Barriers of Exit: The Exodus Story
The following article is part of my “Barriers of Exit” series. These barriers are cognitive hurdles that make it extremely hard to question or leave the Message. For a questioning individual, they may have not considered or clearly identified these issues. Seeing them is useful in understanding why the Message makes it painful to leave.
There are many barriers built into the teaching of the Message which make it very difficult for anyone with legitimate concern to leave. One of the teachings that is of particular challenge is the concept that there is “nowhere to go” if one were to leave. This is known as a “false dilemma” fallacy (otherwise known as a “false dichotomy”).
This is a common tactic used when one group/individual is attempting to prevent another from inquiring / exploring alternatives. If you can issue a warning that “there’s no other alternative”, and incite the dangers & pitfalls of leaving, it serves to overrule the reasons why a person may have been considering ‘other alternatives’ in the first place.
Note, this is a problem especially because it does not address the concerns of the individual (eg. false prophecies, instances of clear falsehood/deception, etc) – it just tries to appeal to their sense of fear which the message leans heavily upon.
They had to be in their land. Remember, they had to come out of the land that they were in, and get into the land of promise, before their promised Messiah could ever come. 88 And the Church has to do the same thing; get out of that group of rejecters, over into the promise, before Messiah can ever be manifested before them. You see it?
63-0630M – The Third Exodus
Rev. William Marrion Branham
How does the Message enact the “False Dilemma”?
Consider the story of the “Third Exodus”, as described by William Branham. Throughout the Message, he uses typology to recreate the scene of the Exodus. The first Exodus is clearly depicted in the biblical telling of Moses leading the children out of slavery in Egypt, towards their promised land. The second Exodus, he uses typology to suggest that this was a deliverance moving the people from “law into grace”. And lastly, he claims there will be a third exodus in which another prophet (like Moses/Jesus) who will deliver mankind from the slavery of denominations into his message (as the bride of Christ).
This viewpoint depends on you accepting that this version of teaching is accurate. It also requires you to position himself (William Branham) as the Moses/Messiah figure. If you do accept him as your prophet, you will receive the benefit of escaping the said evils of denominationalism… which, essentially, is every church on earth, besides the message.
31 And redemption has two different parts: “come out of” and “entering into.” First, you have to come out. Some people wants to bring the world in with them; but you got to come out of the world, to enter into Christ. You have to come out of unbelief, to enter into faith. There cannot be one thing in your way. To really have genuine faith, you must absolutely leave everything that’s contrary to the Word of God, behind, to enter into faith. 32 And that was the Book of the Ephesians of the Old Testament, Joshua. Where, Moses represented the law, could not save no one; but grace could, and here Joshua is the same word like Jesus, “Jehovah-saviour.” 33 And now then, we find out that we have come to another Ephesians, another Ephesus now. Where, that, in our intellectual denominations and so forth, and all of our educational programs has come to its—its Jordan, then we must have an—an Ephesians again. We must have an exodus, to “come out” and to “go into,” for the Rapture.
65-0119 – The God Who Is Rich In Mercy
Rev. William Marrion Branham
The False Dilemma
As a cornerstone teaching in the message (to escape denominations), you have been conditioned to believe that there is no other option. There is no other church outside of the message that can deliver the gospel. This teaching strongly reinforces that redemption itself requires two steps: (1) leaving/coming out of one place, and (2) entering into a place that’s better. It implies you can’t possibly consider leaving the message because you MUST have something to go into that’s better.
I can tell you I was challenged numerous times from message believers to identify the place I would go after I left. They could provide no explanation for lies/issues about William Branham, yet demanded I provide them the name of my “better” new church. It comes with a pressure; you feel like you need to have a clear answer to justify your decision to leave.
This is the false dilemma. Why must you identify ‘the better place’ in order to leave a place based on your overwhelming, valid and unaddressed concerns? This is like suggesting a partner cannot leave their abusive spouse unless they have a better spouse in waiting. If you can see the clearly fatal issues/problems with the Message/William Branham, that is a substantial, honest reason to leave. Period.
When someone begins to tell you “there’s nowhere else to go!” – even if they begin offering what seems like reasonable pitfalls/concerns of denominations (sometimes based on their own experiences) – are they addressing the actual issues about the message itself? Or are they employing a fear tactic, avoiding the issues and trying to prevent you from leaving?
This is a clear barrier to exit for anyone starting on the road out.