recount these dates in the present context because of what happened next. First, after our edition of Christian Media hit the streets, we received a written threat from attorneys representing The Prophecy Club^®. In this curt correspondence dated December 7, 1999, one of The Prophecy Club^® attorneys claimed that "Mr. Johnson steadfastly maintains that many of the statements contained in your publication regarding Mr. Johnson are untruthful, defamatory, and libelous."

This formal demand letter then threatens litigation against Christian Media. The attorney's letter goes on to say that "to avoid these harsh remedies, you should immediately retract all untruthful statements regarding Mr. Johnson in your next issue of Christian Media [and] refrain from discussing Mr. Johnson in an untruthful or libelous fashion." In other words, they want to silence any further criticism of the various practices we are aware of that seem to occur on a regular basis at The Prophecy Club^®.

     Because the letter failed to offer any documentation that would contradict any of the statements from our written essay, we viewed the threat as just another tactic to stop any further scrutiny of The Prophecy Club^®. I don't respond well to threats. Furthermore, I've been sued many times, and as such, have a considerable degree of experience in battling vexatious litigants. In view of the clear chronological evidentiary trail concerning our conflict, what happened next is positively mind boggling.

In the January-February 2000 issue of The Prophecy Club^® newsletter, in an introductory letter dated 12/19/99, Stan Johnson wrote the following words:

"Earlier this month a newsletter was handed to me filled with about eight pages of wild accusations, twisted truth made to sound very destructive...If the accusations had been true, I would have admitted them. Did the brother phone and get my side of the story before thrusting the knife into the back of The Prophecy Club^®? Did he present his concerns with a humble attitude privately first? Did he bring a fellow brother with him to me to back up his concern? No. He went right to print with daggers to the back."

     Not only did Stan Johnson plainly lie concerning our earlier efforts at following the scriptural imperative, he then proceeded to attribute our efforts as being associated with the work of Satan! Of course, it was liberally flavored with scripture.

     After falsely claiming we never came to him before publishing our criticism of The Prophecy Club^®, the Johnson statement then continued with another pointed attack on our spiritual integrity. In the middle of his written defense, Stan ascribed our written evaluation of The Prophecy Club^® to the work Satan: "It seems that the devil has gotten some of God's people to become accusers of the brethren." The statement then cited Revelation 12 with "the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." Clearly, Stan Johnson is suggesting that our effort at accountability was demonically motivated. Unfortunately, it gets even worse.

     After his public denunciation of the "attacks" against The Prophecy Club^®, Stan Johnson even holds up the Freemasons as a model of integrity that Christians should follow! After decrying the fact that Christians are attacking "other ministries by name," he writes that even "the Masons take an oath to help each other unless it hurts them. What about us? Where is our integrity?"

     Incredibly, after falsely and publicly accusing me of failing to follow Matthew 18, Stan Johnson then does precisely the same thing! In a personal correspondence to me dated January 3, 2000, Stan Johnson writes "First you criticized me without coming to me privately first." Yet this letter was written and dated 2 weeks after the date of the published newsletter attack on Christian Media., which was mailed to thousands of The Prophecy Club^® supporters! In short, Stan Johnson did precisely what he falsely accused us of doing!

     After reviewing this letter, I became extremely angry and wrote Mr. Johnson a very hostile letter that articulated my feelings in the matter. Finally, Stan reacted in what we consider to be an appropriate manner. He asked a former The Prophecy Club^® speaker, Mr. Henry Gruver, to reach out and see if he could mediate the dispute. This opened the door for a dialogue that has continued to this very day.

     While we have not come to any formal agreement with Stan Johnson as a result of these efforts, the tensions have been considerably diminished and a series of letters and faxes have helped the matter considerably. Mr. Johnson proposed a "joint letter of reconciliation" that could be published in both periodicals. While we responded favorably to that suggestion, the ensuing letters that were passed back and forth as draft statements proved to be unsatisfactory. It seemed to this writer that the language proposed by Stan Johnson was carefully calculated to minimize any culpability on the part of The Prophecy Club^®. In short, it began to look like a politically motivated effort at "damage control." Eventually, I came to the conclusion that the process had become an impediment to any affirmative steps to remedy the basic problems within the PC itself, and thus we withdrew from the dialogue.

     While we have already stated our concerns relative to financial and ethical issues with the PC, our last correspondence contained one resolute condition for any further conversation with The Prophecy Club^®. We insist that the PC must take responsibility for the speakers they have promoted to the Christian body at large. The PC has now acknowledged some degree of post-tour responsibility, but they have yet to make any firm or non-ambivalent statements concerning their "problem" speakers.

     This point is non-negotiable. Because The Prophecy Club^® is the vehicle that introduced thousands of Christians to numerous teachers who would have otherwise faded into relative obscurity, when those teachers prove to be heretical it is incumbent upon the PC to publicly recognize that fact.

     We insist that The Prophecy Club^® must expose the apostates by name, with the same degree of enthusiasm that they initially promoted them. We consider it to be an unacceptable and convenient compromise to simply retreat to some blanket statement to the effect of, 'it's unscriptural for us to name anybody in a controversial fashion.'

     Because these issues have continued unresolved, Christian Media has determined to have no association with The Prophecy Club in any way, shape, or form. Over the last few years, after this material was first published in the Christian Media newspaper, then in book form (in 2000), we've had a few episodes where speakers associated with the PC looked for a favorable response from Christian Media.

     Because the Scriptures are clear concerning separation from apostates, we've been forced to keep a distance from those that have benefited from the PC association as leaven of this nature is deadly. We have no vendetta against the organization. In fact, we believe there will most likely be several fine individuals on the tour in each touring season - assuming the organization is able to weather the current storm of controversy. However, you simply cannot trust the leaders of The Prophecy Club^® as unwary (and frequently unlearned) people might hear a solid message from the speaker, but then be exposed to a heavily discounted book or video from one of the PC reprobates - and they have no way to know 'which pill is the poison.'

     In short, why bother with The Prophecy Club^® when there are several anointed ministries that have Scripturally sound doctrinal material available? Just as Paul said that the Bereans were very noble as they checked out everything they heard in scripture, we hope all believers will do the same - especially with the teachings heard at The Prophecy Club^®.

     Please agree with me in prayer that God will move decisively and bring them back to where He desires them to be. In the meantime, the old adage of Caveat Emptor comes to mind : Let The Buyer Beware.

-- James Lloyd 

(originally written and published in the first quarter of 2000)

PREVIOUS PAGE