1. Matthew 18, Sects and Cults.
2. Mission Kwasizabantu – The Cult
3. Total Disillusionment!

1- Matthew 18, Sects and Cults

During the past few weeks at various times I have been confronted with the notion that any resistance, conflict, difference or action against Mission Kwasizabantu should be handled in terms of Matthew 18: 15 -19.[1] The logic conclusion being that if no solution is forthcoming that I should simply turn my back on the Mission and let them be. I have been severely criticized for the way I approach KSB, especially writing about KSB and publishing on the Internet about them. So, let us look at Matthew 18:15-19 and some aspects of the Mission Kwasizabantu cult.

The opening words of this periscope say: “If you brother sins against you…” The guidelines in Matthew 18 have to do with personal grievances between two individuals in the same church. The Lord Jesus specifically speaks about the sin of a brother against another brother. This holds with His teaching on forgiveness in the next section. It also reflects what God taught His people in Numbers 5:5-10.[2] Here again it refers to the sins between brothers and sisters. It also holds to what is taught in James 5:13-16.[3] It is very clear that when we allow the Bible to interpret itself regarding Matthew 18 that it concerns itself in this periscope with the sin of brother against brother or sister against sister or across the genders.

We may summarize then as follows:[4]

First, a Christian who has a conflict with another Christian is called to address the matter with the other person personally. When matters are handled privately, misunderstanding can be addressed, and there is great potential for the other person to respond positively. In addition, a private meeting helps to avoid the problem of gossip that can occur when a matter is taken to others instead of the person involved.

Second, if a private discussion does not solve the issue, a Christian is to take one or two other believers and meet with the person with whom they have conflict. The clause “that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” refers to the Old Testament law that required a charge to be supported by two or more witnesses to be valid. In the case of personal conflict, this principle allows for additional witnesses to observe the matter firsthand and help determine the proper course of action.

Third, when there is no resolution after steps one and two, the matter is to be taken before the local church. Only in rare cases will a Christian seeking to follow the Lord refuse to resolve conflict when the entire congregation is involved.

Finally, if the person in the center of the conflict refuses to respond positively even when the entire congregation is involved, then that person is to be considered as “a pagan or a tax collector.” This simply means to excommunicate the person, removing the negative influence from the congregation.

In 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle Paul speaks of a believer who had been sexually immoral, apparently with his stepmother. Rather than condemning the act, the Corinthian Christians had tolerated the behavior. Paul taught they should remove this person from their church family (1 Corinthians 5:3). Later, in 2 Corinthians, this same person had turned from this lifestyle, and Paul advised the Corinthian believers to accept him again. The goal of discipline is not to be mean or cold-hearted but to condemn sinful behavior and issue a call to change. In 2 Corinthians 2:8, Paul writes, “I beg you to reaffirm your love for him” (ESV).

It is clear from the above how conflict should be handled within the church. However, when it comes to sin and issues on the corporate church level, within the church management, hierarchy, and doctrine, we find a different situation and it is handled differently. I think one has first to understand the model of leadership in practice at Mission Kwasizabantu. When one understands the model of leadership it becomes apparent how the problems at KSB should be challenged. There are two patterns of leadership I would like to highlight here, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. The question asked is,” What is a biblical pattern of church leadership?” The answer to this question will reveal the essential truth of using Matthew 18 as the vehicle to settle the conflict at the Mission.

There is a distinct pattern for church leadership in the New Testament[5], although the pattern seems to be assumed rather than specifically prescribed. The New Testament mentions two official positions in the church: deacons and elders (also called pastors or overseers).

The words elder (sometimes translated “presbyter”), pastor (which may be translated “shepherd”), and overseer (sometimes translated “bishop”) are used interchangeably in the New Testament. Even though these terms often mean different things among various churches today, the New Testament seems to point to one office, which was occupied by several godly men within each church. The following verses illustrate how the terms overlap and are used interchangeably.

In Acts 20:17–35, Paul is speaking to leaders from the Ephesian church. They are called “elders” in verse 17. Then in verse 28 he says, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God.” Here the elders are called “overseers” and their pastoral/shepherding duties are implied as the church is called the “flock.”

In Titus 1:5–9, Paul gives the qualifications of elders (verse 5) and says these qualifications are necessary because “an overseer must be above reproach” (verse 7). In 1 Timothy 3:1–7, Paul gives the qualifications for overseers, which are essentially the same as the qualifications for elders in Titus. In 1 Peter 5:1–4, Peter tells the elders to “shepherd the flock of God.” From these passages, we see that the office of elder/pastor-shepherd/overseer-bishop is one. Those who occupy this office are to lead, teach, and watch over the church like a shepherd.

Furthermore, we see that every church has elders (plural). Elders are supposed to rule and teach (1 Timothy 5:17). The biblical pattern is that a group of men (and elders are always men) is responsible for the spiritual leadership and ministry of the church. There is no mention of a church with a single elder/pastor who is in charge of everything, nor is there any mention of congregational rule (although the congregation plays a part).

While the elders are responsible for teaching and leading the flock, there is still much that needs to be done on the physical level. The office of deacon focuses on the more physical needs of the church. In Acts 6, the church in Jerusalem was meeting the physical needs of many people in the church by distributing food. Some of the widows came to the apostles because they were not getting what they needed. The apostles responded, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables” (Acts 6:2). To relieve the apostles, the people were told “pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (verses 3–4). Although the men chosen here are not called deacons, most Bible scholars see them as the first deacons, or at least prototypical of the position. The word deacon simply means “servant.” Deacons are appointed church officials who minister to the more physical needs of the church, relieving the elders to attend to more spiritual ministry. Deacons are to be spiritually fit, and the qualifications of deacons are given in 1 Timothy 3:8–13.

In summary, elders lead, and deacons serve. These categories are not mutually exclusive. Elders serve their people by leading, teaching, praying, counseling, etc.; and deacons may lead others in service. In fact, deacons might be the leaders of service teams within the church. Still, there is the basic distinction between those responsible for spiritual leadership of the church and those responsible for service.

So, where does the congregation fit in to the pattern of church leadership? In Acts 6, it was the congregation who chose the deacons, so many churches today will have the congregation nominate and ratify the deacons of the church. And, of course, the members of the congregation are to be the primary ministers and evangelists reaching out to a lost world.

There may be local variations of church leadership because this is only a basic pattern; every detail is not prescribed in Scripture. The basic pattern found in the New Testament is that every church should have a plurality of godly male elders who are responsible for leading and teaching the church and godly deacons who are responsible for facilitating the more physical aspects of church ministry. A plurality of elders protects the church from the weaknesses and possible excesses a single elder. As long as this basic pattern is followed, the church is operating according to the biblical pattern. Having a sole pastor who controls the church is not the biblical pattern, and neither is an arrangement in which the pastor works for the deacons who really run the church. The congregation is to follow the leading of the shepherds who follow Christ. In their wisdom, the elders may request congregational approval of major decisions, but the congregation should not be the final authority. The buck stops with the elders/pastors/overseers, who answer to Christ.

The church leadership model for Mission Kwasizabantu seems to fit the Moses model or principle best. Many times, Erlo Stegen had been likened to Moses and a few times co-workers had likened Thofozi Dube to Miriam. It was said by a senior co-worker that Thofozi Dube has received her position at KSB from Erlo Stegen just as Miriam received her position from Moses. Here then follows the comparison of the Mission Kwasizabantu leadership style with the Moses-Aaron-Miriam leadership style. The Moses[6] model or Moses principle (sometimes called the “Moses-Aaron” leadership style) is a church leadership structure based on the example of Moses’ leadership in the Old Testament.

In the theocracy that God established in the Old Testament, Moses was in charge. He listened to God and relayed God’s messages to the people under him. Moses explains his role in Exodus 18:15–16: “The people come to me to seek God’s will. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.” Moses was the spokesman for God, the teacher of the Law, and the intercessor between the children of Israel and God. The Moses model of church leadership says that pastors should be like Moses in that they speak for God, teach the Word, and intercede on behalf of their people. The pastor listens to Jesus and leads the church accordingly.

The Moses model also calls for a board of co-workers in the church. Because the work of judging the fledgling Hebrew nation was so time-consuming, Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, gave him some advice, which Moses followed: “[Moses] chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people. . . . They served as judges for the people at all times” (Exodus 18:25–26). The Moses model of church leadership says that a board of elders should support the pastor in prayer and in taking on some of the work of the ministry. The pastor, Moses-style, delegates some authority to the leaders he chooses to be under him.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the Moses model. It was used by God and it fit the circumstances of the time. Sometimes the Moses model is criticized because of a perceived lack of accountability. The thought is that the Moses model too easily allows pastors to abuse their authority—after all, if they are “like Moses,” then they can lay down the law, and everyone else must toe the line. The board of elders becomes nothing more than “yes” men approving whatever the pastor decrees from his perch on Sinai, and the congregation has no say at all in anything.

A very valid concern is that the Moses model attempts to apply an Old Testament system of civil government to a New Testament system of church government. Certainly, a study of Moses’ life can provide wisdom for leaders today, and there’s much we can learn from his example. But we should be careful about going too far in structuring churches after laws or histories falling under the Old Covenant.

The New Testament gives clear direction for the pastors or elders of a church: “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:2–4). Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, and pastors are the under-shepherds who follow the Lord’s example of eager servant leadership.

It is this model from which Mission Kwasizabantu progressed to become a cult. Without going into all the reasons, it suffices to say that the Moses-Aaron-Miriam leadership style was the vehicle to bring about what we now have to cope with at KSB. The Mission is not a sect, but it is a cult. The word sect[7] comes from the Latin word secta, which means “school of thought.” It is a subjective term that may apply to a religious faith or denomination, or it may refer to a heretical splinter group. Sometimes, the connotation is one of disapproval, similar to the “destructive heresies” spoken of in 2 Peter 2:1, though there are no consistent or accepted exemplars to use to identify a sect.

Sects are found in all religions. Islam has Sunnis and Shias, Judaism has Orthodox and Karaites, Hinduism has Shiyaism and Shaktism, and Christianity has Baptists and Lutherans. These are all examples of religious sects, and they can be thought of as “branches” of different religions. There are also non-religious sects, such as the capitalists and the socialists in the midst of economists, or the Freudians and Jungians among psychiatrists.

In contradistinction, the word cult[8] always carries a negative connotation. There are specific criteria used to identify a cult. In Combatting Cult Mind Control, de-programmer Steven Hassan singles out what he refers to as “destructive cults,” which he defines as “a pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new members (e.g. people are NOT told up front what the group is, what the group actually believes and what will be expected of them if they become members).” Hassan also correctly points out that cults are not only religious; they may also be commercial or secular in nature.

Hassan developed the BITE acronym, which describes the components employed by destructive cults using mind control. BITE covers the following areas of control:

  • Behavior Control: An individual’s associations, living arrangements, food, clothing, sleeping habits, finances, etc., are strictly controlled.
  • Information Control: Cult leaders deliberately withhold or distort information, lie, propagandize, and limit access to other sources of information.
  • Thought Control: Cult leaders use loaded words and language, discourage critical thinking, bar any speech critical of cult leaders or policies, and teach an “us vs. them” doctrine.
  • Emotional Control: Leaders manipulate their followers via fear (including the fear of losing salvation, fear of shunning, etc.), guilt, and indoctrination.

Because not all cults are immediately recognized as such, and some people may easily confuse cults with sects or denominations, it is critical to follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11: “Now the Bereans . . . received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

Essentially, cults are fueled by fear, shame, and secrecy. Cult members are taught to set their sights on a future existence on a paradise earth or in heaven and forced to give up all hopes of true joy or fulfillment in this life. They often face feelings of emptiness and dread and must resign themselves to boredom, drudgery, and self-discipline. Cult members are often forced to fake a smile and find the energy to put on a “positive face” in order to prove to outsiders that theirs is the “one true religion.”

It’s also common that cult members feel under constant watch. More senior members of their group check on their behavior, words, and deeds. Any deviations from the group’s acceptable norms are punished in some way. People in toxic religious groups are kept mentally enslaved. If they have friends and family members who are members of the same cult, they risk losing them if they ever choose to leave. Many former cult members are shunned for breaking away from the group.

As they are constantly under the threat of losing their loved ones and social community, being destroyed at Armageddon, or losing their salvation, cult members often behave on “automatic pilot.” They go through the motions of life, trying desperately to ignore the questions and doubts that sometimes pop into their minds. They have to make an effort to convince themselves that their lives are not based on a lie and that all their hard work and sacrifice have not been a complete waste.

Many active cult members have given up everything for their group: a decent education, the prospect of having children or following their dreams, a career, a retirement fund, and a relationship with their non-cult family members. They have turned their backs on all that to serve their cult and thereby earn salvation. That’s one reason why cult members will generally be very defensive when speaking to a non-member about their beliefs. They will often justify and defend their life choices aggressively.[9]

Now let us return to Matthew 18:15-19 and Mission Kwasizabantu. There are instances in Church where Matthew 18:15-19 does not apply:

It is not for cases of public, known sin by members of the church. This is precisely what we see happening in 1 Corinthians 5. Paul refers to a report that he has received about a man engaging in known, public sin within the congregation. He says: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” (1Cor 5:1-2). Note the complete absence of process. There is no need for a Matthew 18 style step-by-step process when a public sin has reached this stage of intentionality and scandal. Once a man has moved in with a woman not his wife he is “sinning with a high hand” and is in need of immediate, public discipline. If he repents, truly, by all means, receive him back, but in the meantime, hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. And let him by no means appeal to Matthew 18 as a delaying tactic.[10] Was that not true also when Paul rebuked Peter in public? (Gal.2: 11)[11]. Or when Peter confronted Ananias and Sapphira before the all the church? (Acts 5:3ff)[12].

If a member of the church has been sexually harassed or propositioned by an elder or pastor it would be unwise, unsafe and unnecessary for him or her to discuss that matter privately and directly with that person as per the protocols of Matthew 18. That would lead to further risk and is not required due to the uniqueness of the relationship in question. A pastor is not “a fellow member” in that sense. Nor is an elder. A pastor or an elder is a leader and therefore operates under a higher standard and according to a difference protocol.[13]

According to the Word of God[14], leaders are held to a higher standard than everyone else. They are to be above reproach — not perfect, but not engaged in a lifestyle of unrepentant sin. And if they continue in sin, they should be removed from leadership until they are fully restored. When church leaders’ sin, those following their lead suffer. That’s the nature of leadership. Their sin brings consequences on the rest of the congregation. And the name of Jesus Christ gets trampled. Therefore, as far as the sin is known the repentance should be known. Pastors have a responsibility to what has been entrusted to them. If you are a small church pastor, your church should know. If you have been entrusted with a global ministry, however, your repentance should be known on a global scale.

When there is public and thorough repentance, there can be public and complete restoration. When there is not, 1Timothy 5:19 should be a warning to us all: “Publicly rebuke those who sin, so that the rest will also be afraid.” What’s more, unless spiritual leaders engage in public repentance, their “bold” preaching about sin and grace often appears to be little more than window dressing. In other words, what we believe about God, sin and grace is proven true when we treat our own sin as seriously as we say others should.

When the Church allows compromised Christian leaders to explain away sin, compromise truth, and sin with impunity, we exchange truth for lies. We become no better than idolaters, people whose credulous adoration of compromised leaders fulfill what Paul calls exchanging “the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man . . . exchang[ing] the truth of God for a lie” (Rom. 1:22, 25).

Bob and Gretchen Passantino[15] write that the Bible clearly states that Christian leaders should be accountable both to the Word of God and also to God’s people, whom the leader serves. Among the requirements Paul describes for a Christian leader are that he be “blameless,” and “of good behavior” (1Tim. 3:2). A Christian leader must “have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:7). This does not mean that the Christian leader is simply good at covering up his sin. Christian leaders must display integrity and honesty and they must prove themselves worthy of Christians’ trust.

One would think that the church member’s outspoken faithfulness to truth telling would extend to telling the truth about sin within the Church. And yet at this point many Christians shrink from truth telling, instead hiding behind empty platitudes such as “don’t judge;” “forgive and forget;” “don’t shoot your own wounded;” “look at all the people who came to the Lord through this ministry;” etc. Sadly, we have unbiblically acted as though telling the truth contradicts biblical concern for a sinning Christian leader.

To attempt to combine immorality with godliness to produce spiritual fruit is completely contrary to scriptural teaching. In fact, Paul ranks it with “profane and vain babblings” and warns Timothy to avoid “contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20). In addition, Jesus openly rebuked Peter when Peter argued against Jesus going to the cross (Matt. 16:22, 23). Paul writes Titus that it is the responsibility of the church to hold the leader accountable for his sin: “Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Paul also commands Christians to rebuke sinning leaders publicly, “Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). Paul took his own advice, as recorded in Galatians 2, and publicly rebuked Peter “before them all” (Gal. 2:14).

If we neglect to uncover sin within the Church, we rob the Church of the integrity it should expect from its members. The Church becomes weak through compromise, and the leader becomes weak because of his or her immorality. Fallen leaders betray the trust of those they lead. Maturity in the Lord, which is an essential part of qualifying one for spiritual leadership, can be confirmed only by an established pattern of resisting sin and walking faithfully with God, family, and others.

Fallen leaders damage the trust relationship established between them and their followers, a relationship mirroring the trusting relationship we are to have with the Lord. In addition, they break the trust relationship Peter tells us to have with the world; that is, we are to live so that even the world will note our trustworthiness and be unable to speak against us, but will, instead, glorify God (1 Peter 2:12).

It is unethical for Christians to cover up for leaders who in their position as leader are living immorally. Can the Church claim a higher ethical standard than the world when we adopt a “code of silence” worthy of the most pernicious organized crime conspiracy or even some suspected invisible satanic ring?[16]

A spiritual leader in a position of public trust surrenders his privacy regarding his suitability and trustworthiness. He has asked the public to trust him for specific reasons or qualifications. Those reasons and qualifications are open to public scrutiny. If the leader is trustworthy, they will withstand examination. If he is not, close examination will reveal their inadequacies. Christians who are committed to truth must preserve this fundamental right and obligation to know in whom they are asked to trust.[17]

When immorality occurs in the Church (Titus 1:15-16), the Bible says to deal with it truthfully and constructively. The procedure for public leaders caught in false teaching or immorality is to be rebuked publicly “so that the others may take warning” (1 Timothy 5:20). A congregation member who sins privately against another Christian is not to be exposed publicly unless he persists in sin, in which case he is to be rebuked before the church and we are to “treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector” (Matthew 18:15-17). Paul follows this in 1 Corinthians 5:3-12 concerning the Christian who persisted in his sexual immorality, and affirms that judgment belongs to the Church: “I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present . . . . What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you” (v. 3, 12).

In the light of all the above we are exposing the perpetual sin of the Mission Kwasizabantu leadership publicly as it has been committed publicly. We are exposing their arrogance and proud self-centeredness in not wanting to listen to others who are speaking out against the sin in the church of Mission Kwasizabantu. I have been asked time and again, what are the sins of the leadership. I emphasize it below:

  1. Members of the spiritual leadership of Mission Kwasizabantu has indulged in sexual immorality, adultery, homosexuality, and although others in leadership positions knew about it, it was and is kept silent about and the perpetrators are allowed to continue as leaders of the Mission unabated;
  2. Members of the spiritual leadership perpetually visited, invited them to the Mission and consulted with witchdoctors (sangomas) and paid for their services with money taken dishonestly from the Mission’s funds;
  3. Members of the spiritual leadership has indulged in gambling at various casinos with money taken dishonestly from the Mission’s funds;
  4. Leadership has perpetually lied to cover their sexual immorality, thieving, abuse of power, and personal conduct from being exposed;
  5. Some members of the spiritual leadership covertly misappropriated nearly R200 million of the Mission Kwasizabantu Trust money and used it for personal gain instead of using it for Mission appropriate actions;
  6. To cover the misconduct false invoices, false bookkeeping entries and false payments were done by some in leadership positions;
  7. Members of the spiritual leadership have perpetually told lies and false stories to cover the money misappropriated. They fabricated all manner of stories including murders and hijacking claiming the involvement of political and juridical people.
  8. Missionaries, voluntarily workers and workers at Mission Kwasizabantu have been exploited, underpaid or not paid at all whilst the Mission accumulated assets without compensating the missionaries or workers fairly;
  9. The leaders of Mission Kwasizabantu accumulated personal assets, 4 airplanes, properties and holiday homes, at the cost of the reasonable living conditions of missionaries, voluntarily workers and workers;
  10. A willful and carefully executed “take over” by 3 leaders of all the Mission Kwasizabantu structures is resulting in an even worse situation where missionaries, voluntarily workers and workers are set to be exploited in increasing ways;
  11. Some of these leaders have taken the Mission’s money illegally and used it for personal use or spending it on people who had proven faithful to them e.g. building them homes, paying wedding expenses and buying cars;
  12. Missionaries, voluntarily workers and workers who have given everything for periods of up to 40 years are forced from Mission Kwasizabantu and have to leave; leaving everything behind including houses built, without any UIF, pension or financial compensation for years of service;
  13. The system of remuneration at Mission Kwasizabantu is discriminatory, unfair, racist and biased towards the Mission as institution.
  14. Members of the Leadership has been mentioned and implicated in affidavits to the police and court as being involved in drugs and other criminal acts;
  15. Leadership practice the principle of what they call, “lying for God or God’s case as no sin” to protect Mission Kwasizabantu from being exposed.

The sin of Mission Kwasizabantu is structural, corporate and theological. Mission Kwasizabantu exists as a cult, spiritually and commercially, within the community at large. It is a sin which is initiated and perpetually kept in place by the leadership as a whole, inclusive of the lead pastor, and it is done in the sight of all, Christian and secular, people and structures. They have refused intervention and assistance continuously and shunned whoever wanted to be part of a solution rather than continuing with the problem. There is no acknowledgement of their sin, no sorrow for their sin, no repentance from their sin or confession of their sin to this point in time. They are perpetually hiding the truth, telling lies, covering for one another and attacking those who dare to ask questions and expose their hypocrisy.

Spiritually they have hardened their hearts and resisted the Truth. Some of the current leadership (co-workers) are purely joiners because their fear for man, lack of resources and an unknown future should they leave are forcing them into silence and as such they are denying the Bible truths by which they should live and in their silence they give vested approval to the corporate sin. The whole spiritual decline of Mission Kwasizabantu, which resulted in many to leave her fold, and more than thirty daughter mission posts to forsake her, is in the public eye. Over the years of Mission Kwasizabantu the leadership have solicited funds publicly, received funds publicly and preached their gospel publicly in churches and over the internet. Why then the cry for Matthew 18 secrecy in handling their sin? They have no biblical right to claim Matthew 18 process when they perpetually continue in their sin ignoring the rest of the commands of Jesus Christ. This is not a brother sinning against a brother but institutionalized sin in the Name of God and in the sight of Christian and unbeliever alike. It is fully done in the public domain.

Therefore, Mission Kwasizabantu cannot lay claim to Matthew 18 as the modus operandi for handling the current conflict at the Mission. Openly they sinned and openly they will have to repent and confess the sin and make restitution for that sin.

[1]15“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

[2]5And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 6“Speak to the people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that people commit by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt, 7he shall confess his sin that he has committed. And he shall make full restitution for his wrong, adding a fifth to it and giving it to him to whom he did the wrong. 8But if the man has no next of kin to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution for wrong shall go to the Lord for the priest, in addition to the ram of atonement with which atonement is made for him.

[3]13Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.


[5] Recommended Resource: Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch.

[6] Recommended Resource: Who Runs the Church? 4 Views on Church Government by Paul E. Engle & Steven B. Cowan

[7] “What is the difference between a sect and a cult?”

[8] “What is the difference between a sect and a cult?” Recommended Resource: The Kingdom of the Cult, 6th edition: The Definitive Work on the Subject . Walter Martin. Bethany House / 2019 / Hardcover

[9] “How can I help someone to leave a toxic cult?”

[10] 5 Situations in Which Matthew 18 Does not Apply .

[11] 11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

[12] But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?

[13] 17The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” a and “The worker deserves his wages.” b 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. 21I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. (1Tim.5:17-21).

[14] What to Do When Church Leaders Sin. April 28, 2015 by Bill Blankschaen.

[15] Truth and Consequences: Exposing Sin in the Church. By Bob and Gretchen Passantino. Copyright 1994 by Bob and Gretchen Passantino. I qoute substantially and verbatim from their work.

[16] Truth and Consequences: Exposing Sin in the Church. By Bob and Gretchen Passantino. Copyright 1994 by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

[17] Truth and Consequences: Exposing Sin in the Church. By Bob and Gretchen Passantino. Copyright 1994 by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.

2 – Mission Kwasizabantu –
The Cult

I have been challenged because I judge Mission Kwasizabantu to be a cult now-a-days. It is to those still living at KSB unthinkable that anyone may class KSB as a cult especially if you would remember the toxic cults of the past e.g. Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple Cult, the Branch Davidians or the Manson family cult. Those may be extreme examples, but they nevertheless are still vivid reminders of what cults are and do and how destructive cults can be in the lives of ordinary believers.

It surely helps to make a historical study of cults. Why? From all the cults precipitate features common to what essentially defines a cult. Many studies have been done on the spiritual, social, psychological and emotional structures of these cults to come to a single theoretical structure of cults universally applicable and foundational to all cults. This enables us to evaluate suspect communities to a single set of features as to what comprises a cult.

There are specific criteria used to identify a cult. In Combatting Cult Mind Control, de-programmer Steven Hassan singles out what he refers to as “destructive cults,” which he defines as “a pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new members (e.g. people are NOT told up front what the group is, what the group actually believes and what will be expected of them if they become members).” Hassan also correctly points out that cults are not only religious; they may also be commercial or secular in nature.

Based on research and theory by Robert Jay LiftonMargaret SingerEdgar ScheinLouis Jolyon West, and others who studied brainwashing in Maoist China as well as cognitive dissonance theory by Leon Festinger.  Steven Hassan[1] developed the BITE Model to describe the specific methods that cults use to recruit and maintain control over people.  “BITE” stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.

BITE covers the following areas of control[2]:

  • Behavior Control: An individual’s associations, living arrangements, food, clothing, sleeping habits, finances, etc., are strictly controlled:
  • Information Control: Cult leaders deliberately withhold or distort information, lie, propagandize, and limit access to other sources of information.
  • Thought Control: Cult leaders use loaded words and language, discourage critical thinking, bar any speech critical of cult leaders or policies, and teach an “us vs. them” doctrine.
  • Emotional Control: Leaders manipulate their followers via fear (including the fear of losing salvation, fear of shunning, etc.), guilt, and indoctrination.

Here follows a broader explanation of the BITE Model[3]. Reading through the lists makes it clear that almost all items can be positively linked to the community of KSB:

Behavior Control

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self-indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions
11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors
12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative
13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-thinking
14. Impose rigid rules and regulations
15. Instill dependency and obedience
16. Threaten harm to family and friends
17. Force individual to rape or be raped
18. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment  

Information Control

1. Deception:
   a. Deliberately withhold information
   b. Distort information to make it more acceptable
   c. Systematically lie to the cult member
2. Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:
   a. Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other media
   b. Critical information
   c. Former members
   d. Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigate
   e. Control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet tracking
3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
   a. Ensure that information is not freely accessible
   b. Control information at different levels and missions within group
   c. Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when
4. Encourage spying on other members
   a. Impose a buddy system to monitor and control member
   b. Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership
   c. Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group
5. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:
   a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, YouTube, movies and other media
   b. Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources
6. Unethical use of confession
   a. Information about sins used to disrupt and/or dissolve identity boundaries
   b. Withholding forgiveness or absolution
   c. Manipulation of memory, possible false memories
Thought Control

1. Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth
   a. Adopting the group’s ‘map of reality’ as reality
   b. Instill black and white thinking
   c. Decide between good vs. evil
   d. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)
2.Change person’s name and identity
3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words
4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts
5. Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member
6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created
7. Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts, including:
   a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
   b. Chanting
   c. Meditating
   d. Praying
   e. Speaking in tongues
   f. Singing or humming
8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism
9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed
10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful  

Emotional Control

1. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish
2. Teach emotion-stopping techniques to block feelings of homesickness, anger, doubt
3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault
4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as
   a. Identity guilt
   b. You are not living up to your potential
   c. Your family is deficient
   d. Your past is suspect
   e. Your affiliations are unwise
   f. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish
   g. Social guilt
   h. Historical guilt
5. Instill fear, such as fear of:
   a. Thinking independently
   b. The outside world
   c. Enemies
   d. Losing one’s salvation
   e. Leaving or being shunned by the group
   f. Other’s disapproval
6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner
7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins
8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority
   a. No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the group
   b. Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.
   c. Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family
   d. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, nonspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll
   e. Threats of harm to ex-member and family  

I want to quote some more from the Freedom of Mind Centre[4] handout. It says:

“Undue influence is any act of persuasion that overcomes the free will and judgment of another person. People can be unduly influenced by deception, flattery, trickery, coercion and other techniques including hypnosis. In a court of law, undue influence is a legal term, which involves a person or group taking advantage of their position of power over another person or persons.

Unfortunately, undue influence rates low for most people as an imminent threat to a free society and happy families. But such an oversight is very costly. In the manipulative hands of human traffickers,, terrorist and violent extremist groups, charismatic cult leaders, highly controlling bible-based groups masquerading as benevolent religions, multi-level marketers, political action cults, human potential hucksters and even abusive spouses and parents, undue influence is a major problem in today’s world—and it is getting worse.

When undue influence is used to cheat people out of their inheritance or property, break up families, deceive members into thinking that extreme shunning of close family members and friends is a loving act, demand that parents beat their children under the assumption that the bible commands such harsh discipline, encourage people to break the law, turn adolescent girls and boys into slaves and prostitutes, kill innocent people, threaten parishioners with shunning if they report child molestation or domestic violence to the police or tell anyone about it, fly passenger planes into buildings, become involved in shady deals or coerce parents into letting their children die because it’s God’s will, these kinds of influence are a significant threat to basic human rights and a free society. Undue influence seeks nothing less than to disrupt an individual’s authentic identity and reconstruct it in the image of the cult leader.

To compound the problem, society loses in the following three ways:

1) Groups that practice undue influence as a means of controlling people often have tax-exempt or even charitable status, which means citizens pay the taxes for any properties they own, and the services required to maintain those properties.

2) While a group may receive billions of dollars from its members, they often do not put that money back into society to help people other than the cult leadership.

3) To meet the demands placed upon them by a high-control group, many members are subsidized by the social welfare system, including the medical system, costing society even more money.

This methodical system of control—undue influence—disrupts the person’s authentic identity and reconstructs a new identity in the image of the group or leader. In the process, an individual’s ability to think rationally and act independently is undermined, enslaving even the brightest, educated and most functional people”.

This is absolutely daunting. This whole KSB cult has developed into a spiritual monster being fed by a revival diet to make it what it is today. Erlo Stegen and the 1966 Maphumulo revival are the core of Mission Kwasizabantu teaching and life. The Mission, through the claimed revival has become a power onto itself with little regard to those who query its theology or suffer in its wake. Mission Kwasizabantu tolerates no dissenting voices at all.

Look at the following statements by current leaders of KSB[5]:

Erlo Stegen: “Uncle Friedel and Uncle Heino never go against me”.

Thofozi Dube: “We have something better than the Bible; we have the Bible and revival!”

 About those leaving KSB she said, “They are bring curses on them, their children and the generations to follow!” and she went on to admonish those present and hearing her, “If some of them are your relatives you will save yourself by distancing yourself from them”. The brethren from Europe left “according to their own signature. The branches have been removed from rev. Erlo Stegen by the authority of their signatures”. (Ascension Day 2019).

Eunice Ngcamo: “If Baba tells us to do something, we do it, whether it           is against the country’s law or not. Because he is our spiritual leader, we just do it.”

Ruth:  “Papa is not only our father, but our leader and God’s anointed.”

Dietmar: “Here in the Revival we have learnt that we report things – that brings blessing. And it brings unity”.

Dietmar: “Does Uncle Erlo know everything you do? Does he really know everything which you do?  When I hear this, we are still superficial. We really asked whether Uncle Erlo is your leader. Do you have the truth that  Uncle Erlo knows what you do? What happened, does Uncle Erlo know about it?”

Hans Koller: “If we distance ourselves from this Revival in  KwaSizabantu in South Africa, then we lose everything”.

Albu van Eeden: “Revival is a dangerous thing, you are on thin ice,      because the Holy Spirit moves. If you don’t do a thing prayerfully and ask the Lord’s guidance, you are going to fall through the ice”.

“Revival is a trap in a way.  Because if we don’t stay in contact with and obedience to God’s Spirit, we’ll make mistakes – which isn’t logically such a big error. This error can make us lose the Revival”.

“I thank the Lord that He has given us the man that  Uncle Erlo is, and that we can witness him walking with God and guided by the Holy Spirit”.

Dorothy Newlands: “Revival doesn’t go according to the thoughts and logic of man, but often, often against it”.

  “If the school no longer goes according to the way of  the Revival, it may no longer be called Domino Servite”.

Detlef (quoting someone else): “Erlo, there is no man like you in the      whole world. You are different from all others. We will never have such a leader or know one in our lifetime”.

Jabulane Dube: “May God help us that we won’t go against him. You       know your Bible – where wonders happened when people went against God’s leaders. Maybe such things have happened to you even though you think you are alive. Like Korah and his group who said, “Moses, you think God only speaks through you”, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up”.

Nico Bosman: “What I used to read in the books, things that happened in the beginning, these days we see it.  I can tell things till the sun sets, in
the way the Lord works, which to me was just in the books before. The Lord is still working miraculously and we see it every day.”

From the above quotes it is clear how the leader and the revival phenomenon form the core element around which the cult exists.

These two elements, a charismatic leader and the claimed revival, has made KSB what it is today. It is not just a mere sect of the Christian faith. Not at all. It has turned itself into a cult where the most appalling things are done and justified in the name of the 1966 Revival, the authority of Erlo Stegen as the “man of God” and therefore ultimately in the name of God, Who has poured, it is said, His Spirit upon the place and some people of Mission Kwasizabantu. But perhaps it is the zeal of the followers that so unquestionably keeps everything in place through blind faith in and reverence of a godly man and a supernatural phenomenon that really brings the cult into existence. Fueling all of this are the elements highlighted in the tables above that turned a religious experience into a hyper-religious community with an own set of Christian teachings vigorously enforced. It also turned the godly man into a manipulated individual within the group who has to live up to the emancipated image of “man of God”. With this comes ultimately the vested authority to do and decide things in the name of God; the cult is the expression of God’s will in this world. Therefore the “us-them” attitude is institutionalized in the cult.

I am indeed skeptical of Mission Kwasizabantu because the revealed fruit of this place does not sit well with what the Bible teaches. What it does shows is that living to the standard of a man-made revival and following a godly man exulted above his human status, results in inescapable disaster. This is in stark contrast with other revivals which are characterized by Holy Spirit manifestation, God centered existence and Bible centered teaching. With Mission Kwasizabantu we have a spiritual disaster in the making, and as is the case with all cults, the adherents to the cult are blinded to such an extend that they do not see it and won’t hear those warning them about it. Their personal identity is so intimately joined to the identity of the cult that they can’t tear the two apart. Those who dare purify their identity of the Mission Kwasizabantu religious elements and seek an identity in Christ only are ostracized and shunned.

The issues and conflicts surrounding Mission Kwasizabantu has so escalated that it would seem that the closure of the place is more likely than the restructuring of the place into a truly God honoring institution.



[3] Steven Hassan’s BITE Model of Cult Mind Control

[4] For more, please download this detailed handout on The BITE Model.

[5] I quote sometimes from a document I received anonymously some time ago as well. “Meeting with leaders of European Countries in uncle Erlo’s house. Monday 24 September 2018. This document seems to be the official minutes of that meeting.

3 – Total Disillusionment!

Disillusionment – a feeling of disappointment resulting from the discovery that something is not as good as one believed it to be.

When I read the affidavits of ex-KSB members, or their statements or their writings I am intensely touched by their pain and spiritual discouragement because of total disillusionment with Mission Kwasizabantu. When one talks to ex-KSB members and recognize their discouraged spirits, see their grief and hurt and experience their tears, one is deeply touched in the heart and one is overcome with compassion and feeling for their spiritual, emotional and physical suffering.

It is especially heartbreaking to talk with an ex-KSB member who lost faith in the place, the spiritual leaders, the people and ultimately God because of their disillusionment in everything spiritual or religious because the theology at Mission Kwasizabantu did not match spiritual reality at Mission Kwasizabantu. The aftermath testimony is simply, “I am dead inside” and “God is dead”. It is clear from what is said by some very disillusioned ex-KSB members, “There is no God!” Period! The disillusionment with KSB cost them their faith!

“The Way” of Mission Kwasizabantu goes back to the Maphumulo Revival of 1966. It simply was designated “the better way”, above anything that other churches or denominations could offer because the “KSB Way” was holier, purer, more functional, exemplary, and nearer to the Gospel because it was revealed trough a Revival where God came down as in a “wind” and settled on the assembled congregation. Those experiencing the “wind” started to confess their sin and cleansed their hearts in deep contrition. They would drive hundreds of kilometers according to Kurt Koch to return a stolen sixpence of money and they testified that wonders, miracles and signs from above accompanied their preaching and counseling services. They spoke in heavenly languages, fell into trances receiving word directly from God, and saw visions and dreamt dreams. They experienced healing of the blind, lame and mute. The dead were raised, and demons feared their presence and departed from possessed people at their command. Hundreds if not thousands were converted. And Mission Kwasizabantu came into being. Then in 1973 Thofozi died and spoke to Jesus in heaven and became alive again. She brought a message from the Son of God which gave impetus to “The KSB Way” as the better way. The Mission expanded overseas and thousands upon thousands were eventually touched. Then Aquelle, Bonle and Emseni Farming followed, and money was generated in millions of Rands. Kurt Koch related these adequately in his books concerning the 1966 Revival.

We all, leaders and co-workers of KSB applied the “KSB Way” zealously through the years since 1966 because the Revival and those who experienced the 1966 Revival, taught us so. And we believed. We judged people and their deeds perpetually and bestowed grace and granted mercy in terms of the Revival as we were taught and saw fit to do. There are endless pages of examples and testimonies relating just how inconsistently this was done and how the leadership who took all major decisions, were biased to themselves in taking these “life and death” decisions at times. We coworkers decided about the truth of a person’s confession, whether there was true sorrow for deeds done, whether a person is ready for receiving baptism with the Spirit or baptism with water. In our coworkers’ meetings we would verbally skin people alive with focused precision until we have satisfied our spiritual thirst for Revival rule justice. We decided the clothes people must wear, advised the hairstyles and jewelry they should wear and judged the relationships they stood in or may have. Our dreams were brought to the attention of the leaders and persons were judged accordingly because God revealed the sin or issues about people in the dreams. We disallowed any critical questions or theological discussions contrary to the “KSB Way”. We idolized our leader(s) as did the Israelite’s with Moses. We ascribed to the leader Christlike qualities and revered his words and revelations as being from God in all instances. We cursed those leaving the “KSB Way” as if they have left Christ and the faith. We ostracized and shunned those leaving or sent from KSB with vengeance because we were protecting the Revival more than anything else. We were taskmasters in the name of God, and we swung the sword given to us through the Revival with perceived precision and professed theological accuracy as we have been taught by those who tasted the Revival.

But somewhere along this whole story the devil visited and stayed. He, Satan, found himself a few hearts to live in and it did not take long for him and his demons to set up camp at Mission Kwasizabantu. Perhaps Satan and his demons even moved from Maphumulo with all to Kwasizabantu during 1970. The devil and his demons just tagged along in any case. Perhaps the hearts were cleansed at the time the heavenly “wind” came and as the devil and demons came back to revisit, they found some hearts empty and they moved back in. Who will ever really know?

Problems at Mission Kwasizabantu started during 1974.  These problems escalated into situations where people started to leave Kwasizabantu. People would come and join the Mission to serve God and when disillusionment was stronger than their excitement, calling, faith or commitment, they left. To be true to the history of the Revival, some left in the late 1960’s already, just after the Revival happened. Others left in the late 70’s and again during early 1990’s, the mid 1990’s and round 2000 at the turn of the millennium. A steady trickle continued increasingly and never stopped until it reached a high point during 2018-2019. The whole Mission Kwasizabantu in Europe and Australia departed, ridding themselves in the process even of the name “Kwasizabantu” and all associated with it. My own enlightenment to the truth came from 1998 onward when Thofozi Dube arranged her own kidnapping and the subsequent coverup that resulted in a split within Mission Kwasizabantu.

Why? Why all these issues with Mission Kwasizabantu? Is there something wrong with the God of Mission Kwasizabantu? Is there something wrong with the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Is there something wrong with the Holy Spirit working at Mission Kwasizabantu? One must be careful in trying to give and answer to these questions. But there is an answer. The answer to these questions is what brought about the disillusionment and resulted in the big fall away from Mission Kwasizabantu that we are experiencing now. Slowly and over time the anger of God was kindled until it became the raging fire that is destroying the Mission now.

Don’t blame the devil but blame the leaders and co-workers of Mission Kwasizabantu. And I duly include myself, as I have been co-worker at the Mission as well for twenty years. After the Revival at Maphumulo, Mission Kwasizabantu developed and proclaimed her own version of the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was tarnished with teachings from the Revival as experienced by those who were there when the “wind” came. The visions, dreams and trances revealed the doctrines and it was dutifully written down and put into place. Those who were there testified that it happened in this way. Mission Kwasizabantu had the Bible and the Revival.

The “KSB Way” explained how to be baptized in the Spirit. It explained how to be baptized with water and how to get married. It explained the mystery of the way of a woman and man in marriage. It explained the way of a woman with her husband and the way of children in the home. It explained the way of sex in life and virginity testing was done regularly because God loves and honors virgins. Sex had its place in marriage only. This resulted in the separation, “apartheid” of the genders or opposite sexes. The “KSB Way” taught through the Revival laid down the Law of Confession for all sin done. Confession to a counselor was the “KSB Way” to enter the door to salvation. Anything contrary to the “KSB Way” implied un-confessed sin still in the life of the congregant. The eventual verdict was inevitable; unless you satisfy the requirements of the “KSB Way”, salvation is and will stay a pie in the sky! Judgement, like sin, was always just around the corner to look for a victim and went around like a roaring lion to see who next to devour. Brothers and sisters in the faith became the spiritual KGB to seek and report wrongs, the constant Big Brother lurking behind one and looking over one’s shoulder to report all things done. They interfered in relationships, families and marriages. The Revival became conditional to follow the One Who said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me!” Like the Ten Commandments were holy law to the Israelites, the 1966 Maphumulo Revival was the “Law” to the people of Mission Kwasizabantu. The people of KSB had to satisfy the Revival fundamentals at all cost or risk losing salvation.

As little as the Israelites could satisfy all of the Law, so non-existent was the possibility that the people of KSB could satisfy all the fundamentals of the Revival. There was little time spent on anything else but confession of sin because that would make people right with God and satisfy the Revival’s claims on the soul of the believer. The Revival fundamentals were doctrinally forced upon the people and the leadership, counselors and coworkers saw to it that the people satisfied the Revival fundamentals. When a person failed in doing so the judgement and verdict were quickly passed and such people were brought before the spiritual inquisition or religious polit bureau, namely the co-workers meeting. Here the person either repented and was accepted back in the community or shunned and cut from the community.

As difficult as it was for the common people to satisfy the Revival fundamentals, so difficult was it for the leadership, counselors and co-workers to satisfy the Revival fundamentals as well. At KSB, because of this inherent impossibility, the focus is much more on the wrongs people do rather than on the good people do. The focus is much more on confessing of sin than receiving grace and mercy freely. The leaders, counselors and co-workers became like a congregation within the KSB congregation and everything concerning them happened in secret. Their sins, their wrongs, their failures, their confessions and their forgiveness were done and granted like in any worldly secret society; it was done in secret away from the congregation and with little or no consequences to the sinner. A small group of leaders became the exalted ones and they were like Moses, Aaron and Miriam and a few special Levites in the eyes of the people. They could not fail! They remained intact in their roles and functions.

However, they failed, and that in the most miserable way thinkable. The devil and his demons coupled with the sinful nature of natural man are always present in any congregation, and they do work hard. You have to abide in the Spirit and keep in step with the Spirit to stay aloof against the devil and his schemes. Abiding in the Revival and its doctrines regularly bore fruits of the flesh. The fruits of the flesh are rife in the congregations of KSB and the prince of this world exploits it to his benefit and the detriment of God’s people continuously. One would expect that and be prepared to meet such sinful situations head-on. One would however not expect to find it among the top leaders of the Mission, among those who tasted the “wind”! One would never have expected to find the vilest of sin among the authors of the “KSB Way”. No never!

In the 2019 structure of Mission Kwasizabantu there are about fifteen persons that may be regarded as the leaders of the KSB work. All others are regarded as co-workers and counselors. About seven of these forms the core of the leadership and four of the seven have experienced the Revival and one has spoken to the Lord Jesus face to face in heaven. I will work with this figure of seven although it had been reduced by two during 2019 so far. These seven are the jewels of the work at KSB. They are regarded as the Lord’s own, so to say. They are the priests among the priests, the anointed ones. Among them are four who had experienced the Revival, they have all been baptized with water, they have all been baptized in the Holy Spirit, they have confessed their sin and are usable instruments in the hands of the Master, they are the shepherds, preachers, prophets and priests, the counselors called by God, the expositors of God’s Word, the sources of God’s wisdom, the hearers of God’s voice, the guardians of His Gospel in the KSB congregation and the spiritual watchmen on the walls of “Jerusalem”. They are the directors of all businesses and Trusts of KSB and lastly, they are the trustees of KSB. Surely, they cannot fail as they represent the life most desired, the life in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Surely, they can only produce the fruit of the Spirit; love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control and are not capable of abiding in darkness. Surely?

These seven failed to abide in the Spirit and keep in step with the Spirit in the most miserable way. They failed to keep the “KSB Way” and their lives denied what they preached to others. The same things they punished others for doing, they did themselves whilst standing in the pulpit or counseling others in the presence of God and claiming guidance by God the Spirit. They hid their sin, but the people in the pews gossiped their sin for the world to hear. They pardoned the sin of their peers, confessed among themselves and sometimes to God only (contrary to the KSB Way), yet the victims found no peace nor comfort and went from one counselor to another to confess and seek peace. The counselors spoke and the information leaked, and the devil had a fields day with everything. Whilst wallowing in their sin, they preached and proclaimed the “KSB Way” and testified how God is working and miracles are happening, but the eyes of the congregants saw no wonders, miracles or signs as they, the preachers proclaimed. They soaked themselves in glory and pride, being honored and revered in the congregations.

Since 2012 the trustees did not manage the matters of KSB according to the laws of South Africa in a most deliberate way. One believes the auditors when they say they have tried but never got the answers they were looking for to be able to sign off the books of KSB. From 2015 onward, five of the seven leaders were involved in the misappropriation of nearly R200 million of the Mission’s money. They further took it on themselves to “hand out” R15 million as commission to the man who carried this money away for them in cash to be later collected again from him. All seven lied resoundingly about this money. Four of the seven had been involved in sexual immorality. When one calls the rest to task as well then, nine of the fifteen had been involved in sexual immoral acts. All fifteen are liars. So, among the fifteen top leaders of KSB we have adulterers, liars, thieves, the sexual immoral, gamblers and those who frequent witch-doctors. What place does the “KSB Way” have in their lives? What place does the Gospel of Jesus Christ have in their lives? Actually, no place at all! The works of their lives clearly testify to it. Their living fountains of water received during the Revival by their own testimony have become the bitter water of Marah to all of us today. Totally undrinkable. What place does the devil and his darkness have in their lives? I am to hesitant to put forward an answer to this question myself.

Do you get it? Do you understand my dear reader where the problem is? The rot is at the top! Unless the top fifteen repent and confess and turn from their ways and their cohorts follow suit, there will be no mercy for KSB now. And there is no shame to be noticed. Listen to their preaching on Sundays! Read what they write! Everybody else, a cloud of witnesses, is wrong and only they are right! They get in the pulpit on Sundays and preach and preach and preach! There is a total absence of anguish for their sin! Can salvation come to such a people?

For many the disillusionment is complete. The atrocities of Mission Kwasizabantu have been laid bare in the newspapers of the world; South Africa, Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. Mission Kwasizabantu is investigated by SARS, South African Police, the HAWKS, HRC South Africa and a private investigator. This is the result of the hardness of heart of a leadership not prepared to bow under their own “KSB Way”. How will they ever bow under the Gospel of the Jesus Christ?

Pray dear people! Pray that justice will be done, and that God’s name will be cleared of this evil. Pray for those who suffer because of this evil. And pray that those who have escaped this evil will never again fall into the like of it. Pray!

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: