There was a meeting in early 2019 across all the ANTM churches (except for in Maine, that church was curiously left out of this discussion - perhaps addressing this issue in Maine might cause difficult choices to have to be made there?...hmmm) . The focus of the sermon was to lay out the “scriptural path” for shunning former members, for supporting unity and having one mindset in the ANTM churches. The sermon was largely given by Christopher Otis with Norman James Jr. standing beside giving assent. In the ANTM’s usual fashion of having a point to make and then using scriptures to fit their forgone conclusions, a carefully linked set of scriptures was used to build a case that shunning is good and fitting and tossing aside family relationships with those who have left the ANTM is righteous and will be rewarded. The meeting was followed by many having to pledge to not associate with former members, a cowardly move by leadership.
 

If you were at this meeting, you must ask yourself, why did they have it in the first place? The reason is, they wanted to reassert control over your lives and remove the questioning that they know is there among the membership. These meetings are necessary in high control religious groups from time to time, because people start drifting in their thoughts away from group think and start thinking for themselves. This is dangerous to the leadership and so they reassert their policies and cloak it in godliness. 

Over the next two posts we will consider their “interpretations”, which you must know are not agreed upon by hardly anyone in Christendom. We would ask that you objectively consider someone else’s take on these scriptures and ask yourself, which is more in keeping with the Nature of Christ, His overall message and particularly the call of the gospel to make people of varied persuasions one in Christ.

We would like to thank all of those on the inside who continue to provide us with updates as to the goings on within the walls of the ANTM. And with that being said, let’s take a look at the passages that were cited in the sermon notes and see what is really going on here…

 

Act 2:41-47 and 4:32
41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and [b]to prayer. 43 [c]Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and [d]signs were taking place through the apostles. 44 And all those who had believed [e]were together and had all things in common; 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread [f]from house to house, they were taking their [g]meals together with gladness and [h]sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding [i]to their number day by day those who were being saved.32 And the [a]congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them [b]claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.

Here we see the early church example lifted up as what life in the ANTM should be like. Basically, the insinuation is, if you devote yourselves to Norman’s slant on things then you are acting like the true church. There are a few things to consider: First, Acts is a historical narrative, not a doctrinal, instructional book for church practice. Paul’s writings, by contrast, are directly instructional. Even Paul’s writings must be considered as to whether they are general instructions to all churches or specific to the particular church and age to which he wrote them (or else all women are to prophesy with head coverings and never to work outside the home). The point is, you can not draw from this early church narrative an example of normative church behavior. History is history, epistles are instructional, prophecy is prophecy and poetry is poetic. When you conflate these styles of writings, you get in trouble with interpretation. Second, if the early church model is indeed the model to follow, then you can’t pick and choose which elements to emulate. For example, if we are to devote ourselves to Norman’s teaching, then we are also to have services daily, sell all we have, live communally, and donate all proceeds to the church. The honest confirmation that those in the ANTM must consider is that despite their belief that they are the closest thing to the early church out there in doctrine and practice, then WHY ISN’T GOD RESPONDING by DAILY ADDING TO THEIR NUMBERS and performing VERIFIABLY LEGITIMATE miracles in their midst. Notice the phraseology stressed by isolating Acts 4:32 “one heart and soul”. The goal of Norman using this passage is to ensure group think. “There is only one way to see this. Either you see it our way or you are not one of us.” This is typical of unhealthy church groups. This also flies in the face of Paul lauding the Bereans for testing EVERYTHING that they were given by their teachers to make sure they were actually true. This is a verse for lazy leaders who don’t want to be challenged on anything by their congregants. 

​

 

1 Peter 2:19-22
19 For this finds [a]favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds [b]favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth.

​

This verse is completely divorced from its context of slaves and their response to their masters. We don’t have slave relationships in our modern society. Paul was addressing those relationships specifically stating if the slave owner treated you bad, and you went along with it, it found favor in God’s sight. A much cleaner choice would have been to use Jesus’s words from the Beatitudes on suffering for righteousness sake, but I digress. It would also fall prey to the same logical consideration required in considering this verse – that there is a HUGE assumption in this passage that the ANTM member is suffering for doing what is right. Jesus asked the rich young ruler what is right and good, and he answered to ‘honor your father and mother and to love your neighbor as yourself’, among other things. The ANTM members are NOT doing what is GOOD. They are doing WRONG by dishonoring parents and not showing love to their neighbor and ‘their enemy’, in their practice of shunning. This passage from Peter plainly says that there is no credit to those who suffer for doing WRONG. Sorry, ANTM, your suffering is the fruit of doing what is ABHORENT in God’s sight. Your suffering is sourced in your own WRONG actions; your own sinful transgression of the law of love. 

​

​

1 Peter 2:4-5
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is [i]choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, [j]are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

​

Here there is another false premise, the premise that the remaining members of the ANTM are the ones being rejected. Not so, it is those who have left that actually WANT an ongoing relationship with their remaining family and friends inside. It is the ANTM member who persists in the rejection, not us.  

​

 

1 Cor 12:12-18
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For [a]by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason [b]any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason [c]any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

​

Here the ANTM mistakenly tries to illustrate that everyone should act as “one body”, and therefore all have the same opinion and practice in all the ANTM churches, when the aim of the passage is to show that in universal body of Christ, there are differences in people and their purposes, but they are all to be uniquely valued and treated with care. The context is that Jews and Gentiles (pagans) are one in Christ. Slaves and free are one in Christ. These different groups can be one even if they are not entirely alike and have different functions and focus. So, for instance, those who want to attend another church because of a greater focus on evangelism, or teaching, or worship, etc. should be viewed by the ANTM as a fellow member to be valued for their unique function and focus in the universal Body of Christ, placed there by the Holy Spirit. The point of this passage has nothing to do with everybody being “one” in thought, quite the opposite. As the axiom goes, ‘In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity’. But the ANTM says, 100% agreement with all things or you are out. So, the ANTM remains ‘one’, because they all think the same. It is the nightmare situation just as Paul described, the whole body as one type of member, incomplete and lacking diversity. As the body motif goes, the ANTM is nothing more than a gigantic pointing finger and nothing else. 

​

 

Eph. 4:15-16
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

​

It’s unclear what angle Norman is trying to come from in using this passage. Suffice it to say the "growth" that is referenced twice in the passage is not evident in the ANTM. To be more like Christ is not to become more rigid, more rule following, etc., it is to love more, reach out more and become less self-focused and more community focused. 

 

​

Eph. 4:25
25 Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.

Norman is the king of using half-truths, incomplete information and narratives and spreading of rumors to discredit those who leave. It is true that the church universal is one body, and that we are members of each other. 

​

 

1 Cor 12:26
26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is [a]honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Here it appears that the ANTM is trying to say an attack against one is an attack against all. They attempt to normalize the choice to shun by linking it to Christian suffering insinuating that we all have to deal with the pain of shunning and so we will be there to support each other. 

 

 

1 John 1:1-3
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Again, are they saying that ANTM should focus on fellowship with God and the local church and not family? The epistle goes on to say if you say you love God and hate your brother, then you are a liar. So, there’s that. But more importantly, the whole of ANTM doctrine teaches that once you are “born again” their way, then you can never lose that. You are always a born-again child of God. If you are a child of God, and they are a child of God, then that makes you brothers and sisters. So on a natural family level, they are obligated to love their family members who have left and on a spiritual level, their born again brothers and sisters, who love THEM and want relationship with them are to be loved BY them according to the scriptures, even if they no longer attend church with them. 

​

 

Phil. 1:27
27 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one [a]mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

There continues to be this angle of “one” way of thinking and doing things. The HUGE mistake they make is in the fact that we are ONE IN HIM. It is our common birth that makes us one, not common practice and behavior (see the variations in church focus between (Corinth – sign gifts and Thessalonica – generosity, just to name two). Our unity doesn’t come from our practice, it comes from our spiritual DNA in new birth. Paul RAILS against external unity and external signs of righteous phariseeism in his scathing epistle to the Galatians. 

 

Rom 1:28-32
28 And just as they did not see fit [a]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [b]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

​

So here Paul is talking to Romans about the state of THEY. The ‘they’ in this passage are gentile nations. This is not a devolution of someone who leaves the ANTM. 

​

 

Jer 3:6-8
6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. 7 I [a]thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.

Here ANTM wants to equate going to a different church with harlotry. The point of the NT was to take the temple in Jerusalem, where God chose to dwell and instead make the temple of the Living God reside within each of us, who is born of His Spirit. Sorry, Norman, those who leave and are indeed born again get to take the temple with them wherever they go (see 1Cor 6:19-20). You don’t own it. 

 

​

Heb. 6:1-8
Therefore leaving the [a]elementary teaching about the [b]Christ, let us press on to [c]maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, [d]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often [e]falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close [f]to being cursed, and [g]it ends up being burned.

Again, major assumptions here to equate changing churches to falling away from the faith. There are many interpretations to this passage. Many hold to the view that it refers to the loss of reward at the Bema seat Judgment mentioned in 1 Cor 3. Impossible to renew them to repentance takes on a weird ANTM meaning that you lose your salvation and then can’t repent. That’s ridiculous. How can someone born again get unborn? Jesus died for and forgave ALL my sin on the cross. When someone repents for the 1st time, He applied His blood to ALL their sin, past present and future. Consider that all of a person's sin was future sin when He paid for it, right! When one repents, he is completely forgiven. Repentance now doesn’t forgive sin, it restores relationship. He already bore all your sin. It’s very Catholic to think that after one has been born again, that one has to maintain something through confession that one never could achieve in the first place. It is finished, means it is finished. 

​

​

Phil 3:8-10
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss [a]in view of the surpassing value of [b]knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, [c]for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and [d]the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;

All that can be said is ANTM – stop making your abuse of others into your cross to bear. Your suffering is called repressed guilt for your own evil actions of shunning. It’s not some spiritual thing you are going to be rewarded for.

​

​

Phil 3:14-16
14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are [a]perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16 however, let us keep [b]living by that same standard to which we have attained.

Amen…whatever, it’s a non-point to me here. It seems he wants to basically say the last phrase has something to do with “staying true” to their abusive practices and incorrect interpretations. Kind of a “let’s stay miserable together”.

​

 

Phil 3:17-19
  17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their [a]appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.

Context is important here. Paul encourages the Philippians to follow his example of the preceding chapters (ie – don’t think to high of yourself, walk humbly, be like Jesus, don’t keep lists of your accomplishments as something to recommend you to God), not follow my rules – remember his words to the Corinthians in chapter 10:23-33 – follow your conscience in your behavior before the Lord and don’t flaunt your freedoms or hold others to your standard. Again, there is the intimation that those who leave the ANTM just want to blow hell wide open with lascivious living…laughable. 

 

Matt 10:37-38
37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

LUKE 14:26-27
26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not [a]hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Here is an often-used passage to support shunning. Anyway, this passage has Jesus using comparison. The parallel passage in Luke’s gospel is even stronger than the Matthew passage, “He who does not hate his father”. Now certainly Jesus was not teaching Norman to hate Norman Sr. was He? No Jesus would be violating the 5th commandment if He did that. So, He must mean something else. He means if you love people more than Jesus, that love is out of proportion and will limit your ability to love all others. But when love for Christ is preeminent, it allows for the love of all others. Jesus NEVER ASKED US TO HATE OUR PARENTS OR FAMILY!!!!! He also NEVER ASKED ME TO EAT HIS ACTUAL FLESH OR DRINK HIS ACTUAL BLOOD. It is a figure of speech alluding to His importance. Finally, the ANTM actually loves the church more than the family; it’s not God that they lay their family relationships down for…it’s Norman.

​

 

Matt 12:46-50
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”[a] 48 But [b]Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Adding family in the church doesn’t mean you subtract other family to balance some twisted equation. Mary did not cease to become Jesus’ mother when He welcomed other relationships into His life. We don’t cease to be the family of those in the ANTM when we leave their congregations. 

 

 

Ezekiel 22:26
26 Her priests have done violence to My law and have profaned My holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the profane, and they have not taught the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they hide their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

We would agree with Ezekiel, Norman (the priest in this example, as an allegory) has made his version of God’s law into a weaponized tool of violence.

​

 

1 Cor 5:9-11
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But [a]actually, I wrote to you not to associate [b]with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Paul is speaking specifically in context about the guy having sex with his step mom. He was not ashamed of it and was open about it. The church was even proud of it. To normalize that behavior by acting like everything is fine is not recommended, especially when Paul wants to set a distinction between God’s people’s behavior and the surrounding Corinthian amoral culture.  We would all agree if someone in an ANTM bragged that they were engaging in serial adultery and the elders were talking about how open love was a good thing, someone would have the right to come down on that, right?  The ANTM instead says if you sin by leaving their church, it’s like you are a sexually immoral person (spiritual adultery is their unscriptural made up concept that refers to those who attend another church). That leap in interpretation is pastoral malpractice.

​

​

2 Cor 7:5-13
5 For even when we came into Macedonia our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted on every side: conflicts without, fears within. 6 But God, who comforts the [a]depressed, comforted us by the coming of Titus; 7 and not only by his coming, but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you, as he reported to us your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me; so that I rejoiced even more. 8 For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while— 9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything [b]through us. 10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance [c]without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. 11 For behold what earnestness this very thing, this [d]godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter. 12 So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness on our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God. 13 For this reason we have been comforted. And besides our comfort, we rejoiced even much more for the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all.

This is the follow up to the immoral situation from the “so-called’ Christian brother in 1 Cor. The guy repented. Again, the ANTM loves labeling leaving a church as sin. They are comparing apples to oranges here. In ANTM land, if you are kicked out for sinning and you repent, you still cannot associate with them again unless you return to their church. So, it’s not that they are avoiding you because of unrepentant sin, they just don’t want to be around people that won’t be a part of their church and its system.

 

 

2 Cor 2:5-8
5 But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree—[a]in order not to say too much—to all of you. 6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7 so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.

We don’t know the context of this situation. Scripture doesn’t say. The example is to forgive and welcome back into your life someone who repents. Don’t see that happening much there.   

 

 

1 Cor 4:15
15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Paul is saying here that teachers lead us IN Christ, but he was the one that led them TO Christ “fathered” them in the faith. Norman putting himself on par with Paul is laughable. The apostles are gone, there are no new ones. Their foundations remain, so Paul continues to Father people in the faith to this day, THROUGH HIS EPISTLES.

This has been a long post and there is much to consider. Compare what was said above to what Norman preached on this matter. What seems more reasonable? What is in keeping with the heart of the gospel, which is restoring relationships (between God and man and breaking down the dividing wall between man and man as well). Stop the automatic response of support for everything you are taught by Norman and ask yourself, what would Jesus actually do in these situations. TIme to see what you are really supporting and participating in.

 

​

Click To Continue to Part 2

​

​