‼️30 Thoughts About the Altar Church / Jeremiah Johnson Investigation Meeting

Some may wonder why someone thousands of miles away in Israel would feel the need to speak into what appears to be a local church conflict in Kannapolis, North Carolina. That’s a fair question.

The reason is this: a number of individuals from that community have reached out to me and entrusted me with their stories—accounts of what they believe to be spiritual abuse. Some of these testimonies are deeply serious, and not all of them have even been made public yet.

Because of that trust, remaining silent is not an option. Not as an authority over the situation—but as someone who has been asked to listen and bear witness.

I’m also aware that certain local pastors in the Kannapolis area have already tried to address these concerns, but have not seen a resolution. The standard for a New Testament minister is above reproach.

Being above reproach implies not merely acquittal from accusations, but the absence of even a charge or allegation against a person—meaning your spiritual character has been consistent long enough that no one would be able to point an accusing finger at you [1]. No one can bring a charge or accusation against the overseer. [2]

Thus,

⚠️ as long as there are credible concerns about honesty and manipulation,

⚠️ as long as timelines and accounts of supernatural experiences remain inconsistent,

⚠️ as long as new explanations contradict earlier ones,

⚠️ and as long as key questions remain unresolved,

there is a responsibility for voices to continue to be raised—with integrity, clarity, and a genuine pursuit of truth.

This is not about false accusations or tearing people down. It is a redemptive pursuit—for the sake of truth—so that healing, forgiveness, and a clear path forward can be found for everyone involved.

So I want to be clear: I am not coming with any official authority. I do not carry apostolic oversight in this matter. The only “authority” I have is the trust of those who have reached out to me.

With that in mind, I humbly offer these reflections and submit them to leadership, with the hope that they will be received with seriousness, wisdom, and a sincere desire for truth, healing, and accountability.

I also offer this to those who believe they have been wounded in this process—particularly those who experienced the meeting itself as a form of gaslighting. My intention is to provide biblical and theological grounding for their concerns, so they are not left feeling silenced or unsupported.

Link to audio: https://youtu.be/jy9nOk4e9EI

1. Acknowledging the Meeting—But Raising Concerns

I do want to acknowledge and appreciate that the leadership was willing to hold an open meeting. At the same time, the process itself revealed significant concerns—particularly about how the meeting was conducted and the level of transparency actually present.

2. Excluding Key Individuals Undermines Fairness

One example that stood out was that Paul Knopp, a member of the church, was not permitted to enter. I understand the sensitivity, given that the allegations involved his wife. But if he was willing to attend simply as a witness, it seems reasonable that he should have been allowed in. He had committed no sin, worthy of disfellowship. There had been no formal discipline, no excommunication—nothing that would justify excluding him.

To many, this gave the appearance of limiting participation rather than ensuring fairness.

3. Concerns About Changing Supernatural Narratives

(15:22) There are also ongoing concerns surrounding Jeremiah’s reported spiritual encounters.

It’s not unusual for minor details in a story to shift over time—that’s human. But when core elements—dates, number of experiences, and key details—change repeatedly, it naturally raises questions. (Joshua Harris has documented the inconsistencies: https://youtu.be/ChwWNCiJ7nU.)

One must take into account the fact that these encounters opened up massive doors for Jeremiah. Without them, he would not have found the platform that he has. I personally believe that it is a problem today, where those lacking the fear of the Lord will create these encounter narratives to build a ministry. It’s very hard for most believers to believe that someone would fabricate an encounter with Jesus, which is why we are easily misled. It is very difficult to listen to a charismatic personality detail in hushed tones, a holy encounter with the unseen world. We must be more critical of such encounter stories; million-dollar ministries have been built on such stories.

At a certain point, it’s not about being critical—it’s about seeking clarity, consistency, and legitimacy.

4. Evaluating the Weight of Extraordinary Encounters

(15:22) I would say this carefully: while Scripture does include examples of God speaking to younger individuals, it is not common to see highly detailed, repeated supernatural encounters becoming the foundation of someone’s public authority—especially without the testing of time, character, and accountability. Joseph’s dreams led to arrogance, which led to his being sold into slavery.

Even Paul, one of the most mature believers in history, spoke very cautiously about his own heavenly experiences—and only later in life—and said the things he saw were “inexpressible … things that no one is permitted to tell.”

When these kinds of encounters become central to someone’s public identity, it’s appropriate to examine them with wisdom and discernment, since there is no way to prove they actually took place.

5. The Seriousness of Repeated Plagiarism Allegations

(16:51) Regarding the plagiarism issue—this is an area that requires clarity and honesty, not language that minimizes it.

When words or ideas are presented as your own without proper attribution, it’s difficult to describe that as “unintentional.” Was it a Freudian slip, or more significantly, providential, that Jeremiah used the word intentional twice to refer to his plagiarism before realizing his mistake?

At some point, honesty requires calling things what they are. And the question must be asked, why does Jeremiah regularly find himself being accused of plagiarism, when the vast majority of ministers go their whole life without ever being accused of such things? We can’t blame everything on the devil, and warfare—and have to consider a lack of character.

6. When “Unintentional” Becomes a Patterned Explanation

I also noticed a consistent emphasis on describing these issues as “unintentional.”

In the recent leadership meeting, Jeremiah’s inconsistency regarding the “boxing gloves and suitcase” message—something some perceive as dishonesty—was minimized on the basis that there was no intent to mislead.

But repeatedly labeling something as unintentional does not address the underlying concerns. It can, at times, function as a way of avoiding deeper examination. Given the number of people who feel they have been wounded, it is difficult to conclude that everything can simply be attributed to unintentional mistakes.

7. Shifting Narratives and Accountability

(16:51) There is also a serious issue of shifting explanations and blame.

In the past, responsibility for plagiarism was attributed to team members who did not properly give attribution. On Thursday night, that narrative shifted.  Jeremiah is now admitting that it was his fault—but still claiming it was unintentional. When explanations evolve without clear acknowledgment of what was previously said, it creates confusion and erodes trust. There needs to be clarity here—is it only now because Asher Mian publicly contradicted the idea that it was the fault of team members that Jeremiah is admitting responsibility? What do we do with the old narrative? Just ignore it or pretend that he never blamed his media team?

Clarity requires not just a new explanation—but accountability for the old one.

Why did none of the elders on Thursday night speak up at this point and say, “Wait a minute, Jeremiah, this is not what you have said in the past.” So they removed Paul Knoop from the premises, and allowed Jeremiah to share new narratives without being challenged. That is not being impartial; that is favoritism.                                                                                                              

8. Questions About Prophetic Origins and Consistency

There are also questions surrounding the origin of certain prophetic elements that were shared publicly such as the boxing gloves in the suitcases. I do believe that Jeremiah’s daughter shared with him about the song she heard. I struggle believing that he was already having dreams about this. If so, why would you not share that during the message? “When my daughter told me about this, I was amazed because I had had dreams about that.” But what he actually says is nothing about dreams, but “I was in prayer this week for our time together, and the Lord began to give me a vision of a church full of people that had red boxing gloves on, and everybody had a suitcase.” A vision, not multiple dreams, that week, not in the past. This is not mis-speaking; these are different stories. Given past allegations, one would have to assume that not attributing Anna Golden was a typical pattern, not an oversight.

🔹 8.1 At this point, the concern is no longer about a single moment—it’s about a pattern. Jeremiah wants to be given the benefit of the doubt, but it happens too often.

🔹 8.2 When explanations shift between “vision,” “dream,” or external influence, clarity becomes essential. But often the explanations it only create more confusion. People are not asking for perfection—they are asking for consistency.

🔹 8.3 It is also important to acknowledge that when someone’s platform is built significantly on prophetic credibility, there can be an unspoken pressure to maintain that perception. I will say it again, when one’s ministry is dependent on constant visions and dreams, simply saying that you heard about the message elsewhere is not titillating enough. When you combine that with multiple people saying that Jeremiah took their words and revelations and repeated them as if they were his own, it demands a higher level of accountability and transparency.

9. The Root Cause of the Current Conflict

Lorraine Box expressed grief over seeing the body of Christ in conflict with itself. That grief is understandable. However, it’s important to ask what led to this moment. Many of the concerns being raised are directly tied to the actions and leadership of Jeremiah Johnson. It would be irrational to blame the dozens of people who still love Jesus and are expressing similar concerns over the claims of the senior leader. The biblical standard is 2 to 3 witnesses (2 Cor. 13:1, 1 Tim. 5:19).

🔹 9.1 If people had not experienced harm, they would not be speaking up. It’s that simple. And from what I’m hearing, more individuals are still coming forward.

🔹 9.2 There are also reports that, in some cases, adult children were encouraged to distance themselves from their parents—something that should deeply concern all of us. Some were told to find comfort in other members who had disconnected from their parents.

🔹 9.3 Additionally, individuals who have left the church have at times been labeled in serious spiritual terms—such as “accusers of the brethren,” “following Satan,” or “being sifted by Satan.”

🔹 9.3.1 In one instance, when concerns were raised to Jeremiah about the situation and the direction of the church, he responded by saying that those who left were the ones getting, while the church itself was improving—“the individuals that have left, they are getting worse, but we are getting better.”

That is a direct quote. And it reflects a deeply concerning mindset for any pastor to have toward people who were once part of his congregation. When Paul was rejected by his flock in Corinth, he sought them out. Paul commits to spending his money, time, energy, and love for the church, refusing to withhold any resource he has, including himself. (2 Cor. 12:15) [1]. A shepherd’s heart should not be good riddance, but continued concern—if they have the heart of the Great Shepherd.

10. When Prophetic Framing Distracts From Real Issues

(24:27) There was also a prophetic word shared by Lorraine Box comparing the situation to an autoimmune disease.

While the intent may have been to call for unity, the effect was to shift the focus away from the actual allegations to “division.” That could be seen as a tactic and a further abuse of the prophetic to steer a narrative.

🔹 10.1 This is not primarily a situation about division—it is about specific claims that need to be examined.

🔹 10.2 The concerns being raised include issues such as:

• Dishonesty

• Lack of integrity in prophetic ministry

• Lack of proper attribution of content and blatantly presenting it as your own

• Legally, those who leave us somehow connected to Satan

• Lack of fruit of repentance

• Questions of whether the alleged encounters were real

• Allegations of spiritual abuse and using prophecy to manipulate people

• Using leadership status in the church to grow a lucrative MLM business

🔹 10.3 These are serious matters. They require careful, impartial investigation—not spiritual framing that could unintentionally minimize them.

🔹 10.4 And yet, there is truth to what Lorraine shared. Satan would love nothing more than to see all involved mired in unforgiveness, trauma, and bitterness. God’s goal here is redemptive, and because we have Messiah Jesus, reconciliation is possible. But not without honesty and a common-sense review of the facts. In order to experience Biblical reconciliation:

10.4.1 Building up body of Christ must be more important than building a ministry platform and persona.

10.4.2 in my view, Jeremiah must recognize that him starting at church was not merely a situation where he did not correctly discern God’s voice in the beginning.

10.4.2.1 when you present such information in declarative terms, it is deeply unsettling to those who assume that you were hearing from the Lord to find out that you were not. Can they trust you the next time you declare that God is speaking to you? If you missed God in believing that he was telling you not to plant a church, how can we know that you heard God when you believe he told you to plant a church? Considering all the fallout that has come one might question if that was the right decision.

10.4.2.2 when you told local leaders that God told you not to plant a church, you were asking them to let down their guard and give you access to their people. The appearances that you were deliberately seeking to take away any obstacle to keep you from having access to their flock. But then once you had access, you broke the covenant with those pastors and started a local fellowship. From the testimonies I’ve read, people were super excited at the energy you brought, only to be lured away and disillusioned.

10.4.2.3 Paul talks about the principle of not building on someone else’s foundation (Rom. 15:20). We see his heartbreak in 2 Corinthians over those fake apostles who stole the affections of the Corinthians, and turned them against their “pastor.” Would local leaders identify with Paul’s words: “I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it.” (1 Cor. 3:10) How do parents feel when their adult children are advised to break fellowship with their parents? They spent a lifetime raising these kids, only to have their new church leaders tell them it would be healthy for them to separate from their parents. Unthinkable.

11. Interpreting Relationships Without Due Process

(34:12) There was also an attempt to interpret the nature of relationships between Morgan and Nancy based on selected text messages. “I think what with that reveals is the nature of their relationship.”

That approach is inherently limited. Without hearing directly from those involved, conclusions drawn from partial communication can easily be misleading. Nancy was not afforded due process, and her husband was forced to leave the meeting.

🔹 11.1 Interpreting relational dynamics from text messages is a science above all of our pay grades—especially without full context. It can create a narrative that may not reflect reality.

🔹 11.2 A healthier process would have included direct input from all parties.

🔹 11.3 When key voices are absent, it raises questions about whether the full picture is being considered; whether they wanted to give an equal platform to the other side.

🔹 11.4 They left out a key part of Nancy’s testimony, which was Jeremiah using her language when going back to North Georgia Revival—she asked him to be a Mordechai, and not only did he not get back to her, he used that language in a prophecy. She prophesied about a three-month period, and Jeremiah then prophesied about 90 days. She shared this with him five days before he prophesied similar language, “before the new year.” If Jeremiah had not been incredibly accused by many others of stealing prophecy, we might be able to overlook this. But any rational person would see this as a pat pattern. (https://youtu.be/bzvmn1B6_qM?t=2207)                      

12. Relational Integrity vs. Technical Defenses

Regarding the issue surrounding the use of “Esther’s Arise,” the concern does not appear to be about the general usage of a phrase. Rather, it centers on proximity and relationship—when something meaningful is used without communication or consent, it can feel like a breach of trust, not just a technical issue.

🔹 12.1 This is less about legal boundaries and more about relational integrity. Or else, Nancy would be suing dozens of people who have used a name she trademarked—but she is not.

🔹 12.2 Nancy did not say “every use of this phrase as a violation of personal ownership.” However, one of her closest friends and mentors, her pastor, using that name without even mentioning it, felt like a violation and a betrayal.

13. Allegations of Uncredited Prophetic Insight

(39:12) One of the more concerning moments involved an allegation that prophetic insight shared by others was used publicly by Jeremiah in his name less than an hour later on Facebook, without acknowledgment. Even the appearance of this raises serious concerns.

🔹 13.1 In response, Lorraine Box quoted an anonymous testimony saying that she did not feel it was plagiarism.

🔹 13.2 Shockingly, and they knew this, there was someone present who was a witness, and also felt like he was a victim of the same act of alleged plagiarism: Deacon Chris. They knew that Chris was upset about this because he brought it to the entire leadership on February 4. He was rebuked for that, and I’m told he was asked to write an apology to Jeremiah. But he was there in person, and they blocked his testimony. That one act reveals that they did not want the congregation to hear anything that would confirm Nancy’s narrative.

🔹 13.3 When firsthand testimony is blocked and secondhand anonymous perspectives are elevated, distrust is created.

🔹 13.4 A fair process makes room for all relevant voices—especially those directly involved. When that does not happen, people begin to question the integrity of the process itself.

🔹 13.5 (56:58) Deacon Chris speaks of and says, “I was the person that Jeremiah plagiarized, and you didn’t even mention my name. That is how you can tell that you are covering this up. You are all You are covering this up.”

🔹 13.5 Instead of allowing a relevant witness in their presence to bear testimony, they shut him down. That is not due process or fairness, but a culture of cover-up and protectionism. Furthermore, it was spiritually abusive behavior against Nancy and against Chris.

🔹 13.6 A fair process makes room for all relevant voices—especially those directly involved. When that does not happen, people begin to question the integrity of the process itself.

🔹 13.7 I do want to acknowledge that leading a meeting like this is not easy. But difficulty does not remove the responsibility to ensure openness and fairness.

14. Selective Evidence and Partial Narratives

(41:59) Lorraine presents evidence of a text conversation between Paul Knoop and Jeremiah Johnson and interprets that as contradicting Nancy’s testimony that Jeremiah expected them to continue with their significant pledge, even if they were leaving the church.

🔹 14.1 However, what Nancy said, “And his first response was ‘When are you going to give your pledge money?’” She said that was his first response. If a jury were watching this, they would ask you, “Was what you provided Jeremiah’s first response or a subsequent response?” And if the answer is that it was a subsequent response, then you were acting more like Jeremiah’s lawyers than an independent judiciary.

15. The Need for Independent Investigation

(56:11) There were also calls for an independent, third-party investigation that were not directly addressed. The person who asked for it was Deacon Chris, and he was told that this was not a Townhall meeting, and the only way to speak was through the QR code. Let me repeat that, someone on your leadership team, whose picture is on your website as a deacon, is calling for a third-party independent investigation, and you shut him down.

🔹 15.1 Given the complexity and seriousness of the allegations, this seems not only reasonable—but necessary. Similar allegations have been made by many people, and certainly could not be dealt with honestly in a two-hour meeting. Asking people to stay behind to ask questions privately gives the elders the ability to control the narrative without accountability.

🔹 15.2 When leadership is closely connected relationally or financially, impartiality becomes difficult to demonstrate, even if intentions are sincere.

🔹 15.3 Outside accountability should not be seen as a threat—but a safeguard.

16. Why These Situations Go Public

It’s important to understand why situations like this go public. It is not typically because people want division—it is because they feel private avenues have failed.

🔹 16.1 When individuals believe their concerns will not be heard or addressed internally, they look for other ways to ensure accountability. When the offender has a reputation of gaslighting and giving different explanations to different people, sometimes the only way to get accountability is public exposure.

🔹 16.2 Public exposure is often a last resort, not a first choice.

🔹 16.3 While Jake Kail could have gone to Jeremiah, the fact is that all of the allegations that Jake Kail brought up in his letter had already been addressed publicly by Jeremiah. In defense of Jake Kail, Jeremiah is now offering new explanations regarding his plagiarism. This was not Matthew 18. Jake was not saying, “Jeremiah sinned against me.” He was saying that Jeremiah has been incredibly accused; his answers are lacking. I can no longer endorse his ministry. He reviewed the evidence and reached a conclusion.

🔹 16.4 A typical tactic is to ignore the evidence and focus on a technical foul: “He didn’t come to me first.” OK. What about the evidence?

17. “Trust Us” Is Not a Sufficient Standard

(1:12:58) When asked how leadership could remain impartial, the response was essentially, “trust us.” But in situations like this, trust must be demonstrated—not assumed. And conflicts—such as Plexus—must be disclosed. Even though they said we’re not going to simply ask you to trust us, the words that followed were essentially asking people to trust them. “It is a faith walk at some level,” said Steve Box. Without independent third-party council, it is very difficult to believe that these leaders can be objective.

🔹 17.1 Especially when there are existing relationships that could influence objectivity.

🔹 17.2 History has shown us that good intentions are not enough—structures of accountability are necessary. Many manipulators begin with, “Trust me.” It just words.

🔹 17.3 This is why an independent third-party review is so essential. It will be trusted. People on the payroll dismissing allegations against the person who is most responsible for their income is not independent.

18. Structural Limitations in the Meeting Process

The structure of the meeting itself also limited the ability for open questioning. This naturally leads to the perception that certain topics are being avoided.

🔹 18.1 Questions surrounding financial relationships via the Plexus MLM network, which clearly intersect with leadership roles, are not insignificant.

🔹 18.2 How can there be objectivity when one elder is in another elder’s down line, and everyone else in the congregation that is a part of plexus (were told 50%) are in their downlines, allegedly. How can this not be addressed?

🔹 18.3 Several women testified that they were pressured to join Plexus. They said that if they left Plexus, they were treated differently and lost access to Morgan and Krista. Someone even said that one of the elders tried to sell her Plexus products during her exit visit as she was quitting.

🔹 18.4 The elders did not disclose whether or not Morgan and Krista paid for the use of the building when they hosted Plexus events, such as congratulating Jesse Green on reaching her Emerald status, or using church staff to help with the event. Were the staff compensated for the work they did for Plexus? If they were asked if they felt it was a conflict, they were not hired by Plexus distributors at the church.

19. Concerns About the Oversight Team

Many people have expressed concern regarding the current apostolic oversight team.

🔹 19.1 James Goll is widely respected as a prophetic voice and teacher, and his influence in charismatic circles is well established. That said, he is not positioned—historically or structurally—as a bishop-type authority for conducting formal investigations. This is not a reflection on his character, but simply an acknowledgment that this type of situation does not appear to be his primary area of expertise.

🔹 19.2 Patricia King is currently navigating significant challenges within her own ministry, including two ongoing controversies. It is therefore reasonable to question how much time or focus she can give to this situation. In addition, she is not widely recognized for expertise in church governance or investigative oversight. While she has been an advocate in various contexts, she is not historically or structurally positioned to lead something of this nature. It is also worth noting that she is referenced in one of the complaints, specifically regarding a book sold by The Altar Church that includes themes of children visiting heaven and returning as a normative experience.

🔹 19.3 Given the seriousness of the situation, it would be wise to involve independent voices with a demonstrated track record in handling complex accountability matters. And the fact is, we have not heard from James or Patricia regarding these allegations.

20. How Those Who Leave Are Characterized

One concern that has come up repeatedly from those who have reached out to me is how individuals are characterized after they leave the church.

🔹 20.1 Some have shared that those who depart are portrayed as aligning with Satan, partnering with the accuser, or being spiritually compromised.

🔹 20.1 That kind of language is deeply troubling. People should be free to leave a church and be blessed—not labeled.

🔹 20.2 When those who leave are framed in such extreme spiritual terms, it creates an unhealthy environment and can feel coercive. Many of these individuals love Jesus and are sincerely seeking to follow Him. And others who may want to leave may be fearful of being labeled as being “sifted by Satan,” as others have.

🔹 20.3 This kind of dynamic can ultimately lead to the very thing Lorraine expressed concern about—believers turning against one another, rather than walking in truth and love.

21. Transparency That Appears Reactive

It appears that this meeting was not initiated primarily because of the allegations themselves, but in response to the growing pressure those allegations have created.

🔹 21.1 These concerns could have been addressed earlier. Instead, the timing gives the impression that transparency is being driven by external demand rather than internal conviction.

🔹 21.2 But transparency should not be reactive—it should be the standard. Healthy leadership does not wait for pressure to be transparent; it builds a culture where openness is present from the beginning.

22. Words of Reconciliation vs. Actions

(1:15:51) Morgan expressed a strong desire to reconcile with those who have been hurt, which is encouraging and important.

🔹 22.1 However, when Jeremiah was challenged to personally meet with those who have left and listen to their concerns, there appeared to be a reluctance to move forward with that.

🔹 22.2 Reconciliation requires more than words—it requires a willingness to engage directly and hear people’s hearts.

🔹 22.3 When there is a gap between what is expressed publicly (we want reconciliation) and what is pursued privately, it raises questions that need to be addressed with honesty and clarity.

23. Lack of Transparency Fuels Public Concern

The amount of discussion online is largely a reflection of the lack of transparency.

🔹 23.1 When concerns are not clearly addressed, they don’t disappear—they grow and get louder. Joshua Harris’s videos simply point out the inconsistencies.

🔹 23.2 If a video surfaced about me suggesting I had plagiarized someone—such as the “boxing gloves and suitcase” message connected to Anna Golden—I would want to address it quickly and clearly. I wouldn’t do it to defend myself, but to clear up the confusion that it would cause in those who look to me for leader leadership. Not addressing it immediately feeds the confusion.

🔹 23.3 However, when each attempt that is made to clarify a situation creates a new set of questions and more confusion, we have reason to be concerned. The explanations given have not resolved the concerns—in many ways, they have deepened them.

🔹 23.4 At this point, the issue is not just the original allegation, but whether the responses have been consistent, clear, and credible. For many, common sense and critical thinking find the explanations implausible.

24. The Appearance of a Controlled Process

The perception that questions were being selectively addressed (cherry-picked) seems tied to how the process itself was managed.

🔹 24.1 When a process is tightly controlled, it can give the impression that certain questions are being filtered out rather than fully engaged.

🔹 24.2 There was a moment where Deacon Chris raised what many would consider a legitimate concern, yet he was not given meaningful space to fully express it. Yes, he did not follow the rules, but is your goal, “rule following” or healing and transparency?

🔹 24.3 It’s understandable to want to keep a meeting orderly, but when difficult questions are limited in the name of order, it can (and did) come across as avoiding necessary transparency. When major issues are avoided, such as Plexus and Jeremiah’s use of a fake prophecy (2015 Trump prophecy) to become well-known, it appears that the meeting was carefully crafted to only answer those things that you felt confident you could answer, leaving Jeremiah in the best light possible, while avoiding those issues that would chip away at his credibility. As a result, it can appear that the process prioritized preserving credibility rather than fully engaging the most difficult and important concerns.

🔹 24.4 If there is nothing to hide, there should be room for honest—even uncomfortable—questions. Without that, the process can appear more controlled than open, whether that was the intent or not.

25. Claimed Resolution vs. Ongoing Concerns

There have been repeated statements that certain issues have been resolved. However, many of the concerns do not appear to have been fully reconciled.

🔹 25.1 For example, in the past, responsibility for plagiarism was attributed to team members. More recently, there has been an acknowledgment of personal responsibility. That shift raises important questions about previous explanations.

🔹 25.2 This is why people continue to ask questions—because the answers have not always been consistent, but at times appear contradictory.

🔹 25.3 The same concern applies to accounts of supernatural encounters. When details such as timing, frequency, and key elements of those experiences change over time—especially when those encounters form a significant part of a public ministry—people naturally begin to question their reliability and truthfulness.

🔹 25.4 So while it is being said that these matters have been resolved, it is ultimately the broader community that must discern whether the explanations given are clear, consistent, and credible. Having the accused regularly claim that allegations are old and resolved is not evidence, but merely rhetoric. With the explanations changing, it is very clear that these old allegations have not been resolved satisfactorily.

26. Questions About Supernatural Claims and Authority

Some may ask: Why would anyone fabricate a visitation from Jesus?

🔹 26.1 Sadly, we have seen examples where claims of extraordinary spiritual encounters become central to a ministry’s identity. These kinds of stories draw attention. People are intrigued by them, they want to believe them—but they are often difficult, if not impossible, to verify. They can only be verified by watching the life of the person claiming the encounters—is there consistent honesty, integrity, and adherence to biblical principles?

26.1.1 The concern grows when the details of those experiences change over time. When the narrative is inconsistent, it naturally raises questions about the reliability of the account.

🔹 26.2 For those who claim apostolic authority, some teach—drawing from Paul’s writings—that being an eyewitness of Jesus is a necessary qualification. If that is the case, then claims of personal visitations from Jesus naturally carry weight and can reinforce that authority. This is why the analysis from Joshua Harris is significant. When inconsistencies and contradictions appear in those accounts, it raises the possibility that the experiences may not have happened as described—or at all.

26.2.2 Believers should not feel pressured or shamed into accepting such claims without question. When someone says they have been visited by Jesus—something most believers have not experienced—it is both reasonable and necessary to ask hard questions. Jesus Himself warned us about deception. “Watch out that no one deceives you.” (Matthew 24:4) To be clear, I am not declaring that Jeremiah is a false prophet. But not everyone who claims a supernatural encounter is telling the truth, and Scripture calls us to be discerning. Discernment and critical thinking are not signs of unbelief—they are marks of maturity. It is not a lack of faith to ask questions; it is part of our responsibility as followers of Jesus.

🔹 26.2 Most believers have had genuine encounters with God. But those experiences are not meant to serve as proof of authority or calling—they are meant to deepen a relationship, not establish a platform.

26.2.1 The claim that Jesus would personally commission someone—particularly someone facing repeated and serious concerns regarding integrity—to prepare the Bride of Christ is understandably difficult for many to accept.

26.2.2 Self-declared authority without external accountability is not a New Testament pattern.

In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the elders in Antioch. In Acts 15, Paul and Silas were sent with the affirmation of the leadership in Jerusalem. While Paul did have a powerful personal encounter with God (Galatians 1:15–16), his calling was ultimately recognized and confirmed within the broader community of believers.

So when someone claims a unique calling or commission—especially one as significant as preparing the Bride of Christ—it is not something to be self-established. It should be weighed and affirmed by trusted leaders with a proven track record of integrity, discernment, and prophetic accuracy.

🔹 26.2.4 When there are consistent allegations of spiritual harm from multiple individuals, it raises a necessary and sobering question about whether that kind of role is being exercised in a healthy and trustworthy way.

27. Contradictions in Public Statements

The elders have stated that they are satisfied with Jeremiah’s explanations. However, it is difficult to understand how that conclusion was reached given the clear inconsistencies in his public statements. Jeremiah stated in 2015 that he did not prophesy that Donald Trump would become president. Yet later statements appear to contradict that position.

🔹 27.1 In a prepared statement to leadership, he explained that at one point he mistakenly took credit for that prophecy due to receiving incorrect notes from his team. However, this explanation raises further questions when compared to multiple public appearances.

27.1.1 The day after the 2016 election, Jeremiah appeared on the radio with Dr. Michael Brown to discuss the outcome. By his own admission, he is not politically driven, which suggests that his participation was tied to the perception that his prophetic word had been fulfilled—despite his earlier claim that he had not prophesied Trump’s victory.

27.1.2 In a separate appearance with Daniel Kolenda, Kolenda stated that Jeremiah had been among the first to receive a prophetic revelation that Trump would become president. At that moment, there was an opportunity to clarify or correct the statement, but no correction was made, allowing that narrative to stand.

27.1.3 Then, in 2021—after acknowledging his own false prophecy regarding Trump in the 2020 election—Jeremiah stated in a video: “I want to remind those watching I prophesied in 2015 that he’d win the 2016 election.” This directly contradicts his earlier claim that he did not give such a prophecy. We would have to suspend our critical thinking to believe that this was anything less than dishonest. At that point, the issue is no longer a single mistake, but a pattern of conflicting explanations that naturally raises concerns about credibility.

28. Repentance Framed Without Full Accountability

Steve Box wants this to be framed primarily around repentance and forgiveness, and of course, no one should expect a person to keep repeating the same apology endlessly. But that is not the central issue. The real problem is:

🔹 28.1 The matters that still have not been addressed directly.

🔹 28.2 the matters that were supposedly repented of, but where the explanations themselves were flawed. Blaming staff for plagiarism, blaming staff for claims that Jeremiah prophesied Trump’s 2016 victory, and continuing to maintain the narrative about the boxing gloves and suitcases all raise serious questions. Many people do not find those explanations credible, and the reason is simple: they do not believe he was honest when he originally presented these things.

🔹 28.3 delayed explanations that only come after pressure has built, rather than clear and timely honesty from the beginning.

29. The Limits of Appealing to Intent

In recent weeks and in this meeting, both Jeremiah and Morgan suggest that because his intent was right, there is no real wrongdoing. But that raises an important question—how do we determine intent?

🔹 29.1 When misleading or inaccurate statements occur repeatedly, particularly in ways that elevate a public platform, it becomes increasingly difficult to simply assume good intent.

At that point, the issue is no longer a single mistake, but a pattern that calls for deeper examination. And when that pattern consistently results in increased influence or visibility, it is reasonable to ask whether there may be other motivations at play.

🔹 29.2 One isolated incident might reasonably be attributed to misunderstanding or poor judgment. But when similar issues occur multiple times, it becomes much harder to rely on good intent as an explanation. At a certain point, the pattern itself must be taken seriously, and intent itself must be weighed by the discerning.

And lastly, and maybe more importantly…

30. What True Repentance Actually Looks Like

True repentance results in change. And where there is little change, it raises honest questions about the depth of that repentance.

Repentance is not simply acknowledging mistakes—it is being deeply broken over the reality that you have misled the people of God, that pride led you to present yourself as something you were not.

That kind of realization should shake you to your core. It should drive you to Jesus with urgency and humility. It should not sound like a checklist—it should be evident in genuine brokenness, even tears. Several times in the audio different ones apologize, “for this, I am sorry…for that, I am sorry.”

While taking responsibility is commendable, it comes off as robotic. It does not seem that there is any remorse for broken family relationships, for repeated, or for labeling decent as accusers who have been sifted by Satan.

🔹 29.1 I say this not as someone standing above the issue, but from my own experience.

When I became an elder in my late 20s, I was not ready. I was arrogant and full of myself, and some rightly questioned whether I should have been in that role.

Within a couple of years, it became clear. I was struggling spiritually, and God began to expose the pride in my heart. He showed me that part of the reason I was constantly getting beaten up spiritually was that I did not have the grace to carry that role, yet I was still trying to function in it. He said to me, I believe, “You’re not an elder.”

There are few things more dangerous than being in a position of spiritual authority that God has not given you the grace—or you do not possess the maturity—to carry.

When I repented before the congregation, it was not controlled or measured—I wept openly, not to be seen, but because I was genuinely broken. I was deeply humbled by my pride. I saw how I had carried myself, even expecting others—people twice my age—to honor me as an elder. I resigned as a governing elder, while continuing to serve as an associate pastor.

There were many things that led to that moment, none of them flattering. But when I finally saw my sin for what it was, it changed me.

When you’ve hurt others, real repentance is painful. It is not seen in one moment of saying, “I’m sorry.”

I will leave you with the words of Dr. Diane Langberg:

“Repentance is long, slow, consistent change over time that comes from the heart outward. It takes far longer than we want to admit. We fail to love both victim and perpetrator when we think repentance involves a few words of apology, which checks the box of contriteness on the part of the perpetrator and serves as a ticket back to wherever they want to go. Repentance is defined by Paul as an intensely Godward sorrow that fashions transformation (2 Cor. 7:10). Repentance commonly fails to be directed toward God but is instead directed toward people whose good favor the accused wishes to receive. And how readily we reduce it to words and tears rather than visible and holistic transformation." [4]

 Dr. Ron Cantor 

[1] Brian Biedebach, What to Look for in a Pastor: A Guide for Pastoral Search Committees (Leominster, England: Day One, 2011), 62–63.

[2] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013).

[3] Ralph Martin, 2 Corinthians, World Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, Inc., 1986), 40:442-443.

[4] Diane Langberg, When the Church Harms God's People: Becoming Faith Communities That Resist Abuse, Pursue Truth, and Care for the Wounded (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2024), 102, Kindle.