Jim Wright’s Tainted Reputation


Annapolis Capitol Editorial

Jim Wright’s Reputation in Maryland

Jim Wright routinely refers to himself as something of a respected crusader from the 1980s.  He’s claimed to have been the subject of books and articles outlining his groundbreaking work in this area.  It all sounds marvelous until you actually research and see what he did and what was said about him.

As has been noted in a series of posts which starts HERE, which was started just following Jim and Marianne Wright’s Facebook Page being deleted by Facebook after multiple Community Guideline Violations, all Jim Wright really was in the 1980s was a young man placed in a position by his father in what appears to have been an act of nepotism and control to try and manage a family based “empire” of organizations which all circled around Bob Wright at the time.  Jim Wright today attempts to do the same thing with his own stable of LLC corporations and holding corporations and his unsubstantiated claims to be part of a “vast network of organic churches in Northern Virginia.”  It’s nothing new for Jim.  It’s a pretty established deceptive pattern.

Annapolis Capitol Editorial March 30, 1982

Continue reading

Jim Wright, Elder?


Jim Wright’s Claim to be an Elder

Jim Wright - False and Exaggerated Claims

Jim Wright – Elder?

For the past several years, after being excommunicated from his last local church in Manassas, VA, Jim Wright has based his heresy hunting activities upon his claim to be one elder among multiple other unnamed elders from a network of “organic churches” in the Manassas, VA area.  Jim Wright names none of these alleged people so there’s plenty of reason to question Jim’s claimed qualification based on the Scriptural qualifications of an Elder.  This is relevant, especially as Jim asserts himself to hold Scripture as God’s Word and regularly criticizes others as heretics or cults who don’t hold to his very narrow definitions.  He’s also very vocal in criticizing others with the bizarre claim of being “Apostles” even where they never claim or use the title.  Jim Wright very clearly claims to be an elder though and as that’s the foundation of his claim of standing in these matters, that should concern anyone tempted to listen to him who don’t know him otherwise.

So, lets look at the Scriptural qualifications of an Elder and see how Jim compares to those.

One common passage used by Biblical, Fundamentalist Churches is:

Titus 6:1-9 If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and to rebuke those who contradict it.

Is Jim Wright Above Reproach?

Continue reading

Jim Wright’s Lies


Why Jim Wright Doesn’t Like Me

Jim Wright - Sexual Abuse Advocate?

Jim Wright – Sexual Abuse Advocate?

Note:  Since the publishing of this article, Facebook suspended Jim Wright’s personal Facebook Account (restored on Sunday January 8, 2015) and the Crossroad Junction Facebook Page (still down at the time of this note being updated.)

Over the past several years, Jim Wright continues to make noise and accusations against multiple people whom he has never met with whom he has doctrinal religious disagreements.  Religious disagreements on the internet are not unusual.  What is different about Jim Wright is that he goes one step further and assumes that those who disagree with him religiously are evil people and he makes his attacks personal and builds them into full-blown conspiracies against him.  That’s why you’ll typically see his online attacks composed of both elements because that’s how Jim Wright’s mind works in these matters.

This is what he’s done particularly against me and several others.  What is different now is that Jim’s own past is no longer a secret that he can pretend hasn’t happened, and his lifelong patterns are no longer a secret to those he attacks.

Most of what Jim Wright accuses me of is easily dispensed with based on past articles written here, but for convenience sake this is a quick summary and refutation of his most recent efforts and false and exaggerated claims.

It’s hard to keep up with everything because Jim is continuously changing his posts from the past and either quietly removing outright lies or attempting to re-spin them to suit whatever accommodation he needs to make to change his story along the way.  It hasn’t quite descended to the level of cannibalism and human trafficking but perhaps that is only a matter of time.  😉

Jim Wright Excommunicated Multiple Times

Continue reading

Bob Jones University GRACE Report


G.R.A.C.E. Issues Bob Jones University Report

As many of you are aware, G.R.A.C.E., Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment, issued its report this week on Sexual Abuse and some of the systemic issues present at Bob Jones University (BJU.)  You can find the report HERE.

There will no doubt be a great deal of follow-up and news to this report as the details of it become more public and are digested and as BJU hopefully acts on the recommendations to not only make amends for the past but also systemic changes within the organization to keep future abuse from occurring.

This is how a legitimate victim organization functions and why Crossroad Junction, Nathan’s Voice, Fulcrum Ministries and Jim and Marianne Wright are such a serious threat to legitimate Victim’s Organization’s work.

What’s the Difference?  (Click on Highlights for additional information)

Continue reading

Jeanne Elder Smith’s Knowledge of Keith’s Fraud


Jeanne Elder Smith Had to Have Known of Keith W Smith’s Academic and Professional Fraud

On August 31, 2014, Keith Smith made a partial confession

Keith W Smith

Keith W Smith

Keith Smith:

Confession and Repentance (note: there are links in this article in bold)

In recent months, it has been alleged that the doctorates that I claimed were false and the validity of my former qualifications were also questioned.

On Tuesday of this last week, I confessed that the allegations with regard to the doctorates were true. At a difficult time in my life, a friend had forwarded some of my work on a fresh approach to counseling to a university friend of theirs for review. The university friend replied that he thought it was excellent material and deserving of a doctorate. Almost straightaway friends started referring to me as “doctor”, pride got in the way, and the lie was born. As time went by, that lie grew. My previous qualifications also came under scrutiny. Unfortunately one of the institutions were I studied has been closed for over 20 years and so cannot confirm my three-years study there, and qualifications. It was also said that I was a graduate of Cambridge University, which I didn’t claim, having dropped out of my studies there due to a mental breakdown. I completed my studies elsewhere later.

So in the light of the above I do not feel it right to claim any higher qualifications, as my doctorate/s are nonexistent. I wholly renounce ANY title that I have heretofore used and wish to be referred to simply as Keith Smith.

My repentance is total, and in consultation with my wife Jeanne and trusted friends, I have prayed in confession and repentance to the Lord, seeking his grace and forgiveness.

My wife, Jeanne, had no idea of my lies and had complete confidence in me. I am ashamed of my betrayal of her trust, and that of others who gave me their trust.

I have sinned, I am embarrassed and ashamed. If any of you remember a sin at this time, may you be encouraged by to passages that are important to me.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1 John 1:7-8 (KJV)
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

We have closed down our websites and suspended “Healing Communities”, I have stopped all active ministry for the time being, while I deal with the consequences of my sin and seek restoration.

Should any of you have questions please ask me as, your friend, neighbor or fellow church member will know no more about it than you, only I can answer your questions.

I ask you all for forgiveness and grace, and especially your prayers for both Jeanne and I.

Blessings,
Keith

Note in particular this Claim:

Continue reading

Thanks to House 2 House Magazine for the Article Published


The Lost Practice of Church Discipline, by Bart Breen

(Note.  The House to House Magazine site was removed recently, and so the article is reproduced here.)

Thanks to House 2 House Magazine for publishing an article of mine that scratches the surface of whether Church Discipline has a role or place within Organic Fellowship and relationships between other Organic Fellowships.  There’s much more that can be said and it’s too short an article to be exhaustive.  I hope it can lay a platform for further discussion and exploration of this issue whether people agree initially with the point raised and questions asked or not.

The Lost Practice of Church Discipline

What All Christians Need to Know

by Bart Breen

(Originally published by House to House Magazine)

Who is this person?

I remember well my days of pastoring and working in a denominational district office. Back then, I would get the occasional call from a pastor or church leader asking for a reference concerning a former church member or adherent.

In some cases, they would ask for a letter of recommendation assuring their staff that this person (or family) had been members in good standing and weren’t subject to church discipline. They especially wanted to know if the person or family in question had a reputation of trouble-making.

The practice of “letters of commendation” is thoroughly biblical. In the New Testament era, if you relocated from one church to another, a “letter of commendation” went ahead of you. That letter was to inform the church to which you were relocating if you had a “good report” or if you had a “bad report.”

Organic and Simple Churches don’t often do this.

Many organic and simple churches do not follow this practice at all, even though it’s wholly biblical and rooted in practical wisdom.

For example, let’s say that someone from church A (whether an institutional church or not) is excommunicated by the church for gross unrepentant sin. Of course, “unrepentant” means the person doesn’t acknowledge his or her sin and they don’t stop committing it. In fact, they may even justify it.

So the person is excommunicated from church A as Scripture teaches. Let’s assume that this is a thoroughly legitimate excommunication. The entire process of Matthew 18 has been followed. The person was approached in private, but they refused correction. They were then approached with 2 or 3 others in the church (perhaps on multiple occasions), and they still rebuffed the correction.

Only as a last resort, the person’s sin was made known to the church and they were asked to leave the fellowship as both Jesus and Paul both taught (see Matt. 18; 1 Cor. 5; Rom. 16).

This person, having been excommunicated, relocates to attend church B. Church B is completely unaware of this person’s past sinful behavior and excommunication. So church B gladly receives this individual into their fellowship.

In some cases, the excommunicated person may bad-mouth church A, complaining of being “mistreated,” spinning the truth to suit his or her own purposes.

Church B, unfortunately, never thinks to call church A to find out what really happened and hear their side of the story.

This scenario is more common than we might want to believe.

Wounded people and Divisive people come.

Unfortunately, many people who gravitate toward simple forms of church have had negative experiences with institutional churches and sometimes other simple forms of church. Sometimes those negative experiences were because of dysfunction or high-handed hierarchical control on the part of those churches.

But others times, it’s not that at all. The reality is that the person was excommunicated due to a pattern of causing division or other unrepentant sin.

This was crucial in the early church.

In the first-century church, letters of commendation — recommending a person or warning others against them — were not just a matter of “protocol.”  It was crucial and sometimes a matter of life or death. A good example of this was Saul, before he was known as Paul, who had a reputation of scourging the church of the living God.

Saul actively hunted down believers in Christ to imprison them and even stood by approving in the case of public executions (Acts 8:1-3).  As we know, this same Saul later became integral within the body of Christ as a leading member, teacher, and preacher of the gospel to the Gentiles.

There was an extended time, however, where the Christian communities had to transition from justified fear and caution to unrestrained acceptance and trust.

This didn’t happen overnight, and it didn’t happen without cautious “baby-steps” that were facilitated by already trusted men within the body who placed their reputations and lives on the line to vouch for Saul and assure others that a genuine change had truly taken place in his life.

Barnabas ended up being the key to Saul becoming Paul, enabling Paul to enter into the local churches with open arms. Barnabas was known and trusted by all within the Jerusalem church as a man who evidenced the fruit of the Spirit.

After Saul’s experience on the Damascus road and an extended time of retreat where he came to know Jesus personally, Saul returned to Jerusalem and sought to meet with the believers there, including the apostles.

Before Paul could be accepted by the church, it took Barnabas’s testimony to assure the church and the apostles that Paul was “safe” to God’s people (Acts 9:26-28).  It was only because of the personal relationship that Barnabas had developed with Paul that the concerns of the Jerusalem church were overcome and Paul was able to receive an endorsement from the apostles.

Paul understood the importance of being vouched for in this regard and he practiced the same in his subsequent ministry. Paul would commend people to local fellowships who were coming from other fellowships.

In other cases, Paul would warn people against those who had a history of divisiveness. (See 2 Cor. 3:1-3; 1 Cor. 16:15-18; 2 Cor. 8:16-24; Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-10; Phil. 2:19-30; 1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10-11; 1 Thess. 3:2; Acts 15:22-27; Rom. 16:1-2; Acts 18:27 for both examples.) Philemon is a positive letter of commendation on behalf of the runaway slave Onesimus.

To repeat, Paul would warn others against people who sought to do him harm by maligning him and thereby hurting the churches within his care.

Forgiveness and Restoration after Repentance.

Paul understood that there was forgiveness and restoration available to those who attacked the Lord’s servants, but only when true repentance was evidenced. Nobody knew that better than him, since Paul attacked the church and was later forgiven and received after his repentance.

Until there was a time of repentance, however, Paul knew that those who sought to make a name for themselves at the expense of others to promote their own teachings and establish their own name were a deadly threat to young fellowships and new believers.

Repentance means a change of actions. And it’s evidenced by an apology to the offended parties and a change of behavior over a sustained period of time based upon a change of mind or heart. It’s not just a show of regret, emotion or lip-service.

Names are Named.

Paul sometimes even named names and made public warnings as evidenced in cases like Alexander the Coppersmith (2 Tim. 4:14-15). Paul also referenced a group known now as the Judaizers who would follow him into places he previously ministered, slandering him with lies and false reports, attempting to draw Gentile converts into their legalistic practices (Gal. 1:6-7).

By their very nature, organic fellowships and simple churches seek to establish deeper fellowship, interaction and trust without hierarchies and formal policies.  Because of that, however, they are particularly susceptible to people who have been excommunicated by other fellowships because of a history of quarrelsomeness, contentiousness, divisiveness — and other serious sins condemned in the New Testament.

Do not discount or neglect the wisdom of the early church as demonstrated by Paul in looking for commendations from others who are known and trusted. By the same token, do not discount the warnings of others about a person if those warnings are current and from multiple credible sources.

When a local fellowship or a group of leaders has excommunicated someone for serious and ongoing unrepentant sin, the body of Christ has spoken. Therefore, for a church or individual to receive the person who has been excommunicated by a local fellowship or group of leaders on biblical grounds is received into fellowship, it’s a denial of the oneness of the body. More seriously, it’s a denial of the voice of Jesus on earth.

Excommunication is Serious.

Only when the people who were involved in the excommunication can verify true repentance can fellowship can be restored to the individual.

To ignore this principle is to invite the enemy “into the camp” and he will use it to wreak all sorts of havoc and confusion among Christians.

If we are going to take the New Testament seriously about how we are to gather, we must also take seriously the principle of the oneness of the body of Christ, and this includes the practice of letters of commendation — both of positive recommendations and of warnings.

Signs of False Warnings

Of course, warning letters are sometimes bogus and written by people who have a sinful agenda. Here are some of the marks of a false warning:

1. It’s written or headed up by one person.

2. The accusing person has never gone to the individual they are accusing privately to hear the person’s side of the story (per Matt. 18).

3. The accusing person has not brought others to go to the individual privately (per Matt. 18).

4. The accusing person has no relationship with the person they are accusing, but are deriving their accusations from second, third, and fourth hand sources and there is a discernible hidden agenda present.

Such letters of warning should be ignored out of hand. They are virtually always written by someone who is seeking to smear another person and are driven by evil motives.

Signs of Legitimate Warnings

On the other hand, if a letter of warning is signed by multiple credible witnesses and those witnesses followed the process of Matthew 18 — privately pleading with the person to repent, taking others to do the same, and then finally, taking it to the church — then such letters should be seriously heeded and taken to reflect the voice of the body.

Without evidence of an offending person’s changed heart and changed behavior, reconciliation with those who have harmed others in the past leads to “leavening the whole lump” and defiling others with sin. This is why the practice of excommunication — as gut-wrenching as it is — was practiced in the first century churches.

Restoration of the individual was the goal but not at the price of quarrels and division within the body as a whole.

Apart from the work of Christ in our midst and within the members of His body, the past is a good indicator of what might happen in the future. Only when the past has been dealt with by true repentance is it gone forever, never to be mentioned again.

 

Jim Wright: Still Chasing Gingerbread Men


History Repeats Itself

Jim Wright Gingerbread Man

Jim Wright’s Obsessions with Scandal and Generating Public Spectacles Go Back Decades

Newspaper Article above Published Dec 31, 1980

Jim Wright likes to drop in his writings from time to time that he’s an important person who “founded” the most influential Pro-Life Lobby in Maryland.  He claims that he promoted Pro-Life Issues tirelessly despite the opposition that arose to him.  This is the real story.  Jim Wright was an “executive director” of the Maryland Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell as part of a national organization.  After Jim Wright caused that organization great embarrassment and then refused correction by the National Organization he was disowned and cut loose by them.  Jim Wright’s “founding” of the Family Protection Lobby was nothing more than the remnants of the original organization that he co-opted from the Moral Majority which he failed and embarrassed.  Jim Wright was more concerned with publicity stunts and attention generating and the Moral Majority was concerned with actual legislative results. Continue reading