Mitch Kuhn Ignores His Own Teaching

For those not in the know, Mitch Kuhn is what can best be described as the IWWB "2-ic" - 2nd in charge.

I often refer to Mitch as a "hatchet man" because in the scheme of things, Mitch is often designated to forcefully remove someone from the fellowship or, clamp down on a matter of doctrine. Take for example, this particular doctrine, where Mike Vinson plays the role of good cop, and Mitch the unapologetic hard-case who wants to bust your balls doctrinally. In the corporate world, the term "hatchet man" refers to a person tasked with implementing firings of personnel, so it seems fitting to use it with respect to brother Mitch.

He was at one time, hailed as an elder, until I happened to point out to an IWWB acolyte, that an elder, according the scripture, must be the "husband of one wife," not simply a male teacher as Mitch and IWWB asserted for many years. As Mitch is not married, then he simply cannot fall into that category. Here is a screen-grab of Mitch responding to a brother about whether a woman can be an elder. Please note - at the time he posted this, Mitch was considered to be an IWWB "elder" by both himself, and the others within the fellowship, including Mike Vinson.

My message must have made it up the food chain somehow, as Mitch and Mike Vinson have now acknowledged that according to the scripture, Mitch is not an elder.  

What is interesting to observe, is that Mitch, when attempting to teach others about matters pertaining to the scriptures, frequently hangs himself with his own doctrines. I caught Mitch out earlier on in the year, when he was queried about why certain people had their studies taken down from the IWWB website. After all, if truth is truth, who cares who is teaching it right? Mike and Mitch don't want to hear those kinds of arguments and so, must invent reasons why people who have left the fellowship need to have their studies removed as well. Mitch Kuhn stated on his website the following:

Once someone has been put out of the fellowship, or has left of their own accord, we need to take down all of their studies. This is a part of having no company with them and making them ashamed. If we leave the studies up it gives off the appearance that we are still in fellowship. There are no books of the bible written by anyone that we know fell away from the faith

Note Mitch's emphatic overstatement there? "There are NO BOOKS OF THE BIBLE written by ANYONE that we know fell away from the faith." Quite a statement that. Here is a screen-grab of Mitch's deceitful and fallacious argument. Note that you will need to click to enlarge the image:

Well, Mitch has now had to change that because as I pointed out, King Solomon fell away from the faith and is attributed 3 books of the bible. Heck, Mike Vinson even agreed with me on this. I promptly put up a video about this and posted to my FaceBook page. Obviously, this flies in the face of Mitch Kuhn's prior emphatic overstatement. So what to do? Well, move the goal posts of course. What else? Mitch now states: 

There are no books in the New Testament written by anyone that we know fell away from the faith.

You can see that Mitch is just proof-texting his argument to fit his doctrine. He displays no consistency in his rhetoric whatsoever. Mitch doesn't even know who wrote many of the NT books, because quite a few of them are anonymous.
The issue on qualifications for elders was but one, and the fallacious and dishonest proof-texting about authors who fell away from the faith is another. However, here is a far more damning indictment that Mitch has proverbially slain himself with.

On Mitch's website (at one time called Aionios, now TryingTheSpirits), Mitch answers a question from someone identified as "C."

The question is an excellent one, as "C" asks how can one truly know that we have the official "canon" of scripture as set out by the various councils that took place during the early days of the Christian faith. Great question. Shame he is asking the wrong guy!

In attempting to answer this, and by virtue of the fact that he sees himself as a teacher, with the absolute truth on his side, Mitch Kuhn is forced to make a good many assertive statements.

In truth, his "answer" is just another vain attempt as before, to proof-text his personal belief that the 66 books existing today in the western, orthodox version of "the bible," constitute what he calls "the word of God."

But in asserting such a belief, Mitch makes a colossal blunder. Here are Mitch's own words from his reply and I'll show you how Mitch has hung himself shortly:

When you read the books that some people think should be considered scripture, there is a characteristic of those books that makes is clear they do not belong in the scriptures. We first need to establish that it is the SUM of God’s word that reveals the truth. This always involved at least 2 scriptures and prohibits one scripture from explaining itself. These other supposed books of the bible to not fit into the sum of God’s words LACK A SECOND WITNESS

Mitch here says that anything considered "canonical" must by virtue of its inclusion, adhere to the "2nd witness" rule. What one must ask themselves in light of this statement is thus: Are there any stories or incidents recorded in particular "canonical" works there that are NOT attested elsewhere?

Well, Yes. Many in-fact. Mitch here has made the mistake that his spiritual father Mike  Vinson frequently does, that of over-stating his position to the point of stupidity.

Let's examine the claim Mitch makes as it pertains to the gospel of John. Ignoring for the moment that John's gospel isn't even claimed to be authored by the disciple John, and is in-fact anonymous, let's see if it meets Mitch's guidelines.

Here are a list of scriptures and stories/incidents from the gospel of John that are not attested anywhere else in the bible whatsoever. I'd be interested to know how Mitch can qualify his statement while also reading from the gospel of John.

• Prologue (1:1-18)
• "Signs," beginning with the Wedding at Cana (2:1-12)
• Dialogue with Nicodemus (2:23–3:21)
• Jesus and/or his Disciples Baptize People (3:22-26; 4:1-2)
• Samaritan Woman at the Well (4:1-42)
• Jesus Heals a Sick Man at the Pool of Bethesda (5:1-18)
• New Details at the Feeding of the 5000 (6:1b, 3-6, 8-9, 12b, 14-15)
• Bread of Life Discourse (6:22-65)
• Woman caught in Adultery (7:53–8:11) - note: this was added later.
• Jesus Gives Sight to a Man Born Blind (9:1-41)
• Jesus Raises Lazarus from the Dead (11:1-44)
• Jesus Washes the Disciples' Feet (13:1-20)
• "Disciple Whom Jesus Loved" (13:23-25; 19:26-27; 20:2-10; 21:7, 20-24; cf. 18:15-16?)
• Last Supper Discourses, incl. "Paraclete" & "Vine and Branches" (13:31–16:33)
• Great Prayer of Jesus (17:1-26)
• New Details at the Trial before Pilate (18:28–19:16)
• New Details at the Crucifixion (19:20-24, 26-28, 30-37, 39)
• First Resurrection Appearance to Mary Magdalene alone (20:11-18; cf. Matt 28:9)
• Resurrection Appearance to Thomas (20:24-29)
• Another Resurrection Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias/Galilee; Dialogue between Jesus & Peter (21:1-25; cf. Luke 5:1-11)
• First and Second Endings to John's Gospel (20:30-31; 21:24-25)

Here are incidents/stories/events that LACK A 2ND WITNESS so according to Mitch, this gospel has excluded itself from the canon of scripture. 

Of course, don't bother trying to raise this with Mike Vinson or Mitch Kuhn. These men tout themselves as teachers who are "easily entreat-able" but when push comes to shove, they have a denomination to maintain and specific doctrines that in their minds, are untouchable.   

Elsewhere, Mitch answers another question about biblical inerrancy and makes so many blunders in his logic, it would require a whole new blog to explain them. Here is but a sample of what Mitch says:

When there is an alleged discrepancy we only have to come up with a plausible explanation, then the alleged contradiction loses its force.

A "plausible" explanation? The problem with this approach is that Mitch is now writing his own version of the gospel stories by positing a "plausible" explanation for discrepancies. The sky is the limit with that kind of reasoning and who is to say whether Mitch is right or not? Oh of course, Mitch says he's right so that settles it. Literally anything can pass as a plausible explanation, the question ought to be, why is there a discrepancy in the first instance?

The gospels are history books...

Ah, no they are not Mitch. Sorry. Not a single independent attestation exists to confirm any of the miracles of Christ, even though, this was quite a well attested and literate time period.

Mount of transfiguration: Matthew and Mark say that it was six days. Luke says ABOUT eight days. Luke qualifies eight days with “about”, so this accounts for the difference.

This "accounts for" the difference? Huh? He was 2 days out but because he used the word "about" it's OK? Well I guess that settles it huh?

We have to assume that they do not contradict and are accurate unless we have absolute evidence that they are in disagreement. As you can see from my response there is a plausible explanation for every supposed contradiction you pointed out.

Mitch wants "absolute evidence" to the contrary. He is setting the bar impossibly high because he has a belief system to defend. The truth doesn't factor into this because, Mitch and Mike and the rest of IWWB aren't interested in the truth, they are all about their own wacky doctrines that they selectively lift out of the bible.

The problem is, it is near impossible to prove a negative. It would be like me asking you to prove with "absolute evidence" that faery's and leprechauns don't really exist. Could you do it, absolutely? I doubt it. All you could point out is that lack of physical evidence and the contradictory accounts of stories about these characters, and then rely on your opponents sound reasoning to conclude that perhaps, such beings are purely fictional in nature, and not "real." 

Or what if I told you I was visited by aliens 10 years ago and spent time in their spacecraft. You might say, "prove it." Using Mitch's logic, I would say to you - "prove with absolute evidence that I didn't." Obviously, that is impossible to do.
However, one thing remains - the onus of proof lies with the one making the claim. Mitch, and other dishonest "magical thinkers" like to swing the burden of proof back around onto their critics. In the real world, this won't work, you'll be laughed out the door.

But in the confines of IWWB, anything goes.

The Moravian Seal

I seem to be getting an awful lot of hits on this blogger page, for whatever reason. As such, I felt it might be worth backtracking a bit for anyone new to the teachings of IWWB. Additionally, it might also give folks some perspective on Mike Vinson's double standards and how it was that I came to the conclusion that IWWB was indeed a cult.

As has already been explained, I was involved and invested in this group from approx. 2004 until 2010, around 6 years. The primary reason for my leaving was that Mike Vinson and his appointed elders had decided that birthdays, Christmas and wedding anniversaries (and many other celebrations) were to be totally eschewed. Anyone caught out, or admitting to these practices, were swiftly set upon and either talked around or blacklisted - and then subsequently removed from the group.

To propagate their doctrine that birthdays and wedding anniversaries were evil, many fallacious arguments were employed but chiefly, they relied upon the use of doctrinal buzz words such as "pagan" and "traditions of men" to prejudice the simple minded into acquiescence. I pointed out to the elders, and to Mike himself that many things were pagan in origin including the names of the week, planets and famous brands of shoes and cars - Nike and Mazda respectively. However, these pagan things were totally ignored by Vinson and Co because lets face it, no serious cult leader wants to be consistent in their arguments. No, it's much easier to cherry-pick your pagan pet hates.

Vinson also used arguments from silence and described what Jesus DIDN'T DO as the basis for his doctrine. As an example, here is a copy and paste of an email Vinson sent to me:

"Christ never once lit a candle for either Christmas or a birthday..."

His associate and one-time commentary contributor Rob Jones has this to say on the IWWB website:

"Even Christ never told us His birthday and we are given no scriptural record of Him celebrating it at all..."

This is but one example of the kind of fallacious arguments Mike Vinson and his cronies would throw up on a regular basis. 

Continuing - upon my departure, I continued to monitor the group. Vinson, in his teachings, began to wax on and on about pagan traditions and how they have supposedly taken over the lives of God's elect. He said a lot of other crazy stuff during this time as well including, that a nose piercing was on the same spiritual plane as ritual Jewish circumcision and that if someone came into his fellowship with a nose piercing, he would consider that person an immature Christian. 

"I made the statement that if a brother came into our fellowship wearing a nose ring, that I would not consider him to be a mature Christian, any more than a brother who is still practicing circumcision. Am I wrong to feel that way?"

Interestingly, the IWWB group, at the same time this was going on, had a FaceBook page that was active. Mike Vinson was even an admin and an officer of that page. And on the FB page, front and center was the logo of another church - the Moravian Seal. Here are the screen grabs showing this to be the case. FYI, Sandi, Steven and Mike are still in the IWWB group whilst to my knowledge, the other individuals were either removed, or chose to leave:

The image used in the above is known as the Moravian Seal and it is the official logo of said church: 

Information on this church, and its practices can be found here. You will note that within the image itself, is the Roman Catholic inspired "Cross of St George." The cross originated in the Catholic crusades, which themselves were a call to arms on behalf of the church, to purge the Muslim and pagan infidel from the "Holy Land" and as a means for participants to gain absolution for ones sins in the afterlife. 

Now why is this important?

This is important because Vinson and IWWB were using Roman Catholic inspired imagery in their promotional and marketing efforts while at the same time, lambasting believers in their fellowship for taking part in practices that they said were inspired by the Catholic church. 

IWWB elder Steve Crook wrote a "hit piece" on this which can be found here. In this article, Crook references the Catholic church approx. four times. An example of this would be this sentence, in which Steven Crook discusses Halloween: 

"Thus, without forcing the pagans to drop their pagan practices and accept Christianity, the Roman Catholic church merely made room to accommodate the barbarians. Just as it confiscated the pagan Pantheon for its own uses, this church incorporated the customs of Samhain to further its mission to convert the known world to Catholicism. The two celebrations made strange bedfellows: one in respect of evil spirits, the other honoring saints..."

This outright hypocrisy, in that IWWB used this image, was never once repented of and Vinson, instead of just admitting a simple oversight and apologizing for it as such (surely no big deal?), did everything in his power to rationalize his way around, and out of it. The intellectual dishonesty was so thorough that to observe it unravelling at the time, was really quite unbelievable. He even tried to suggest that he had nothing to do with the FaceBook page, even though, as demonstrated above, he was both an admin and an officer! 

Here is what Mike Vinson had to say when confronted about his groups use of the Moravian Seal:

The "Moravian seal" is a picture of a lamb and a cross, both of which are Biblical symbols. ____ would not be satisfied if it were a Bible alone. After all many wars have been fought while using scripture to justify those wars. But the abuse of anything, does not make that thing itself evil or Pagan. If that were the case, we would not be able to mention the name of Christ.
Mike Vinson - February 20th 2011 

I am uncomfortable with a personal apology as it seemed we were answering a fool according to his folly when it was not called for. I can't see Christ or Paul apologizing when  they have not sinned.
Mike Vinson - February 24th 2011 

You call it a Moravian symbol, but is it not just two Biblical symbols which have been hijacked by Babylon? There is a lot of "gold silver and precious stones" in Babylon.
Mike Vinson - February 17th 2011 

____ is a false prophet, whose fondest hope is to get us to betray one another and to hate one another, by attempting to make Biblical symbols appear to be Babylonian symbols. But gold, silver, and precious stones, are symbols of the Truth of God's Word, which is Christ.
Mike Vinson - February 17th 2011

If ____ cannot see the connection to Solomon's wives and Pagan traditions, he is truly blinded by God Himself. You have already informed him that I had nothing to do with that symbol, and he still says I am hypocritical. This is his last issue because he knows it is least, and ____ will not be satisfied till I agree that Gal 4:10 does not include birthdays and anniversaries, and that we must never, under any circumstance consider anyone "weak in the faith".
Mike Vinson - February 22nd 2011

These comments from Mike Vinson discredit him as "easily en-treatable," a claim that he makes about himself often. Instead, they show a man who is unable to admit error when it is pointed out and who wants instead to skirt around and make excuses. Moreover, when he is taken to task, Vinson believes and articulates that he is being viciously persecuted for standing firm on his supposed true doctrine.

If you are going to become involved in the IWWB group, make sure you are informed about the history of this group. Comments welcome below.