me over, how about if you just recap your case for me and answer the question? The question being What am I missing? And also the quasi-question I wonder what inspires that. There's just so much verbiage up there in the thread I really can't make heads or tales of it--and I don't mean that it any insulting way, it's just cranial thickness on my part (or ADHD maybe). So instruct me, I'm listening. (But it's late in the day and I have a headache, so maybe use small words and short sentences?)

And this is geared toward your winning me over?

I believe I have dutifully researched and presented my case. I have observed all participants, besides your anomalous inability to "make heads or tells of it", able to follow and respond so I am a bit surprised that one as gifted as yourself in writing and publishing is finding this rather limited discussion so difficult but I accept your words without any contention.

However, with all brotherly respect, unless a fair attempt by you is made in earnest to read my research and arguments, I do not see as a fair demand, that I restate them by truncating some of their essential elements. I will ask you, kindly and with respect, to please go beyond "skimming" and read the presentation and arguments and if you find certain points objectionable, present which ones in your rebuttal.

I understand on some days none of us have our best capacity to read all threads and the demands of our body with headaches and other things may serve as a distraction so maybe on another day or period when you feel less "cranial thickness" you will review my presentation that I believe should fairly be digested and then any specific points of incompleteness, obscurity or simple erring you believe exists be pointed out and challenged or solicitation be made for clarity or more support on my part.

Alex

Thanks, Susan.
Alex, it doesn't look like it's going to be possible for you and I to discuss the subject.

I'd be interested in hearing what any of the others who alluded to a cultishness in this group can tell me to help me see the connection.
It's interesting to me that Charlie would find monasticness all that objectionable. I mean, the monks did it first and it wasn't cultlike then was it?

I thought it might be everything seeming a little too perfect and grandiose... which is maybe what Susan is saying about the marketing and "hero" thing. But these are, at worst, criticisms of the video production. I guess I'd rather see them as folks bent on pursuing excellence and aiming to be a cut above all the trivial and shoddy stuff that seems to dominate our culture.
But like I said before, I don't know anything about them either. But in the absence of info, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: might help to add that I know of at least three other groups that have the same look feel and sound (everything sparkling perfect, and "save the world" lofty, etc.) that are not cults.

do Baptists (sorry, I'm a Spiritual Kinshiper)and Protestants look on monasteries with approval?

It's hard to believe that no one saw the error in Alex's posts for nearly a month. Alex (not sure you'll ever even read this), let me first state that you were unnecessarily rude in your posts with sarcastic humor. I'll say that this isn't really an important point, but my judging of your character is pretty much all I saw in your arguments against Eric Ludy and Steve Gallagher. I saw very little of what was important and that's judgment of their teachings. Instead, I saw shallow misinterpretations of their words. I can say through simply reading one of Eric Ludy's books that what you've said about him was mostly you misunderstanding his point and you were way off from what he actually believes.

The Ellerslie statement of faith is here: http://ellerslie.com/StatementOfBelief.html
I found no essential errors in their beliefs, but true, sound, Biblical beliefs. Therefore, I will not sit here and proclaim that they are not Christians or even close to a CULT (Capitalizing it like you did). Simply, you have judged their character and the way they speak, which I must say is extremely shallow and has no strength. I read through everything you wrote and basically, I thought it was garbage. If you're going to speak against group of believers, talk against their teachings, which as I said before are quite Biblical.

I find it absolutely horrible that you make a hobby out of judging personality and character instead of teaching. You do no one any benefit by doing this. In fact, while you may be correct in some areas, this "hobby" of yours could lead readers to dividing from sound, Biblical brothers and sisters in Christ and I believe this sort of stuff has lead to many divisions in the Church. Matt 7:1 I think highly applies to this situation, and I don't use that verse lightly like it is often used. John 7:24 says "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." Stop judging on such shallow things. You do not even know these teachers. Simply read one book and you'll realize that most of what you've said is bogus.

Know that Ellerslie is somewhat of a college. Upon completion of their course, students receive a 2-year ministerial degree (unaccredited). Is the idea of a school creating rules for students to obey an attribute of a CULT or simply a very common thing for a school to do? And to add Biblical principles to their list of rules is all the better. I see no error in this and it will train the students to honor authority during their time in this school, not allowing "CULT leaders" to rule over their lives.

As for tv, I don't think Steve is saying to isolate ourselves from all other ideas. In fact, I don't see where you even got that from. We all know that television in today's world is filled with all sorts of abominable things. There are fine things to watch on tv, but when we immerse ourselves into it, it can be dangerous in that it can cause us to be lead towards worldliness. This can be said for just about everything outside of Christ. When we immerse ourselves into anything in this world, we can so easily enter into a state where we're drawing our joy, our peace, and our strength from those things instead of Christ and those seemingly harmless things become sinful idols in our lives.
For what Steve said about a spiritual leader, I do not think that he is talking in the sense that you are thinking. When we are struggling in a sin, it is good to seek a "spiritual leader" such as a pastor or other elder in the Church to help you and be accountable to. I do not think that he is speaking of someone to be a medium between us and God. Christ is our medium and I'm quite sure that Steve Gallagher agrees with that statement.

You have definitely judged Eric Ludy on such a shallow basis that I can almost say that it's stupid. Through reading one of his books, it can be seen that when he speaks, he throws in a lot of adjectives and image words. He speaks with a high level of vocabulary to express what he's saying. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's simply an author's unique voice and everyone has their own voice. So when he's speaking of his child and speaking highly of his name, I don't think that he's expressing pride and arrogance. It's a harmless family sort of pride and it seems to me that that whole blog post of his is really just bringing beauty to his baby girl. After reading it and reading your response, I can clearly see that you twisted it and made it into something it was not.
As for him talking about himself, he starts off by talking about his pride and selfishness. But then he goes on to point out that he realized he was wrong and that now Christ lives in him. This must be outwardly expressed in all of our lives. Through regeneration at the moment of salvation, our lives are changed. We're given new hearts and new minds and we are filled with eternal life. Is it sin to say that we desire for the whole world to know this? That Christ and His good news truly changes the fabric of a man? No it isn't. To say that I have been changed by God and that now I want the world to know this and for men to come to salvation is not to make myself a prototype and bring glory to myself, but to bring glory to God and be a living example or the power of the Gospel. Again, you misinterpreted his words.

You must know that Eric Ludy is focused on bringing Christianity back to its historic roots. His desire is to move away from this rise of postmodern thinking that truth is like a spring instead of a rock and go back to a Christianity that stands on the unchangeable word of God. His influences are historic men of God such as Luther, Tozer, and C.T. Studd. He believes in reformed theology and teaches that the manly passion and zeal for God needs to be brought back in the Church and we need to begin storming the gates of hell for the lost. He's against repainting a new Christianity, but instead bringing it back to the way it was in the 1st century. This is far from CULT thinking and I'm afraid that you are wrong Alex. Read a book of his and you will see that you have done more judging of his Type A personality than his actual teachings. In that, none of your arguments have proved to stand as I read them. I simply saw shallow arguments against flimsy topics that you clearly had little knowledge about. I hope that your words do not bring division in the Church.

PStephens... you have some valid points regarding Alex's tone, etc.
But you come close to similar things your own post.... for example...

I absolutely agree with you that it's best to focus on the teachings when it comes to Ellerslie and other groups. It would probably also be better to focus on what Alex is "teaching" when answering him. (Which I attempted to do, but couldn't get clear exactly what he was asserting... this is one reason why shorter posts are usually better)

For anyone willing to read my somewhat "comprehensive" post(s) that deal with the issues and can identify a specific question(s) or objection(s) and present them in a way that it is clear a response is being sought from me and what kind of response (more evidence, clarity of meaning of certain words and so on, reasons for interpreting my findings as I do or more cause within my own mind) I will be happy to respond.

In the spirit of peace I will shy away from defending myself from personal comments by others on this thread.

Thanks for your recognition of the validity of addressing inaccuracies expressed by others about one's self.

Aaron,

Your summation is inaccurate and would not fairly represent my argument. As to the qualifiers, I would accept that at some points, "appears to" "seems to" and "like" may actually be better fits.

And maybe...Alex has ...and possibly more than one.

Great to see the questions and the speculations on what Ellerslie is. Susan, Ellerslie is a model school worth taking time to examine. When I say examine, I dont mean only the means of electronic world. I feel like some in the discussion are like the old midieval days where the philosophers asked how many teeth are in the horse's mouth without looking first to count. Well, I have visited Ellerslie and second, have sent my two oldest sons (at their choosing!). It could not have been a better choice for many reasons. They have learned life lessons very well and have fallen in love with Scripture in a new and fresh way. My background? Master of Divinity and Bible College degree and have been in administration and have taught in Christan Colleges and Graduate schools. (big deal to most people, but hopefully it at least says I have done my homework). Eric Ludy is the real deal and like anyone in leadership he will get accused without good foundation. As far as the monestary or monastic life, it is not that way. I have been to a trapist monestary for a real monastic experience and Ellerslie is not even close. An old fashioned method of debunking something is to create a strawman like some have done in this forum and then destroy it. Well, back to reality. Ellerslie has taught my two oldest Joshua and Aaron some great spiritual disciplines. we started them at home and Ellerslie comes along side us and does a good job at pointing them to great things. Yes, in these past weeks they have had one day where they prayed for 21 hours as a student body with one meal interruption. Well, it was not planned by any person, it was truly Spirit led and inspired. People were changed, delivered, and set free from some difficult areas and the fruit continues. Love the discussion Alex, and Charlie and the others. Take the pot shots but there is nothing like reality to measure your statements. I testify that it is not a cult. Far from it. It is building character that we could only desire some church people would posess. I highly recommend the Ellerslie experience to every parent. Parents who visit are not disappointed. All leave asking how they can get others to come visit. The girls are honored by the men in ways they never have experienced and the men are taught to honor the girls in ways they will never forget. Very positive. here is my risk. my email is brucekinabrew@hotmail.com if you want more one on one discussion. I will discuss here as well. Take your best shot. Make it informed and you will do better.

Well when horses write books, give interviews and make available hours upon hours taped lessons about their thoughts regarding their magnificent teeth (and any and all other ideas) which include documentation of views about themselves that reflect a strain of megalomania in delusions of grandeur with which indeed that horse is comfortable publishing, well I believe that I’ve seen quite a bit of the horse by way of his own explanation to determine that there are some red flags.

But even at this moment, when Eric Ludy makes imprudent statements such as Taste of Ellerslie Training:

I have absolutely no qualms about pointing to this as one of the many obvious examples of imbalance in his teaching. The gospel has nothing to do with gender value regarding its potency. It's potency is far beyond masculinity, its power is divine. And any discomfort that is caused has nothing to do with introducing anything manly, it has to do with the work of the divine, both in word and in person. For the sake of everything sound, statements like these come from an apprentice, not a teacher. Unfortunately this kind of naivety is far too often present in Ludy's communications.

Feel free to address all of the points I have already documented such as his delusions of grandeur as a little Martin Luther, an agent of change for the planet as a teenager and now as an adult with his imagined role as the illuminate for his followers. The quotes are all documented. Feel free to explain these away. Coincidentally, while Eric is found to have held grandiose view as a kid:
http://harvesthousepublishers.com/books_nonfictioninterview.cfm?ID=73

His wife, Leslie writes about herself at age 7:
http://www.ellerslie.com/Why_Ellerslie.html

Rather interesting and coincidental they shared almost identical views of themselves growing up.

Your account is written as one with first hand knowledge and not as a visitor seeing this reference is to “these past weeks”. Now it might be that your sons told you about this but then that would make it second hand knowledge, no better than anyone else reading anyone else’s account.

No one said it was a cult. I do believe, as documented earlier and as stated earlier in my investigation:

But I do not recall specifically saying, “it is a cult”. As to the comments not being measured, in fact they are thoroughly documented. But here I can only speak for myself.

It has been informed, apparently you are choosing to ignore all of the points and their documentation. As to the experience of being respected, people get that in many places, that does not validate an organization or the rest of its practices and it certainly doesn’t indicate a single thing about doctrinal orthodoxy.

But I will tell you, Bruce, I am not unfamiliar with people protesting the existence of any rebuttal or argument that contains the slightest objection to something they hold dear. I encounter it often. Instead of addressing the merits of someone's objections they posture with complaints about the very existence of objections and then questions motives or simply become indiscriminate and state the objections have no merit when they even willing to even deal with the objections and point out any place they believe they are invalid. Believe me you aren't the first, I encounter this regularly.

I am interested, though, in your responses to Aaron's questions.

Aaron, as was discussed before and a second time and now a third, until you are willing to take the time to read the comprehensive posts that provide links for all of my sources (including the most recent one) you are only going to remain frustrated in the matter. I have posted links and have as well cut and pasted some material to make it readily available in those arguments from months ago.

However, let's say you simply want to excuse yourself from having to read my arguments for whatever reason. Repeatedly the link to Ellerslie has been posted, never minding the link to the sources I used so it is not "me" that has so much information about Ellerslie, it is right there at Ellerslie for you to discover yourself.

There is more further down the page.... an expanded doctrinal statement.
Here's the expansion on "the gospel."

Pretty sound, though they seem to have a fondness for novel language, which can get you into trouble. The church has developed certain patterns in articulating the faith for a reason: in answering the various attacks on the faith over the millennia.

I suppose the "is it a cult?" question is ultimately not helpful because it all comes down to your idea of what a cult is. Might be better to be more precise. What is doctrinally good, doctrinally cause for concern? What is good or questionable in methodology and emphasis? But as far as terminology and labeling goes, does the group deserve to be lumped in with the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism and the Moonies? I think not!

Aaron, I think you're defining the word "cult" in a doctrinal sense as a heterodox spin-off from Christianity. Alex is using a sociological definition which does not discriminate by doctrine but by organization and attitude. So, I think you've missed the point of what he's saying. It's a place organized by a charismatic leader that draws in impressionable young people by promising them a fast-track to serving Jesus. While there, they are subjected to a tightly-regimented lifestyle including high-intensity spiritual exercises. They are isolated from external contact and told that submission to authority is an integral part of their training. I think that a non-Christian (neutral) sociologist taking a look at Ellerslie would raise a few eyebrows. The theologian in me sees red flags everywhere. The "Why Ellerslie" page reeks of gnosticism (used loosely).

Hi, my name is Josh, and I'm an Ellerslie Student right now. I'm sitting on campus as I'm writing this to you. On http://ellersliestudents.com/Students_Summer_2010.html i'm the 13th one down.

You all are arguing about something you know nothing about. Why not ask someone who actually knows?

Here are a few prerequisites:
1. Your answer must not attack a person, rather, let it attack a theology.
2. When you attack something, provide Bible verses to support your point of view. My mind is very much open from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21

So, ask away! Heres your chance to ask someone who is actually going through the training right now.

Susan -

1. You and I must define argument differently. There have been heated discussions above. I define that as an argument rather than a simple discussion. I'm not going to discuss anymore on this point, just know that I have a different definition of argument than you.

2. I'm not going to address those. If anyone wants me to address those they will bring them up with the appropriate Bible verse that they contradict. Like I said, I'm not going to discuss things that aren't backed by the Bible. If you wish to bring them up with the appropriate BIble verse they contradict, go right ahead!

3. I'm preventing it. Thats the only reason I brought it up.

4. I disagree. Is there anyone in this thread who has personally spent 10 weeks with Eric Ludy and his staff? If not, then they must remain silent and let those who have spent that amount of time with them (i.e. me) speak with authority. . This is the first class of Ellerslie. No one on this thread knows more than I do about this first class at Ellerslie, and Ellerslie in general. Anyone who does, please speak. Otherwise, I will assume that I have authority on this matter.

Lets get down to the questions! I'm eager to see how Ellerslie differs from the Bible in any way.

First, I didn't say "Nothing" in that paragraph you quoted, so i'm confused why you put it in quotation marks. I said no one on this thread knows more than I do about Ellerslie. Did I say you knew nothing about it?

Do you care to expand on how long you have personally known Eric Ludy? Do you think that because you have listened to 20 sermons by him that you "know" him? We can all make statements about Barak Obama and his political beliefs, but do you think someone who is very close to him has more authority on the subject than someone who hardly knows him from the outside?

1. I cant seem to find any part negating the fact that we are saved by grace alone... care to point out a specific spot? If we just have to have faith to be saved, you must believe that once we have faith we are saved and sealed for time and eternity, right? I'm not saying we have to work for our salvation. But, read James 2:15-26. "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" Heres a story for you that you will have heard in Eric's messages.

--

You are in prison. You have this sign that says "condemned to hell" above your cell. You are in Satan's dungeon. Satan comes every day to beat you to a bloody pulp and you accept it because you feel condemned, but this day is different, this man steps in front of Satan's beatings for today and dies in your place. Something supernatural happens. Your prison cell is unlocked, all you have to do is push it open. If you end up pushing it open, you walk outside and meet a messenger from the King in a golden chariot. You have a summons from the King to enter His throne room. The King wants you to go back to the dungeon you came from and tell people that all they have to do to be free is push their cell open. You, out of your exceeding gratitude for your life being spared, happily oblige. You know that the King has every right to do whatever He wants to you, after all, you were scum sitting in a prison cell. He owns you, because His son took the beating for you. He bought you with no small price.

--

It is by our exceeding gratitude to our Heavenly Father that we consider it a privilege to do works. Its not by works alone that saves us, nor is it by faith alone. Can you show me the Bible verse that you directly quoted by saying "by grace through faith alone"? Cause I cant find one.

2. I don't know why Eric didn't put it in the longer one. Why not ask him?

If the question verse format is not going to work for you then why argue on opinion? Why are you arguing things that you dont have solid grounding in the Bible to explain?

Aaron, do you mind clarifying which translation you use so I can better understand where you come from? I use KJV and ESV.

I have never been a member of the United States Marine Corps. But, I have known enough Marines and former Marines and have read enough information about the Corps to carry on an intelligent conversation about the organization. The same can be said about various contributors to this thread. Many here have taken the time to read and evaluate the public statements made by this organization and its leadership. They may have misinterpreted or misperceived some points. That's where someone who has personal knowledge of the organization and its leadership is helpful. Otherwise, to say unless you go through the 10 weeks of training you have no standing to discuss the organization, is the sam as saying unless you've gone through Marine Boot Camp, you have no standing to discuss the Corps.

I'll answer for Aaron on where he got that ridiculous quote. Ephesians 2:8. It is also one of the major distinguishing characteristics of any true Protestant church which finds it's roots in Martin Luther's Sola Fide.

If I knew a lot about the Marines, yes, they would consider me an authority. And they would consider Rob an authority, as well, if he knew a lot. In the same way as certain people are authorities on different people throughout history.

Seriously! Do you seriously not believe in sola fide? (by grace through faith alone) I'll admit that the exact word 'alone' is not in Ephesians 2:8, but what does it mean when it says it is a gift and that it is not through works? But, if you don't like that, just so you know, this has been and will continue to be a founding block of Christianity. You might want to actually talk to Eric and ask him if he thinks we are saved by grace through faith alone.

And if you get hung up because it says, 'you have been saved' in between 'grace' and 'through', let me reword it from the original languages for you, 'for you have been saved by grace through faith...'

And just to be clear, are you saying this is what you believe or what Eric and Ellerslie teaches?

So, what does it mean when it says it is a gift not of works? Does Paul teach that we can receive this grace through any other means than through faith? (and i'm not asking what Eric believes, but what you believe Paul said)

Josh, just need a straight answer. Sometimes you're saying there are only two possibilities: either saved by faith or saved by works. But when we say "faith alone" you recoil. So if it is not faith + works and is not faith alone... is faith plus something else?

As for Ephesians 2:8-9, "alone" is a classic case of necessary inference. Since it says "by grace are you saved through faith" and later says "not of works" the necessary inference is "faith alone" (unless you've got a third thing to add to faith that is neither faith nor works).
I never said the word "alone" was in the verse. I indicated that the verse taught by grace through faith alone, which it does... along with half a dozen others I listed later.

So do you and Ellerslie believe in salvation by grace through faith alone or not?

Also, I'd like to hear a direct answer to whether it is possible for Eric Ludy to make errors in interpreting Scripture.

My own view about Ellerslie: (I read the doctrinal statement, looked the site over, checked out the student handbook, etc)

• It's a "deeper life" kind of movement (search around the site and you will actually see the phrase "deeper life")
• The doctrinal statement does not read like a typical doctrinal statement that one is used to. But (without doing deep analysis) looks evangelical
• I think Alex's comments about it being a cult are completely off the mark. The Christology is orthodox.
• The student handbook is pretty reasonable. Nothing that weird or restrictive there
• Reminds me of when (upon college graduation back in '71) went off to Campus Crusade for Christ HQ (then at Arrowhead Springs CA) for the summer. We had Bible training, devotions, beach evangelism, living in dorm rooms, etc.

To JoshK. Have a profitable time there!

Your quote is clearly accurate. I observed the some cult principles but stopped short of calling it a cult. No harm no foul. Thanks.

Alex, I'm a little late to the party, but I think that this comment (in bold - It's #3) was too much. Would you say the same thing of the CIT program at the Wilds, or RA's at any Christian College/University who are fortunate enough to graduate with an MA in exchange for working for that institution? I was fortunate to have these privileges (for which I thank God), but my blessings came at another applicant's expense. Some of those applicants would probably have learned and gotten more from it than I did, but I was fortunate enough to be chosen for both of those opportunities.

And who teaches the teachers? Don't those who want to be Pastors typically go through special, intensive training (either in a mentoring relationship or through some kind of schooling, either undergrad or graduate?) Americans are generally fortunate enough that they can work hard to afford the kinds of privileges that the United States can offer. If someone's parents decide that this is going to be good for their kids, and they can afford it, then what's the big deal? Or do you really want to start telling people how to raise their kids and how to train their pastors?

Daniel - This gets into different theologies (which by the way we are discouraged to talk about during Ellerslie, specifically because this is a time to cultivate our own theology according to the Bible, and not base it on what another student says.) that many have discussed over the ages. To answer your question directly, Paul does not talk about any other way to have salvation except through grace. But there is so much more to this than meets the eye. Its not just a saving by grace and you keep on sinning (Romans 6:1-2) Its a continual purification process. Once one is saved they begin to drink spiritual milk (1 Corinthians 3) so, once one is saved, that person is expected to progress in his/her faith. If not, I dont believe they are saved. You asked what I believed, not what Ellerslie believed, so theres my opinion. John 14:5-17.

JohnBrian - care to define cult using the Bible? I noticed you had not one Bible verse in your post. I asked for Bible verses. Ask questions using the Bible as your backup, not what you think of me.

Aaron - see my above answer for Daniel. To your other question, yes it is possible for Eric to have a bad interpretation of scripture. Since he hasn't thus far, I have no reason to doubt his interpretations in the future, though I still test them using the Bible. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-21.

Alex - Thanks. Much love to you too, man. Use a Bible verse next time. Then you will have authority behind your posts rather than just sound like a 1 Corinthians 13:1b "a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." I know thats out of context and a bad use of the verse, so disregard that as a use of my theology.

Jim - Thanks so much! your encouragement (and defense) means a ton! Know that I am cheering you on towards the throne!

Susan - Eric says he is not the primary interpreter of the Bible, and he understands that people have different views, but his theology is not off-kilter or unbiblical. see 1 Thessalonians 5:16-21.

--

Also, Ellerslie just put out a new video that I had a major hand in producing (though I am uncredited. ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWEgt729Uvw

Have a look!

One comes to both die and be made alive at Jesus Christ, not Ellerslie. Christ is our death and resurrection. Christ is the hero, not you, not me and not anyone else. Even as his vessels we are still just that and he is still everything including the hero. This nonsense about saving the world and doing great things is just that, nonsense. Adding God's name to the end of one's declaration or vision does not make it God's signature. Christ is and does the great thing, he saves the world.

I know enough to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation on the Corps. And I'm ready to be corrected by those who know more about the topic.

As my logic professor would have put it, your "don't knock it till you've tried it." is not the best argument. People have formed opinions based on public statements made by the organization. Our question for you is have we correctly read these statements or are we missing something.

This is all well and good.... But....

Does anyone have any more biblical-based questions that I can help answer on behalf of Elerslie? I tend to go off on rabbit trails pretty easily because of the way my mind works, so I've let you all take me on them. Lets actually get back down to the original reason I came here. I apologize for rabbit-trailing.

Can we all agree that Ellerslie is biblically based? If so, can we agree that Eric Ludy is a solid Biblical teacher? If both of those we can agree on, can we agree that Ellerslie should be something you should support rather than tear it down based on something you read on a website?

Understanding Ellerslie is almost like getting to know a person. I dont post my life online. I do not post every detail of my life online. Why is it that you can take the very shallow description on Ellerslie's site and assume that it is everything you need to know about Ellerslie? It almost sounds like a slippery slope argument.

Why is there division on this subject? Does Ellerslie make you feel uncomfortable because of "rash" statements about the Christian life? (i.e. victory, heroism, decorum.) Tell me what exactly makes you uncomfortable about Ellerslie, and give specific examples out of the BIble. If the Bible is a premise we can agree on, its a good starting block. Everything gets awesome once we find a common premise.

No, we have not agreed to any of this. That has been the basis of this thread. Your participation has been disingenuous at best so far. You come in purporting to be an expert willing to help everyone better understand, but you refuse to answer the simplest questions. Instead, you spend your time attacking the very questions YOU invited. If you are not willing to provide the information requested, then you would better serve Ellerslie by simply staying out of the way than by continuing the strident disruption you have contributed to the discussion thus far.