For those who have been paying attention to the activities that have been circulating around Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon (formerly known as New Covenant Church of God), they will probably be aware that we have been the special target of a website which seems to show "concern" for those they believe are caught up in our "cult".

This website, known as NCCG_Concern (www.geocities.com/nccg_concern), is the product of an unidentified person whom presumably takes a special interest in the welfare of members of NCCG. Mr. Concern (as I will call him in the rest of this article, since he has not made his identity known) seems to be an "expert" on the subject and has a large site to back the claim. However, what is it particularly that makes his views "expert"? And even more importantly, from which lense is he presenting his information?

It should be made clear from the first page Mr. Concern's intended goals in establishing the website. On the main page, he is recorded as stating the following:

 "This web site is the outcome of an investigation into NCCG, a small, polygamous religious group or "cult" near Arvika, Sweden. Most of NCCG's recruitment of new members is done using the internet, and a smaller amount is done by enthusiastic members in areas of the world other than Arvika, Sweden.

"This investigation was conducted from mid-2005 through mid-2006. The facts revealed during this investigation have led this web site author to the opinion that this group should be classified as "destructive" when viewed in the context of the criteria defined by the Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults (see the Sources link below for more information about these criteria). This web site may be updated in the future if new information warrants it or it becomes appropriate to include additional research material in this report.


"To help maintain your anonymity, please use an internet anonymizing service if you intend to view links on NCCG's own website, www.nccg.org. A free anonymizer that could be used is http://www.the-cloak.com/anonymous-surfing-home.html"

It is from this small statement that we see Mr. Concern's worldview -- particularly that NCCG is a dangerous cult because it meets Rick Ross's criteria for a dangerous cult. Mr. Concern seems to have adopted the "lingo" of the cult watchers by using such words as "cult" (which can be used to describe any religious movement we disagree with), compound (which personally reminds me of something like Alcatraz) and other loaded words to describe our group. This automatically plants in the head of our investigators and those who stumble upon his site that we are somehow "dangerous" because said word has been attached to us. It puts up a mental image in people's head of what society says is scary and works on human fears rather than reason. What is the technique being used here and how can we overcome it?

Welcome to what has been called framing. If you've ever been to an art museum, you will know that the paintings there are framed. Often (if not at all times), the frames chosen for paintings determine how we view them. Likewise, when someone sets up frames around certain points of information, it limits the person to think within a certain context. Frames are inevitable -- we all use them. When I decide to buy a bag of potato chips over a chocolate chip cookie, I am setting up a "frame". My frame could simply be I love the taste of potato chips better. Or simply that chocolate chip cookie is a jumbo sized $5 chocolate chip cookie and while I desire it, I would rather save the $5 for later but need something in the mean time to appease my appetite. In both cases, I am more concerned about what I could lose rather than what I gain -- I lose the yummy taste of potato chips if I choose the cookie (in the first scenario) or the $5 if I don't choose the potato chips (in the second). All of our decisions are made up of frames.

The frame Mr. Concern seems to be using on his website is Rick Ross's frame. Its not even questioned whether or not this is the right frame. If I could simplify Ross's frame, it would seem to me to be "psychological freedom vs. psychological bondage" -- i.e. if you get into a dangerous group, you will be brainwashed and lose all control. In this case, the loss is tremendous and no one in their right mind would consider handing over their thoughts like that! However, there are other ways to frame religion groups we may be researching. One frame I personally use is "truth vs. error" -- is the claims of said religion true and verifiable? What will happen if I am in error about said group? Is there anything to prove the group is in error? Or if you accept the claims of the Bible, does said group agree with the doctrines of the Bible or are they out of harmony with it when I've made an objective search of its contents?

Whenever we make tough decisions, especially of things that are valuable and significant, we need to frame and reframe the question until we come to something which is closest to objective, verifiable reality. But not neccessarily reality as we define it -- but reality as it truly is. Truth is always verifiable. And it is for this reason I invite our critics to look at us and take our arguments on their merits to distinguish whether we are in the truth or not. I believe in doing so, you will come to many of the same conclusions we have.