My comment

Corresponding statement by Christopher Warren (emphasis added)

Here is what Chris has said about the Olive Branch in a document structured as a Question/Answer reference (Source: "25. State of the Church Report, January 2004" by Christopher C. Warren):

Q. What is the role of the Olive Branch?
A. It is a supplement for the priesthood - the leaders of both the local congregation and the general church. It contains instructions, amongst other things, on church government not found in the Bible. Pastors, Elders and Deacons are bound by it when they enter NCCG.

First point: In  the passage shown to the right, Chris Warren writes that I indicated that the Olive Branch is "NCCG's Bible". In reality, I never stated this. What I did state, however, was "Christopher Warren wrote his own Bible", and ""The Olive Branch" is a Bible knock-off, for lack of a better term, that was written primarily by Warren". [No, he didn’t write that this author indicated that the Olive Branch is NCCG’s “Bible”. He only wrote that it is not NCCG’s Bible.]

I  base this upon my observations made about the Olive Branch as they compare to the Bible, which are as follows:

1. Grammar. (1) The Olive Branch uses the same antiquated version of the English language that is visible in the most widely-distributed version of the Bible, the King James version. This version of English was in use between 1450 and 1650AD. (see link). [Go to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com -- you will find many modern translations of ancient Christian documents were written in the same antiquated language. Many people do associate the "holy" with Elizabethean English, for good or for ill. Personally, I do not think it matters if it was written in Elizabethean English or if it was written in New International Version English. The issue is whether or not the teachings in it hold up to the Bible.]
2. Cover design. It is a very dark blue cover, almost black, with a texture that looks like a hardcover Bible (2). It has gold inlaid print on the front that says "The Olive Branch" where "The Bible" would have been (3). Click here to view a close-up screenshot. click this link and Click here to view a close-up picture demonstrating this. [According to this author, obviously, the cover of the book indicates what’s in it? So every hard-covered book with gold inlaid print is more or less a Bible “knock-off” to him?] [Again, this point is invalid. It doesn't disprove the points of said book. (From hereon out, I will refer to the "Olive Branch" as "OB").]
3. Physical dimensions as designed with the publisher (4). It's actually a bit bulkier than a typical Bible, but the proportional dimensions remain very similar. The only skipped physical characteristics I can think of which would have completed the whole hardcover "Bible" picture would have been "thin paper", gold-gilded pages. [… so there’s no similarity there.] [As a collector of Bibles, I have quite a few which do not meet the OBs proportions. Is there some sort of universal Bible proportional rule I'm missing out on here? Likewise, it does not disprove the cliams of the OB.]
4. Page layout. [While it is true that the page layout of the Olive Branch is laid-out like many Bible translations, it is also true that scientific magazines, encylcopedias, and dictionaries have a similar layout. The OB lay-out, as one will see when they observe other portions of Concern's page,  has columns, footnotes and section headings. Thus, anything with these, according to Concern's logic, is a "Bible knock-off". Well, maybe the Bible is a dictionary knock-off?]
5. Columns just like the Bible (5), [And just like the Hello magazine.]
6. Each and every sentence numbered as it occurs (6) [I have seen paragraphs numbered in non-biblical books. In fact, many college textbooks also use this style for easy reference.] 
7. All text fits into a system of "PWNC" and "Section". The Bible, being arranged similarly by the "Book" and "Chapter" (7). [It is obvious that the Olive Branch is meant to be quoted. These systems are needed for that purpose.] [The system works. Originally, though, the Bible didn't have this system (and doesn't in its earliest autographs). Where did it come from?]
8. Page numbers are never referenced when talking about the Olive Branch, just PWNC and SECTION (8). Very few books I am aware of are referenced like this, the Bible being one of them. [That’s easy to understand. The Olive Branch is not available only to those who have bought the book, but parts of it also are published online. What use would it be to quote it by page number?]
9. Content. It contains prophecies, revelations, historical accounts from NCCG's history, statements that supposedly came from God, rules about NCCG, and I think I saw some Psalms as well. [And isn’t that its purpose as C.C. Warren stated before? The Olive Branch isn’t trying to hide the fact that it is “inspired from God”, quite on the contrary, it makes a big point of it.] ["And I think some Psalms"? It sounds like Mr. Concern hasn't seriously read its contents. But this is no big deal to me. While I've learned much from the OB, it is secondary. In my ministry, I do not even stress it. If the OB were to be uncanonized tomorrow, I wouldn't sweat it. Its a spiritual help, much like pastors, teachers, spiritual books, etc., but its not as good as the Bible itself. But just because it isn't as good as the Bible doesn't mean I need to get rid of it, just like I don't need to get rid of pastors, teachers, spiritual books, etc.] 

In my observation, the Olive Branch very much resembles a Bible look-alike, and it is important to keep in mind that all of these similarities between the print version of the Olive Branch and the Bible were discretionary.


Bible below


Olive Branch below


Bible below.



I believe it is extremely likely that Chris Warren had the Olive Branch published in a way that physically resembles a Bible in order to help create the impression among NCCG members that he receives genuine visions and revelations directly from God. This belief can then be extended to support other beliefs about NCCG members themselves also receiving such visions and revelations. [So he actually wrote this huge book (1160 pages) to prove to the NCCG members that he is a real prophet? And then to manipulate them into believing they can do it as well? That’s “EXTREMELY LIKELY”?? Honestly, does the author have any idea how a person becomes an NCCG member? Well, it definitely doesn’t happen in a day. For most people, it doesn’t happen in a year. I think the people who have chosen to become NCCG members know C.C. Warren well enough to tell whether he receives genuine visions or not, and they most probably don’t need a bulky Olive Branch – Bible “Knock-off” – to be convinced.] [So Warren sold his house to "prove" to a fledgling membership that he receives "genuine visions and revelations directly from God"? This hypotehsis certainly requires a lot of faith.]

NCCG currently utilizes a core set of beliefs that requires deeply-involved  members to believe that Chris Warren, as well as other members within NCCG, receive visions and revelations directly from God. This is a critical belief for NCCG and if it were to fail, NCCG could not continue in it's present form. [Nearly all Pentecostals base their belief system in divine revelation, and Pentecostals aren’t some weird underground cult. Mormons do that as well, and the Seventh Day Adventists also, claiming the “divine inspiration” in Ellen White’s writings.] [I agree with this. If our prophecies were false, NCCG would not be the same. But at the same time, this doesn't invalidate prophecy altogether. It seems Concern has an agenda against modern-day prophets, as evidenced on his prophecy page.] The contents of the Olive Branch appear to not be as important to NCCG as the reinforcement the Olive Branch offers members regarding this precept. [So it’s just the impression it gives, not its contents? Is the author serious here? Just because the ONLY judgement he has to offer about the Olive Branch is about how it LOOKS, does he think that the members and investigators judge by the same childish measure?] [We could "push" the precept of prophecy so many ways -- why would Warren sell his home just to prove to his membership that he receives revelations from God? There are cheaper ways to do that.]

Many NCCG members (both fringe and core members) are recruited from a Christian or Mormon environment. [Half-true. While I'm an ex-Mormon and believe many former Mormons are drawn to NCCG  because of its belief in modern-day prophecy, there is no active campaign I know of to recruit Mormons, aside from the LDS section on the old NCCG website (this is how I became a member). However, it should be noted that we don't target exclusively Mormons.] The Olive Branch's close resemblance to the Bible creates both a visual and literary draw for these people, appealing to members and recruits on both conscious and subconscious levels. [If the author was better informed he would know that the Olive Branch is VERY secondary when it comes to new people coming to NCCG, in terms of being used or quoted.] [Well, it really doesn't matter how the OB is published. I have in my library several old publications of revelations NCCG has done in the past under its various names. I requested these for historic interest and wanted to understand the prophetic process better and my request was granted. It should be noted that previous publications did not always retain this appearance. In fact, they were originally very cheaply bound. However, this did not change whether or not the content in them was true.]

Undue influence (such as NCCG demonstrates with it's Olive Branch/Bible similarities) interferes with the ability of people to choose what they want to believe. It is like being tricked, only the trick goes on for as long as the members continue to buy into it. [NCCG members don’t choose want they want to believe then? Because a book is similar to the Bible, everyone is automatically brainwashed? That’s kind of tragic. I mean, the author here totally discards the existence of SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), but he’s willing to believe that a person who seems to have devoted everything he owns for his religion is at the same time a wicked manipulator? But Satanists are ok?]. [This is how people view sacred books. I could say its "undue influence"because the cheap dollar dictionary at Wal-Mart looks like an authentic Merriam-Webster's. There are several other factors to consider other than what a book looks like. Most people at least have that much common sense.] This is only one example of undue influence within NCCG, some more are listed below:

• Fantasies about attacks against NCCG members by "satanists" and other conspiracies revolving around satanists being represented as true; [Ironically, I have IM conversations from at least one of these so-called "Satanists" that confirm that Warren's prophecies were accurate. But I am choosing to withhold names.]
• Making prophecies which attempt to predict events in the near future, some of which completely fail and some of which prove accurate. The ones which fail are excused for various reasons, leaving the ones that succeed and the open-ended ones as the only prophecies that are seriously considered by NCCG members. [I debunk Concern's criterion for determing "true" and "false" prophecies on the "Bible Study" section of this site.]
  • Some prophecies which completely failed:
    • Norway did not financially collapse in November, 1998. [Debunked.] 
    • Czechoslovakia split up [Debunked. Although I'm sure Concern will make it into a peeing contest to prove I did not debunk him -- I'm really not interested.]
  • A prophecy which did not fail:
    • East and West Germany reunited. This prophecy has a recorded date of March, 1989, a time when the political wheels for this change were already turning. The Berlin Wall "fell" 8 months later, that November.
  • Some prophecies that are open-ended and can therefore never "fail":
    • The USA and Canada will "eventually" unite
    • Hungary will "eventually" prosper
    • Poland will "eventually" buy back areas of European land it lost in prior wars. [These prophecies CAN fail, though. All the Messiah has to do is return tomorrow to invalidate them (unless He is the one "uniting" and "prospering" these nations.]
• Use of Satanic Ritual Abuse related "recovered memories", primarily with women, to aid in developing a controlling, guru-like relationship. This is a known practice among some other destructive cults as well. The "Widespread SRA conspiracy" as NCCG and some other destructive cults profess it to exist has been succesfully shown to be a fantasy. Some included links on this topic can be read here (SRA) and here (SRA) and  here (SRA) and here (SRA). [There is no proof that SRA does NOT exist. Other than that, if it’s too gruesome for the author to admit its existence then he may believe what he wants to believe, which apparently is his religion also: Let’s believe whatever makes us more comfortable. The reason I believe that SRA obviously exists is because just about every SRA “ritual” is practiced by other groups of people whose existence is acknowledged. I don’t think it’s all that far-fetched that people would carry out such practices for the sake of worshipping Satan. Now if it sounds so very horrible to nccg_concern or members of the public that they’d rather it didn’t exist, they can choose to believe that, but they can’t push their opinion down people’s throats.] [All I have are the claims of those who say it exist, who are victims and who are often members of the same coven and know things about other people without knowing I know the other people. I've met these people in various circumstances, including Internet chatrooms, to avoid this being "planned" -- I think for all intents and purposes, it couldn't be a coincedence.]
  
• Use of inducement of Multiple Personality Disorder, primarily with women, to aid in developing a controlling, guru-like relationship. This is a known practice among some other destructive cults as well, and is known among mental health professionals to be potentially dangerous to the lifetime mental health of the victims. An included link on this topic can be read here. [OK, I don’t disagree with this being a dangerous practice, but there are so few people in NCCG who are or considered to be MPD’s that it would be a lie to say that NCCG “induces” MPD. Consider that none of the “core members” is an MPD and no more than 3 people in the groups (who are not members, incidentally) are diagnosed as such.] [Again, Mr. Concern should think of the people we insist aren't MPD even though they THINK they are.]

My full, original text regarding the Olive Branch is shown below:

"The Olive Branch" is a Bible knock-off [as is the dictionary . . .], for lack of a better term, that was written primarily by Warren. When writing or talking about "The Olive Branch" to people who have not reached a sufficient level within the group, Warren attempts to minimize the significance of "The Olive Branch" as compared with the Bible, but the core members' day to day practices do not reflect this perspective. [As a "core" member, I have to disagree with this allegation. One person at "The Compound" (as Mr. Concern so fondly refers to it) was even counselled not to worry about its contents when he was questioning it, but was counselled to read the Bible.] The book is a source of extra rules and guidelines for the group. Many of the extra assertions do not appear to this author to have a factually identifiable biblical basis. [Neither do many of the allegations of Mr. Concern appear to this person writing in red (Derek Rumpler) to have a factually identifiable biblical basis.] It has been printed in a way that physically resembles the Bible, its material is organized and categorized in a way that is similar to the Bible, and it has language and declarations that mimic the Bible in form and style." [You will find comments on this in the Belief and the Overview sections]

Here are a couple of very serious allegations that need clearing up at once:

1. The Olive Branch is not NCCG's "Bible" - that is a blatant lie. The Olive Branch is just a collection of revelations and is very secondary to the Bible. Indeed it isn't even primary canon. We have often stated that we do not need it for our mission and that the Bible is sufficient in all matters of doctrine and faith, and is so treated.

My Comment

Corresponding statement by Christopher Warren (emphasis added)

Disclaimer: This section of comments have been written using a writing style inspired by that of Community Moderator, for an intended affect of emphasis. [… and ranting. So it’s on purpose? The “psychoanalyst/cult expert/serious investigator” turns into an angry teenager for the sake of emphasis? Wow, that’s kind of original. By the way, has C.C. Warren (Community Moderator) ever said the following phrase?]


Chris Warren's comments to the right are ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!!! [LOL, well thanks a lot, that’s so objective.]]

First point: Privacy issues have, for some time, prevented me from discussing the details on this one. [Just as they've prevented us from discussing and "proving" Satanic Ritual Abuse.] Any actual Christians [Note how Mr. Concern defines the word "actual" for you -- he has done the thinking for you in a style that is "hypnotic and suggestive"] would feel inclined to run right out the door (like I have) [Thus, making Concern an "actual Christian" according to his criteria] if these details were prominently displayed on the www.nccg.org web site. And no, I don't just mean the Polygamy beliefs. It's worse than that. ["Ruh roh, Shaggy!"]

One thing which should be mentioned about the internet is that you cannot assume that the person you are chatting with actually likes you or is truly falling for you , even if they seem like they are. It's just the internet, and the person at the other end of your monitor could be ANYONE, even a researcher who wants to see exactly what you would try to do with someone's vulnerable mind. That "girl" who showed up last summer but disappeared last fall could have even been a DIRTY OLD MAN!! [Can my liberal atheist friends say "ad hominem"? He went from trying to define how NCCG's beliefs are "worse than" polygamy to defining how he thinks Warren (I suppose, since this entire page is devoted to dismantling him) could be some "dirty old man" on the other side of the computer. Then after making this attack, drops the point. Why mention it if he isn't going to develop his point further?]

Almost all of the source material used for the creation of this web site was provided to me by Chris himself. If I had to print it all out and put it in a box, it would be difficult to find the third party material. This has been primarily a one-man operation. [DUH! DUH! DUH! Play Mission Impossible theme at this “one-man operation” thing.]

Let me get my MAGIC 8-BALL out... let me see.. Chris is about to call me some names...  i see "liar" floating in there.. oh yes, here's more.. he is calling me a hacker and a criminal again, yes, I see it! ... (if you missed those posts in nccgcybercommunity, I have a few of them linked here). [I find it ironic how Concern seems to not really care for modern prophecy, but resorts to mock "divination" when mocking Warren.]

Why isn't he calling the police, guys? Is it because he really believes the police are all "satanists" anyway and there is no point? Let me look into my Magic 8-Ball again... [There he goes, divining again.] There it is.. in the REAL WORLD, it is illegal to deliberately report a crime that did not actually happen [good luck reporting a supernatural crime in the secular humanist world]. They charge you with something like "filing a false police report". That or, if they think you were genuinely mistaken, they are nicer about it and just close the case.

In fact, I can not imagine Chris has any desire whatsoever for any police department, especially not the local police in Arvika, to ask me about my source material. I don't mind speaking with the police, of course. They would find my source material to be worth a few raised eyebrows, and they would find the sources for my material to be legal and, better yet, genuine. [Listen as Concern more or less pats his own back. "They would" NOT "I think they would". He has done this on more than one occassion and I've caught him on it a few times . . . he thinks too highly of himself.] If the police need to speak with me, my email address is on this web site (nccg.concern@hotmail.com), and I have never had a issue with identifying myself to legitimate authorities (just not to paranoid, delusional, potentially dangerous cult leaders, kthxbye).

So. When Chris starts wailing that I am a professional criminal, hacker, (insert other disparaging term here), you could respond by telling him to either call the police or shut his trap. I can even dig up a few phone numbers if he would like to speak with police officers in odd locations throughout the world who would probably find a phone call from him to be most intriguing. (Where exactly were the computers I hacked, anyway?) [Drop the phone numbers in my e-mail box at derekrumpler@hotmail.com -- I'd call them just to verify this -- I'm sure we could also get you for libel also, if we wanted to press the issue.]

The concepts of  "legal" and "not legal" are not overlapping and broad categories, like "Nice" and "Not nice". An activity will be determined by a judge or jury, in a real, live court, to have been been illegal or not. I can not imagine that any of my source material, at any stage of its acquisition, was obtained in a way that would result in a "guilty" verdict being called against me (or anyone else, if that matters), and that's that. ["Legal" and "not legal" are not as much the issue as "honest" and "dishonest".]

Second point:

Olive Branch, page 578, top of page, to the right, states:

When Prophets are Silent

The Patriarch-prophets are under a commandment and a covenant not to reveal all they know lest those on the lower levels of light choke on the light or surrender their free agency in order to follow the prophet like unto Moses.

---------------------------------------------
PS: I am not a satanist
PPS: I am not in a coven
PPPS: I am not being helped by covens or satanists
PPPPS: I am not a prisoner in a coven

2. The idea that the "meatier" doctrines is concealed and only revealed to those who have been lullued into a false sense of secutity would be laughable were it not such a serious allegation. ALL our beliefs, doctrines and practices are clearly stated on our website at www.nccg.org. The author admits there is a lot of material and that he was overwhelmed by it so that is probably why his picture of us is so patchy ... a bit like the way the Jehivah's Witnesses assemble their theology from scriptural ping-pong.

My Comment

Corresponding statement by Christopher Warren (emphasis added)

Okay folks... back to "nccg_concern" writing style now.

First point: The applicable portion of my text was based upon my observance of NCCG's belief in widespread, categorical occurrences of "SRA" (Satanic Ritual Abuse). In reality, actual SRA is very, very uncommon, and the chance of SRA happening to you, or anyone you know, is so minuscule as to be close to zero. [But if you advertise yourself as someone who invites SRA victims to help them, there is a chance that some will show up]. Despite any frightening memories that may have come forth during "sessions", these memories are extremely unlikely to have been related to actual SRA [Says who? And what do you do in the rare instance where a memory wasn't supressed and you KNOW it but may have forgotten other details? This has happened at least once in my ministry.]. If you research SRA with a critical and objective frame of mind, you are likely to come to this conclusion as well. For a starting point, you could read the articles provided here and here. [If your research on SRA is restricted on the links provided by the Skeptic’s Dictionary, I can guarantee that you will come to that conclusion.] ["With a critical and objective mind" . . . this coming from someone who can't be reasoned into believing SRA exists -- very objective indeed.]

It is correct that I subscribe to the belief that categorical conspiracy-theories regarding widespread SRA, like NCCG propagates, are fictional (as stated earlier, please do your own research on this, there is no need to take my word on this point [or on any other]). By definition, this means that any parent who is actually accused of committing "SRA" is being wrongly accused [even if they do do it, because somehow saying it doesn't exists makes it more "real"], and any actual abuse which did occur can become a tool for psychological manipulation due to interjection of SRA-related intentions.

Second point: Chris is downplaying the nature of "spiritual parenting" in his comments. Young adults who are deeply-involved NCCG members have been observed to psychologically cut themselves off from their actual parents to such an extent that they will cease referring to them as "Mom" and "Dad" when discussing them in the presence of other NCCG members (such as in the DFD chat room) [I suppose Concern means me. I refer to my biological parents as "Mom" and "Dad" but do not have as close a relationship with them as I do Warren's family bcause of influences unrelated to NCCG. Indeed, when I was LDS, I use to refer an elderly missionary couple as "Mom" and "Dad" but when they lost my trust, those names stopped. But at the time, I viewed them as being more of my parents than NCCG does. As such, I call Warren "Dad" and Larsen "Mom" by choice.]. They will instead fervently refer to their "adopted" NCCG parents by these names, functionally marginalizing their perception of their  relationship with the actual parents to primarily being physical in nature. [There are no more than 2 people who call C.C. Warren “dad” in the DFD room presently, and one of them does not participate in the sessions often. Whether these two people (who are both men, incidentally), have psychologically cut themselves from their actual parents I am in no position to know and nor is anyone else who has observed this over the Internet. I do know however that one of them is about C.C. Warren’s age and in daily contact with his parents.] [And as the second male, I am in almost daily contact with my parents, inspite of disagreements which I do not care to go into on a private website. However, I'm sure according to the "cult watchers" I'm the one being "misguided" here and all parents are "naturally good".]

This can later be followed by the NCCG member making drastic, life-affecting, and potentially dangerous decisions while fostering a perspective of disregard for the actual parents. If the parents are still in close contact with the NCCG member due to life circumstances and become aware of the situation, they will naturally encourage the NCCG member to cease their dangerous level of involvement. [My biological parents know many of our most "dangerous" beliefs and could care a fig -- they trust me THAT much.] The fact that the relationship with the parents may have been marginalized to an extent would be an aid for NCCG's core recruitment efforts and a problem for the concerned parents. [That, then, goes for these two men? I happen to have talked with both, and in neither case has there been reported friction with their parents because of the fact that C.C. Warren “fathers” them spiritually. These are solid facts. What nccg_concern has to say on this matter is not observation but speculation.]

Third point: My original text combines these two pieces of information into one general topic. It is correct as it is written; however, more detail and clarity could have been effected by breaking this into three delimited topics instead of one. I will leave it as it is for the time being, as I believe the other areas of my web site do explain these points accurately enough. I might redo it later.

Fourth point: Much of the time in NCCG, it is not a matter of  NCCG "insisting" that "satanic" parents be replaced. Parents do not have to be considered "satanic" to be psychologically replaced by "spiritual" Mom and Dad. The "SRA parents" are just one tool of many which can be used to help build a controlling relationship through undue influence. The whole "spiritual parenting" deal in NCCG has been observed as being used to usurp the legitimate [I could argue against the legitimacy claim in many circumstances] parent-child relationship in order to build trust and, eventually, a controlling relationship. [Again, the “parenting” goes for just two people. The sample is too poor to draw such a conclusion, obviously.]

PS: This type of parental or family "adoption" is a fairly common means of influence within dangerous cults. [Yep, so beware: the Catholics do it too, all the time.]

3. We do NOT renounce our biological parents or view them as being "satanic" (probably the worst misrepresentation of all). We honour our parents in Yahweh and teach our people to do the same - to love and cherish them and to set a good example to them if they are unbelievers. Obviously, where their parents are unbelievers, we spiritually parent them as all churches do (whether as priests, pastors, etc) and hold them to Biblical standards. The only parents we do insist that new members totally renounce are those who are satanists who have sexuallly abused and tortured them all their lives. However it seems that the author is one of those who does not believe that SRA is real - let him tell that to the many SRA victims who come to us for help because the likes of him will not believe them! He knows nothing of deliverance. 

My diagram was an effort to organize and clarify two of Chris' leadership structure diagrams which I found on http://www.nccg.org/CBQ-HP-Index.html. Essentially, my diagram is just one of his diagrams placed on top of the other one, with the missing items in the resulting diagram filled in horizontally in the way which should have been logical based on the accompanying text description. I did not know at the time whether or not Chris' diagrams accurately reflect NCCG's leadership structure, past or present, but it seemed like a source that was likely to have some accuracy to it. Later in the research, it appeared to me that Chris'  diagrams were NOT accurate, but more on that later.

I could not represent the female "eldress" authority line in the same diagram because Chris did not include any diagrams outlining its progression any further down than "deaconess cell". I could not safely assume that it was the identical to the men's diagram. So, considering that there may be more than one "elders house" possible (this was an assumption on my part), I mirrored the male side for the right hand side of my image and did not include the female side. [How about being accurate about the “Eldress” and “Deaconess Cell” boxes and indicating lack of information for the rest of them? I guess that’s much more work than mirror-copy-and-paste though. Or, how about NOT making up a new diagram and using the existing ones as it happens in this page? Wouldn’t that be a lot more accurate?]

It is possible that the idea that there could be more than one elder's house is incorrect. I knew that when I made it, but decided that in any case, it did resemble the source material well enough to provide a reasonable graphic overview of the structure indicated in Chris' original diagrams. I could only work with what material I had, and the diagrams did not fit together perfectly. [For nccg_concern’s information, what serious people do when they do research is indicate “lack of information” where there is lack of information instead of making things up. Is this to show that in the other places of this website where there was not sufficient information and gaps are created, the author just speculates and fills these gaps as he sees fit. The result is bound to come out wrong.]

I thought I did an O.K. job on my diagram, as it was based very directly on the source material. However, at this later stage of my research, I do NOT believe that ANY of these diagrams do a good job at actually representing  NCCG's authority structure. Mine is probably wrong except for the very bottom portions, and the originals appear to represent wishful thinking for an organization that may have initially been intended to be larger in size. GIGO.*

Here are Chris' original diagrams.

*An informal rule holding that the integrity of output is dependent on the integrity of input. [Also, good things can get screwed up in the process and come out ruined. No one asked nccg_concern to process any items, and definitely going about messing up diagrams and coming up with something wrong is not sufficient excuse to blame the ones who created these diagrams to begin with.]

4. His diagram of NCCG leadership structure is shere bunkum and is really quite shameless:

[Adding the rest of C.C. Warren’s answer from the NCCG Cyber Community thread for accuracy’s sake:]

The top of this tree is a pastor, not me, of which there are very many, and these pastors are overseen by a Bishop or Metropolitan Pastor. The Bishops are pretty much independent as for example our Bishop in India who runs many congregations. This he does with practically no interference.

NCCG is run overall by a Presiding Patriarchate consisting of three men and three women. Decisions are jointly made. And contrary to what he says, I have not always been head. The Church was led by Gunnar Mjølsvik at one time who maintains a headship position over me today as part of our authority checks and balances. These things the author has not researched eithert because he can't be bothered to read the material or because he is plain disonest. Matter affecting the whole Church are voted on by the whole Church in Conference.

Point #1: first sentence: huh? I think I get it.

Point #2:

The referenced section of the first version of my report was, incidentally, based on incomplete source material. Oops! I had found a number of documents which supported, through the contextual and other indications, the position that certain marriages were of lesser value than others (IE: partners found through dating and relationships done while part of "The World" were not necessarily God's will, among other things). [You make this claim -- now back it instead of insisting we take you for your word.] It wasn't until several months later that I uncovered enough details on how NCCG handles its marriages, both pre-existing and within-NCCG, to be able to rewrite it more accurately.

The old text did not accuse NCCG of being "marriage-busters", but it also did not accurately describe the marriage perspective. The section has since been divided up into several separate sections and moved around to another area of the web site.

5. We are misreported in our belief about marriage do, the author claiming that unless sanctions a marriage, it is not valid. He has not read our materials very carefully. We consider ALL marriages of consent valid for this life time. What we HAVE said is that marriages not of God do not continue into the eternities. No doubt he wants to accuse of of being marriage-busters which we absolutely are not. Our view is diamatrically the opposite.

[Adding the rest of C.C. Warren’s answer:]

There is tons more but these stick out as obviously false.

This is what happens when you don't ask the person concerned. By all means checvk up the writings afterwards to verfity/contradict it but make sure you study it all. After all, isn't that what we tell people to do with the Bible?

This man has much to answer for.

My report never claimed or assumed, in any state of its existence, that the text in question was written by Chris or an NCCG member, IE: The "pretending" never happened. My report was also expressly stated to NOT exist as a mirror for exclusively NCCG-authored written material.

The article in question was posted by Chris in nccgcybercommunity, along with what was, in context, an obviously very supportive set of comments by Chris. Chris' comments were as follows:

A personal note from myself: Please be aware that the forces behind getting women to dress immodestly in order to inflame the passions of men are demonic, and are spicifically under the direction of Lilith, Hecate, Astoreth (Astarte) and Jezebel. This is not a minor matter. And specifically a women will not get free of Lilith and her cohorts from her life until she has acknowledged these dress issues, unmasked the lies that the demoness has got her to believe about herself (normally it is a satanic, fleshy desire to be worshipped/admired, etc.. i.e. become a whore) and desires only to inflame the passions of/be admired sexually by/etc her lawful husband. For the men too who have Lilith problems, there is a need to be honest about the seduction of Lilith's idolatry and her ways of getting you to worship female beauty as 'goddesses'. I myself recently destroyed a beautiful and cherished collection of Greek figurines I owned when Yahweh showed me that Lilith lay behind them posing as the supposedly harmless "spirit of beauty", using the excuse that Yahweh created female beauty and therefore we could at the very least admire the artistic forms of women as His 'gift'. I know few men capable of doing that and not getting sucked into that demonic trap for which such supposedly 'innocent' admiration is, in truth, the first step long a greasy slope leading to pornography, fornication anhd adultery.

Be wise, be obedient, be true. [This followed as a comment to a lengthy article by another author who analysed in detail how “modest” dressing should be. Notice that in C.C. Warren’s comment, there is no mention of HOW to be modest but of the importance of modesty in general. It does not acknowledge the other author’s advice, which, in my opinion, was quite conservative anyway.]

NCCG does have dress standards for women, but due to privacy concerns at this time, I am not in a position to discuss them. [NCCG has at no time published a list of detailed dress standards for women, except very few things about dressing modestly and an article about head-covering which can be found in www.nccg.org. Nevertheless, I am curious as to what sort of privacy concerns hinder nccg_concern from being a little more accurate on the subject rather than make speculations and generalise (speaking vaguely about “holiness standards”).] [Again, I wonder about these so-called "privacy issues" -- was he looking into the windows of "The Compound" like some peeping tom?]

This section of the report was later expanded, and due to the additional information, the two topics of chauvinism and dress code were moved into separate sections. Information was added to both sections and very little was removed. Any parts that were removed or changed would not have affected Chris' claims that the source of the text was somehow being misrepresented.

A couple of others have been looking at this material and pointed out to me that some of it isn't even NCCG but taken from posts from non-NCCG people, e.g.

This group is male chauvinistic; holiness standards for women enforced

http://www.geocities.com/nccg_concern/beliefs.html

This isn't even NCCG material but has been lifted from a post put in one of the groups for discussion purposes (even if we agree with much of it). For one pretending to quote NCCG sources this is very deceptive.

It is quite obvious that the author is anti-Torah and pro-Western culture.