A Defense of the Christian Exodus Project

A Rebuttal to Common Evangelical Critiques

The Dialogue with a Normal Baptist Boomer.

[Names have been changed to protect individual identity]

I. Introduction

Bugsy Toisvert,

I have been forwarded some critiques of the Christian Exodus Project which I had founded with my wife a couple of years ago and which has since found great blessing from God and is moving towards its goal plenty apace.

It is my intention here to respectfully answer questions about the project in a way that recognizes your genuine faith and Christian concern, while at the same time defending the motives and goals of the CEP in way more appropriate than it would have been for Jason to do as one of our partners (Dominica Reformed).

Jason is however an “acting elder” in the provisional session of Christ the King Reformed Catholic Church (with myself and one other, both ordained and having served in Lutheran and Reformed Churches, though we both grew up Independent Baptist and/or Pentecostal, much like Jason and Jenn). I consider the Groggs good personal friends and I asked them to partner with the Christian Exodus Project and offered them a tab on our website as I felt their cause was righteous and just and I wanted to support them in their fight with the Dominican government. I only say this to clarify our relationship, we started the website in November 2022 and we met Jason and Jenn in October 2023 and they joined out website in December 2023 (If I remember correctly). Since the start of 2024 we have been “balls to the wall” as they say, for we have been getting tons of interest and now potential investment and support as God has now answered prayer and begun to bless our project which began simply as an idea we had thrown out in the ether of the worldwide web.

As for me, I currently work construction as I have my entire life (along with machining, etc) and I own and operate an off-grid family homestead (which I built) with my wife and our eight living children (we had a son pass away last year). I was originally pursuing my goals of obtaining my Ph.D and working in academia to defend the Christian faith, but was cancelled for standing on biblical convictions a few years before we decided to go off-grid and start a self-sufficient homestead, but before this all happened I did manage to accomplish my Bachelors in Bible and Philosophy (cum laude) and a Masters of Theology specializing in Biblical Studies. I grew up in the Applachian region of Pennsylvania in a working class family and I have since seen my home, for which my family has been for 300 years, turn from Mayberry into a desolated drug-den full of immorality and apostasy away from the faith of our fathers. It was only through a Christian education in my adult years (Since I was public schooled in a non-religious family in my youth) that I came to see the origins of that decline in our embracing of secular law over God’s law, of our embracing of science and progress instead of our embracing of the Kingly reign of Christ Jesus over all areas of our lives and thought. I also came to see the flaws with Christians of sincere faith living apart from one another in isolation (a mistake we ourselves had made), as that is not how God intended for us to live, so even though I see strong benefits in agrarian self-sufficiency for providing and protecting one’s own family, such was never a lifestyle that was historically lived apart from close-knit communities, nor did God intend it that way.

II. The Main Assumptions Behind a Christian Exodus.

The Christian Exodus Project was born out of these experiences, but also out of the desire for the balancing of multiple concerns, and it is these concerns that would have to be clearly and unequivocally rebutted to actually serve a legitimate critique of our project. These main suppositions were that:

(1) God is clearly judging the US for abandoning the recognition of God as the sovereign basis of all things and of all laws; the sodomite wickedness of our generation being the Biblical proof that this is the case (see Romans 1:20-1:32).

(2) When a nation is under judgment and real political persecution is headed your way, the Scripture does advise Christians in multiple texts to take their families somewhere safe (Proverbs 27:12, Matthew 10:23, Proverbs 22:3, Luke 21:21, Revelation 18:4, Exodus 2:23-25). Not only this, but that families should be a focus for kingdom building is fundamental to our theology, namely, that God does not merely grow the kingdom by evangelism and missions, but through Christian childbirth and that God intends this to be, with mission and evangelism, a fundamental basis for establishing Christian society (Malachi 2:15, Genesis 1:28, 1 Timothy 2:15, Psalm 127:3, Genesis 17:10cf Acts 2:39, Luke 18:15-17, etc) .

(3) The global south has been doing better than the developed world for several reasons, but among them is that they have (a) maintained biblical law, (b) rejected liberalism, and that (c) they are less wealthy (individually) and (d) they are less technological (as a whole). Likewise, we see that anywhere where these four areas resemble the developed world, the country is correspondingly less Christian as a result. This correlation, I would argue, is theologically predictable.

(4) The global south is, however, in progress to become like the developed world and a narrow window remains to warn them to not follow the path we had taken, and to assist them in resisting that march of progress which is antithetical to the Christian faith through a robust classic Christian and trade-skills education and alternatives to western institutions (including the use of indigenous and holistic medicine as well as midwifery, rather than embracing the tyrannical eugenicist overreach of our own medical establishment etc), these being but two examples.

Bugsy Toisvert: [I did see in your update a link to the Christian Exodus Project (CEP). I went to the address you referred to there. Am I assuming you are considering becoming a part of this group, or are you forming this ministry? If this is you I do have some questions about it and not sure if you are open to hearing this. However these are things that are very close to my heart in ministry. I can only share them with you as I have shared with some others. But others have often shut the conversation down once I bring up these points. It grieves my heart that there cannot be a discussion about it. I hope I am not just sounding "holier than thou" or caustic. I do want to hear how others work around these issues, and it is not just people talking over each other.]

It seems that you are sincere in your critique and I am open to hearing it. I will not pre-judge you if you promise to not pre-judge me and I want to let you know that I respect your love and concern for Jason as a brother in Christ. Let our conversation bring praise and glory to Jesus Christ.

III. Are We Acting Like Colonizers and Chauvinist Anglophiles?

Bugsy Toisvert: [I am puzzled as I read through the details there. It sounded very intense, but I seemed to see contradictions in its details. Maybe you could address these things and explain them better than I read? I am mostly puzzled by how is this Christian Exodus Project really any different from the colonization. Please let me note the points I read about.]:

We of course will be discussing those apparent “contradictions” as we proceed, but for the time being let us consider these couple of statements right from the get-go.

(1) That we sound “intense” being an observation is itself a red-flag to me, but I have promised to not pre-judge. Thus, I will not assume that this comment comes from someone who is a wishy-washy moderate who only applies Scripture to things everyone agrees on and is afraid of embracing Scripture to the point where it makes one appear “abnormal” or “radical.”

I will say this: the apparent intensity you have noticed is only an intensity of conviction in how we have failed as a society in abandoning God’s Law and the authority of Christ over every sphere of our society. There is no area, not even one, where God’s Word does not bear absolute and sufficient authority. Where do we get our views of inheritance or retirement in our society? Should we support dating, courtship, or arranged marriage? Should homosexuals be worthy of the death penalty, a fine, or should they be tolerated or even embraced? Should evolution be permitted to be taught in a Christian society even though it meets the definition of blasphemy and idolatry? Should women work outside the home if they are married with children? Should birth control be permitted among healthy Christian couples? What about child discipline, is it right that Christians can get in trouble for using the rod in this nation? The Scripture has an answer to all such subjects, and let me be clear, what it says is “pretty intense.”

We are intense because we are intensely committed to the idea that Scripture is not relegated in its authority to its cultural context and that the Holy Scriptures and how they were historically applied until 19thcentury, represent the way in which all Christian societies should be applying and living the Word of God. Anything less is apostasy and can only be differentiated by the degree of error or obedience to One True Standard.

(2) So how is the CEP different than colonization? I know that this will be fleshed out more below, but I will simply say that colonization encompasses (a) the desire to not merely Christianize but to westernize a society, and (b) to use force if necessary to accomplish these goals.

Regarding (a), we are not colonizers because we would only insist on westernization where such westernization were a directly inferred practice from Biblical principles and otherwise would prefer to see our host culture retains it indigenous character inasmuch as such is itself compatible with Christianity, every thought is to be taken captive to the Word of God.

Regarding (b), we are not colonizers because we would not regard “force” as our means of either influencing society or changing it, though we by no means flee from the use of force if it meant defending our own wives from rape and our children from being murdered; however, barring that, we seek to teach, heal, and preach, not to imitate the evils of Islam and its approach to conversion, which is no different than conquest.

Bugsy Toisvert: [It requires everyone to speak one language (English) which automatically brings a cultural orientation (mainly Western by the way) to the group. You and I know that it is always the first step foreigners in a different country take, to avoid giving up on their own cultural perspective to require others to speak a language (English) we understand, using the reasoning it is an "international language", instead of me as a foreigner trying hard to understand their heart language. I have seen how one's language always carries with it a reflection of the cultural perspective].

I am confused by this objection and the rest of your discussion on English on two counts:

1. We are primarily focused on the nation of Dominica, which speaks English, and so the critique you are positing is simply irrelevant. In fact, most of the places we have considered are native English speaking for this reason. Why? Because we are a community first, not missionaries, and I am FIRST concerned about our community and then concerned with the locals SECOND.

2. Now let us say we were also planning on creating a community in Costa Rica (which has been discussed) wherein the native language in Spanish. Does you critique then apply?

Let me be clear, when I say that we desire to have people join the core community who can at least speak English, the point is purely practical; namely, that in our daily communal life, we can talk to each other. That is, if I have an emergency with a child getting his arm caught in a piece of machinery, we really don’t have time to call the translator now do we? That’s the whole point in a nutshell. So if I need a wrench in such a case as that, I need it RIGHT NOW and I shouldn’t need Google translate or a bilingual local nearby to save my son’s life. To say otherwise is to be politically correct to the point imbecility.

Now to be clear, we do not bar Christians who speak other languages, and persecuted Christians from China and Muslim nations would be especially welcomed and valuable, however, having some ability to communicate and worship with us is essential. After all, if we have people from 20 different national backgrounds join our community; we can’t have bible studies in 20 different languages!

Does this mean that I wouldn’t want people to learn Spanish? OF COURSE NOT! We would be teaching Spanish as a mandatoryclass so that we could reach the locals in such a case, but as far as joining our initial community and getting it started, it is essential we can talk to each other. I don’t know if you noticed, but the work stoppage was pretty immediate when God confused the languages at Babel. If the lingua franca was Latin as it was in the 16th century, I would be making the same case right now for Latin under the same principles I just outlined for English.

Here is another example: What if we move to Costa Rica and we have only 20 families and 10 of those families are from 10 different countries with 10 different languages (China, Brazil, Kenya, Mynamar, Papua New Guinea, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Japan)?

In such a case if they all knew English as a second language and the other ten American families spoke English as their first language, what do you think would be the most “rational” choice for the chosen language of day-to-day business and worship in our community? I assure you that a seminary education is not necessary to answer that question.

Bugsy Toisvert: [Yet the CEP seemed to be talking about ministering to local people with the Gospel and avoiding corrupting them with our downfalls. Isn't that contradictory? I have seen it in missions that staying with English says to locals (both consciously and unconsciously), that they must imitate Western American ideals, and thinking -all that CEP wants to avoid. I was very puzzled by this and confused as to how it can be said that it both wants to avoid transporting your past culture while sticking very closely with it by wanting everyone to speak English who signs up with CEP. Does this sound at all an issue you have considered?]:

No, it is not contradictory, for the reasons I just cited above, but let me add another point.

1. Our primary ministry is to those joining the community and our exodus out of the developed world. Our secondary ministry is to the locals. This is important, we minister to those joining us and then we as a group as we grow in faith and unity, then overflow that love in our outreach to the locals. We cannot rightfully minister to locals in the third world until we have our own house in order. We are not missionaries; we are a community of Christian expats who desire to raise a new generation and to help our allies in the global south in the coming war against a secular anti-Christian west.

2. I don’t know if you have seen or read Lord of the Rings, but we (the CEP) are like Rohan and the global south represents both Helm’s Deep in the Two Towers and Gondor in the Return of the King. Our job is to first retreat to the global south for safety (the Helm’s Deep analogy) and then our job is to help our besieged allies defeat our common foe (the Charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor fields is right analogy here). That might be a helpful way of understanding how we view ourselves at the CEP. We are retreating to safety among our brethren just as Christians fled the Soviet Union and Jews fled Nazi Germany when they saw the impending doom. Like many of those refugees we then hope to assist our generous hosts in defeating that very enemy from which we retreated.

IV. Is Self-Sufficiency Isolationist, Racist, and Rebellious Against the Civil Magistrate?

Bugsy Toisvert: [Also, CEP emphasizes "self-sufficient" and is also saying without words "Separation/ isolation" from others. It also carries with it a concept of superiority to those already there. Is often a threat to any local form, of government as well.]

Yikes, this sounds like a bit of a stretch and an accusation. Self-sufficiency does not imply isolation or separation, nor does it imply conflict with government.

Self-sufficient here only means that we grow our own food and build our own homes in order to be resilient and not reliant on external inputs and that we might do so in a way that promotes sustainable and long-lasting agricultural practices.

That governments tend to work towards the destruction of individual liberty and freedom is something that is just obvious and one of the reasons the Global south is appealing is precisely because their governments are smaller and less intrusive and thus make self-sufficient living and homesteading easier.

Bugsy Toisvert: [That sounds in Western terms positive at times but not fitting with Roman 13 at all. This was the downfall of many mission projects in the past, that separated missionaries on their compounds away from the local people. They grow American plants often to their own tastes that they bring with them. That further deepens the distinction with local people. Even if it is local produce grown, it is often seen that being self-sufficient hurts the local economy presenting you also as selfish, not interacting with those already growing these things. . You have more resources than locals and hoard them for yourself to live. Again unless you are on a deserted island with NO LOCAL group there already, most of the material in CEP sounds to me like let us colonize this place and set up ourselves as controllers and the ones that are in charge. Coming in as foreigners it is such an insult to many locally.]

God has recently blessed me in past years with patience, self-control, and an even-temper. In my youth I would have torn into this grotesque charge and criticism with a great deal of deserved ferocity, but I am going to instead try to see the legitimate concern you have here instead of just seeing red.

That the desire to grow our own food is inconsistent with Romans 13 might be the most insane thing I’ve ever heard, it sounds like it came from Karl Marx’s commentary on the Book of Romansif I were honest.

Firstly, it is just not historically accurate. Most Americans were free homesteaders or farmers as late as the 1970s and in the global south subsistence farming is still the norm, are we to assume these people are all just defying Romans 13? How is growing vegetables and raising a milk cow “resisting the civil magistrate?” Indeed, most of St. Paul’s audience in the New Testament would have been “self-sufficient” farmers themselves or would have been merchants or other tradespersons bringing such locally raised goods to market. This of course says nothing for the myriad of Scriptures that commend the Christian to do just that, three quick examples being 1 Thessalonians 4:11, Psalms 104:14-15, Ecclesiastes 9:7-9. I would also encourage you to read my article on “the Agrarian Way” which is a biblical defense of agrarianism and homesteading on the CEP website under the articles tab.

Besides, the idea of the self-sufficient homestead is something that Thomas Jefferson argued was essential to preserving liberty and he wrote such regularly, in fact, he believed that the American experiment would fail if a majority of Americans were not landed farmers. His prediction has born out that he was correct. Now, if you were consistent, I suppose this means you believe the American Revolution was an immoral violation of Romans 13?

Further, you are right that we are concerned about how locals will perceive us, but I assure you it will have nothing to do with what we actually have, but with the color of our skin. In the global south people like us, no matter how poor, are judged by people in the third world, to our shame, as weak, lazy, rich, greedy, exploitive, and depraved, just by looking at our skin color.

I suppose I can count on you to point out how evil it would be to judge our community that way when our desire is to merely provide for our own families and then share our abundance with their own people?

I also see the charge of colonialism being tossed around again, and though I already addressed this charge, I can’t resist pointing out that we have nearly one BILLION Christians in Africa, far more pious than most American Christians, and none of them would likely be there at all if it weren’t for the blessed colonists of the British and other European Empires. God bless colonization! If it weren’t for the colonizing efforts of Christendom the godless and idolatrous heathen savages who practiced sodomy and cannibalism would still be ruling the Americas and Africa!

That last paragraph was meant to be “intense” but those are the facts. Christians ended slavery and Christians ended colonization, but we also ended heathen savagery and idolatry in those lands and we tore down the Empires they created under the banner of their father the Devil. We cannot just paint colonization with a broad brush, it had serious errors and sins involved in it, there is no dispute to this, but God also used it to GREATLY advance His Kingdom on the earth and to deny this is to show an utterly impious lack of gratitude for God’s design and the triumph of His kingdom.

Christian growth has stagnated since the end of such “colonizing,” perhaps that means we should revive it? After all, if growing Christ’s kingdom is your REAL concern, then perhaps we should go back to what works eh? Guess what, the greatest leap in Christianity occurred thanks to colonization, so even though I DENY we are doing “colonizing,” even if we were, I don’t see how that charge is an actual critique or insult if “saving souls” is supposed to be our business.

V. Is the Apostolic Practice of Communal Living Obsolete and Contrary to Outreach, Missions, and Evangelism?

Bugsy Toisvert: [When the Church at Jerusalem had all things in common it was good and advantageous for a time. But what happened there? It was ONLY after the persecutions and dispersion of the Jerusalem Church that the Gospel began to spread to all the world which was God's command (Acts 1:8).

The Churches planted after that did not become isolationist and "self-sufficient" but instead became directly involved in the community, as they were made up of people from the community. Paul did not stay but discipled local leaders to rise up and lead the local Churches. Then Paul addressed Local Churches to be united as a family, supporting one another within their cities and towns. Together, they were to battle corruption. But do you notice that Jerusalem's "having all things together" was NOT their model anymore? They were only to come "out" of corrupt local churches.]

Are you suggesting that the Christians in Jerusalem “being filled with the Holy Spirit” and having all things in common as a consequence was a wrong and failed strategy? That community design came from God and is set forth as a positive example, not as an example to be rejected because it wasn’t “outreach focused.” The formation of this community came immediately after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2), and then became well established (Acts 4) and there is a textual case that this model was being practiced in several of the churches that St. Paul had founded as well (2 Thessalonians 3:10, 1 Timothy 5:9cf Acts 6:1).

This is the problem with an evangelism-centered theology that denies the place of families and communities; it is even willing to cast down Scripture if it doesn’t seem missions focused.

The command to go out in Acts 1:8 is not negated by the other commands regarding family and community life, we are not to go out and “get X amount of converts” and then leave them where they are at. We are to make them into disciples and to “teach them ALL that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:16-20). This means establishing an education in God’s Law, its mean a community of believers, and it means marrying and giving in marriage and bringing children to Jesus.

I would argue that the model in Jerusalem was still the general model of other churches and is still to be pushed hard today, as it was by the early church fathers into the high middle ages where Christian communities formed around monasteries up until the Reformation in order to benefit from the model (after the collapse of Rome) of living self-sufficiently from the land while also sharing with one another to mitigate the difficulties of living in a fallen world and then going from that community-core to evangelize and covert the heathen. All of pagan Europe became Christian because of that model (following the examples of both St. Benedict and the Celtic monastaries) of setting up self-sufficient communities from which they ministered to locals and brought them the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These monasteries also preserved the great works and contributions of Greco-Roman civilization when the pagans would have been content to see them burn.

Our communities will recover that ancient strategy as well. Just like we wouldn’t have the works of Homer or Plato or Cicero without the preservation of Christians in such communities, we too will preserve the best aspects of our civilization as it collapses in our communities for posterity. Someone has got to do it, and as usual, it will be us “intense” Christians.

VI. Is Political Reform Contrary to the Gospel? Are Governments Supposed to be Accountable to God's Moral Law?

Bugsy Toisvert: [I must share that I do not see Paul and other Scriptural writers directly instructing us to have a political reform. Yes, we are to be light and salt on the earth and live righteous lives before others. I do not see the Scriptures telling us to be the Social Reformers of our society except by sharing truth/Gospel to see individuals be transformed by the power of the new birth- one at a time. That does make a difference in culture. It is not legislating righteousness but seeing transformed lives living righteously. Let our righteousness be voiced and accept the consequences, true, but it has never worked to legislate righteousness. I see governments adopting a State religion only seemed to invite corruption into that group looking for greed and power. Please share with me what I am missing here. I see how Jesus instructed soldiers (Luke 3:14) to just do what is good within their responsibilities. It seems He let Zacchaeus Lk19:1-10 make his own decision about restoring his ill-gotten gain as a tax collector. I do see historically that groups that were the most vocal and political also became harsh and bitter in their rhetoric. That increased their visibility but also did not reflect Jesus' gentle and lowly heart to the world.

Yes, Jesus was at times very critical and direct but only to the religious that claimed to be followers of righteousness. He was certainly no pushover, but never crude or coarse in speech. From my view of history/current events, many religious movements that went into politics left biblical truths and adopted earthly speech and activities to accomplish their expressed religious goals.]

Since Jason shared this email with the entire provisional session (Jason Grogg, Josh Johnson (me) and Jon-Michael Samek) the other ordained elder (Jon-Michael) felt called to respond to this point, and though I have some of my own thoughts, I feel like his case is sufficient, so here are his words in response to this point.

I (Jon-Michael) would respond by stating two clear points:

1) To be political is to be religious because the very morals that politics seeks to undergird itself with is supplied by religion. The church as the light of the world and salt of the earth is the one body that can speak authoritatively to government either approving or condemning because the church holds the keys of the kingdom and the Scriptures in which we find the law of God: the moral foundation for all governments. That’s why Paul appealed to Caesar and went to Rome. To preach the gospel is also to preach the law of God and call all governments to bow the knee to Christ. That’s how the entire western civilization was converted to Christianity! The missionaries went to the very top and converted the rulers and then held them accountable to the law of God. So also did the Protestant Reformers.

2) Yes government legislation doesn’t change hearts but that’s not the purpose of the government; that’s not even the purpose of the church if we are being honest. The church’s purpose is to uphold the truth of Gods Word and make disciples; the government’s purpose is to enforce the law of God. The church has every right to call the government to uphold and enforce Gods law: it is in fact the duty of the church.

3) Jesus came in humility to obey Gods law and die for sinners but still this did not stop Him from calling Herod a fox, the Pharisees sons of Satan, and telling Pilate that He was a king whose kingdom is not of this world. Not of this world does not mean “not over this world” but not from this world or not of the same system as this world. Jesus even physically drove men from the temple with a cord of whips; how is that gentle and lowly? Now as our resurrected king, with all power and authority given to Him, Jesus rules over the nations as well as the church and calls us to push back against the darkness with truth not cower or shrink away but speak boldly and courageous: and in our culture sometimes boldness comes across as offensive because our culture is weak and effeminate.

Peter and John, Stephen, and Paul spoke harsh words of truth that was intended to drive the point home to the heart, so why would God not call us to have the same spirit? Personal experience should not drive our actions but biblical truth and divine command. “God has not given us a spirit of fear but a spirit of power, love, and a sound mind.”

VII. Is Self-Sufficiency Contrary to the Body of Christ? Is Calling Ourselves "Reformed Catholic" Unwise? Are We a Cult with Arbitrary Rules? Is it Wrong to Flee Persecution and Judgment? Would We Even Be Welcomed in the Third World? Won't We Do More Harm Than Good?

Bugsy Toisvert: [I am also puzzled by the tone of isolation yet words of evangelistic-oriented excitement portrayed in the writings. I am aware of the point made about "catholic" as universal/ general from the Greek yet I believe generally today, it will not often be understood in that way. But if it is, I still wonder about the concept of self-sufficient and isolationist community emphasis being in line with that point in belief of the universal Body of Christ.]

Once again, isolationist is your straw-man caricature and not mine. We are not isolationist and a self-sufficient community is not isolationist. That is like saying that you being focused on missions, evangelism, and outreach means you are anti-family and anti-community. Would that be fair?

Of course not, so I would expect the same courtesy of fair representation in the future.

Regarding our being Reformed Catholic, that word “Catholic” is an advantage as we go to a country that is majority Roman Catholic, we are TRUE Catholics in the sense that we maintain the True Faith once delivered to all the saints, who are the communion of all believers (the universal church). We are reformed because we affirm the central points of the reformation against the abuses introduced by the medieval papacy.

In fact, being the Body of Christ and being self-sufficient, we would argue, goes hand in hand. We work with our own hands and try to not be a burden on anyone (which seems better than going on a church to church tour asking for money to support us from hard working people) so that the work of God is not slandered by outsiders. This was St. Paul’s vision, this was the apostolic vision. We have evangelistic excitement and speak of refuge and self-sufficiency because the two are complimentary, not contradictory as you seem to suppose.

Bugsy Toisvert: [The site does have some good points of the corruption "from the Western culture" but I can not believe that the solution is to move to the southern hemisphere to overcome an internal problem. Some have said "There is a reason we (southern hemisphere) are not struggling with your corruption. We are not you so stay away!" They still are struggling with sinful nature, just different outworkings. I see that all of us are to deal with these things within and be progressively transformed by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Paul never encouraged moving Churches or born-again people (like in wicked Corinth) to other locations to overcome temptation but to plant Churches everywhere and then those local individuals deal with the local issues there by the power of the Holy Spirit.]

No, it was St. John (Rev 18) and Jesus Christ that told Christians to leave places where they were tempted by wickedness and faced persecution or risked being swallowed up in God’s judgment.

As for the comment of “there are reasons we are not struggling, so stay away!”

Yes, just like Texans don’t want Californians moving there to make Texas liberal, Christians in Uganda don’t want Europeans moving there to try to change its laws (they just passed a law criminalizing homosexuality with the death penalty for those that practice sodomy with minors, which is still too liberal, but close to what God’s law requires). However, do Texans mind if Californians move there who are ultra-conservative and who have an inside knowledge on how to avoid going down that same path? No, of course not, rather in that case such are welcomed and valuable allies in the fight against left-wing foes.

That really is the better analogy. We are not going to Dominica or anywhere else to make it more like the USA, we are going there to warn them and advise them how to not make the same mistakes we did. In some of these countries, it really is like going back in time to 1965. If we could go back in a time machine as conservative Christians and warn those people then of what would happen if they permitted or allowed certain things, that very message is the same one we will be bringing to the peoples of the developing world. We intend to work with their local pastors and politicians to prevent globalism from corrupting their people from the outside, while also working to help deepen the Christian piety and practical resilience of the regular people. We are helping them to fortify their own positions while also bringing our own young families to safety where they can have faith, family, and freedom in far more abundance than they did in the USA or Europe.

Bugsy Toisvert: [The approach of forming a Godly community has been tried and had its own struggles as people brought their good intentions but depended on externals as the solutions. However, their imperfect lives and internal struggles with old habits of sinful nature soon surfaced and the community faced the same issues of individuals still sinning (Acts 5). Do notice then that it was God not Peter or community rules, who struck them dead in judgment].

Well, we don’t plan of shooting dissidents in our community; however, we will be following 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 18 and excommunicate unrepentant and open violators of God’s laws as Scripture requires for disobeying God’s rules, which just so happen to be the rules of our community. Our standards are the Nicene Creed, God’s Law, and the desire to live in peace, love and unity with those who believe the same with their children. That’s it brother.

You are welcome to join us by the way, we could use a man with your love for Christ and the saving of sinners. After all, what better way to help keep us on the right path than to join us and work from the inside? ;-)

Bugsy Toisvert: [God was emphasizing if you can not live in your local environment as a believer, don't try to change locations as a solution. Look to the Holy Spirit to strengthen you first within. Then you can seek to deal with your local issues first before trying to export anything (like yourself) into another country/ location. The CEP site seems focused on moving to another place where it would be "easier" to live as you desire (self-sufficient, self-regulating) yet you know that the heart is always the issue. All governments are struggling with sin and a foreigner has twice the battle (or more) to change governments as the local people. Going to change society is NOT the Gospel. Going to change lives that will eventually live in righteous intentions will make a difference through the power of Christ in that country is].

I have already given ample texts in defense of both Christians being self-sufficient of fleeing judgment and wickedness, so I don’t plan on repeating those texts again until they are addressed.

However, what I will say is that those Scriptures give us a clear criterion as to when Christians should “stay or go” and I doubt you believe your own words here when you say that there is never a time when Christians should change locations. Under that argument would American Christians ever have come here from Europe? Was it wrong for them? Was it wrong for Christians to leave Soviet Russia before the iron curtain fell? Should Lot have stayed in Sodom?

I think you should reflect on your own words and ask yourself if you are holding to a reasonable, let alone biblical, standard. I do not think you yourself are prepared to stand by the implications of what you are claiming here.

VIII. Conclusion

Bugsy Toisvert: [….I hope we all are willing to stand up to the test of the Scriptures (myself especially!) and not just cling to the Scriptures that support our perspective on theology. I am hoping that I am willing to always discuss the whole counsel of God, so please let me know where you think that I am missing God's instructions in these points or where you think I have things confused. All I ask is we both respond directly to each other's Scriptures as well as bring in new ones that need consideration. I do want to hear your perspective on these matters to actually discuss it together and not just promote one point of view. Where do you think are my blind spots in these issues, my friend?]

Brother Bugs, I want to let you know that I have appreciated this conversation, I believe I had addressed your texts, but if I have not, please let me know more specifically what texts you would like me to exegete in greater detail.

Jason should be honored to have such a considerate Christian friend who would not only take the time to write such a long email, but who was also willing to look into the CEP and research its views as to attempt an informed critique.

I hope you have not found me too harsh, but my spirit in this matter is that of unity and love. Our community welcomes Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Adventists, etc, etc. We are open to all who are willing to stand by the fundamental theology of the Gospel (as summarized in the Nicene Creed) and who uphold the Law of God (as revealed in the Old Testament and as interpreted and applied by Christ and His Apostles) for their ethical standards for Christian living.

Our community is two tiered in governance, with the session (a plurality of ordained elders, all co-pastors together, of an odd number) making one branch of governance, and the other being made up of all the heads of households. Heads of households can decide for themselves their own sacramental views and the elders will accommodate them (e.g. if you believe in infant baptism or infant communion I will oblige and if you reject both I will oblige also, etc.). Further heads of households decide together on all “secular” matters in community (damming a river, where houses should go, et al); whereas, the elders represent the principal authority in all matters pertaining to religion and ethics (community rules, criminality, etc).

I figured some of this information may help you understand our structure more.

Now that you know you are speaking to the whole session of Christ the King Reformed Catholic Church and to the founder of the Christian Exodus Project, please be sure to ask me questions going forward on any points of contention or areas of confusion.

God bless and Godspeed.

In Christ,
Joshua Johnson.

[Contributing Author: Jon-Michael Samek]