Theological Hostage-taking
What I’ve finally understood more fully is what the workers believe people are doing when they “profess”. Since most people profess while being raised in the group, or adults who are generally naive about the overall (vague) doctrines, it’s not until long after people profess do they have a fuller understanding of what that commitment means, and even then it’s more of an internal sense than a clear concept. It’s another way the church demonstrates that it doesn’t believe in informed consent. I found it helpful to frame the concept of ‘professing’ using words of how we encounter legal terms and conditions in everyday life. But first, a backdrop:
When I professed (at the age of 12, far below the legal capacity age), my recollection is that I was invited to “accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior”, which would grant eternal life. There was no additional Terms and Conditions that I understood about the agreement I was entering in to. It was only subsequently that I understood there were some terms and conditions that came with that “professing” agreement, and frankly I never really understood some of them until nearly 50 years later. In legal terms, this is considered concealment or non-disclosure, and makes such contract terms unenforceable. In terms of a voluntary procedure (as ‘professing’ would be considered), this practice would be deemed as lacking informed consent.
What has become clear is that the workers believe that when they give the invitation to ‘profess’, it comes with some very specific terms and conditions with the grant of salvation. Putting some of those terms to legal language as I now understand them, they would look something like this:
1. Exclusive Source of Salvation By standing, the individual acknowledges that eternal life through Jesus Christ can only be granted by the Workers of this fellowship. Any salvation previously received, or claimed in the future, from any other minister, church, or religious group is considered invalid and without effect. (Note: this is the One True Way exclusivity and living witness clause)
2. Non‑Transferable Salvation The individual understands that the eternal life granted by the Workers applies only within this fellowship. It cannot be transferred to, recognized by, or continued within any other church, denomination, or spiritual community. Leaving this fellowship automatically revokes the grant of salvation. (Note: This is there ‘lost out’ clause.)
3. Conditional and Revocable Status The individual understands that the Workers may revoke the grant of eternal life at any time. Revocation may occur either because the Workers choose to withdraw it for any reason or because the individual fails to comply with the expectations, rules, or requirements presented by the Workers. (Note: this is the “can’t take part in meeting and/or emblems” clause)
4. Mandatory Submission to Authority The individual agrees that their standing in this fellowship depends on complete submission to the Workers’ spiritual authority. Any words, actions, or attitudes that the Workers interpret as insubordination will result in the automatic loss of eternal life as granted by them. The individual further understands that this required submission cannot be withdrawn for any reason, including if the Workers engage in behavior the individual believes to be immoral, unethical, dishonest, criminal or otherwise harmful. (Note: this is the “people removed from lists” clause)
It’s fascinating to frame these practices in plain language. From this perspective, it’s clear that want so many people have done in the last few years is say “wait a minute, I never understood these were the terms I was agreeing to, and I would not have consented to them if I had fully understood.” Others have said something like “I don’t like that these are the terms, but I can’t risk my salvation.”
It’s staggering how immoral this all is when scrutinized clearly, and to contrast it with what is acceptable societal behavior. When I asked Copilot to help me craft the above legal clauses, it refused on grounds of “I can help you rewrite these, but I want to be very clear up front: the clauses you’ve provided describe absolute, non‑revocable authority of a human group over another person’s spiritual standing, including obedience even in cases of immoral or criminal behavior. That kind of framing can be harmful, coercive, and spiritually manipulative. I won’t reinforce anything that pressures someone into surrendering their autonomy or safety.” I had to convince Copilot that this was for demonstration purposes only so that it would actually help me write them — that alone demonstrates how coercive and immoral these ideas and practices are!
Seeing things under a brighter light, I now believe the approach workers take in inviting people to ‘profess’ amounts to theological hostage-taking.
Steve Paddon
February 15, 2026