The Jesus Christians. 2. Criticizing “Churchianity”

A radical proposal: to follow Jesus rather than the institutional churches, the group experimented with living in poverty and limiting the use of money to a minimum.

By Massimo Introvigne

May 1, 2025

Article 2 of 10. Read article 1.

Jesus Christians’ comic criticizing “churchianity” and unnecessary rituals.

Dave McKay developed his criticism of the mainline Christian churches in conversation with the Quakers, although they were by no means the only influence on the development of his theology, and his beliefs were largely formed before he met them. He credited similarities with the Quakers to the fact that the teachings of Jesus were their common source.

Like the Quakers, McKay believes that baptism is not needed, and communion should not be celebrated as a specific ritual. “Quakers do not practice any sacraments, and neither do the Jesus Christians.” The Jesus Christians acknowledge that baptism is important in Christianity, but this is not the water baptism ritual: “People hear the word ‘baptism and immediately they add the word ‘water’ in their minds. ‘Baptism’ in today’s world has become synonymous with ‘water baptism.’ And in Jewish society people would have thought the same thing, since water baptism originated as a Jewish custom. However, John the Baptist who was in the Old Testament (see Luke 16:16), knew that Jesus was coming to bring a different understanding of baptism, just as he was going to do with so many of the old traditions and laws. Jesus’ baptism was going to maintain the spirit of the old baptism, but without the outward religious ritual.”

In a verse at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs his disciples to teach all people, “baptizing them” (Matthew 28:19). McKay notes that water is not mentioned and, “From this we understand the verse at the end of Matthew’s gospel to be saying that, if we teach people what Jesus taught, we are (at the same time) ‘baptising’ (or ‘covering’) them with God’s Spirit. In other words, teaching and baptising are two ways of describing the same action. The verse says for us to do two things: go and teach. It does not say for us to do three things: go, teach, and baptise. The part about baptising explains what will happen when we go and teach, i.e., that we will be baptising the people (Matthew 28:19). This is why it says baptising and not baptise. When the word is spelled this way, it is like saying, ‘Go and teach, bringing hope to everyone.’ We can see from the way that this sentence (Go and teach, bringing hope to everyone) is written that it is our teaching that brings hope. In the same way, when Jesus said, ‘Go and teach, baptising people,’ we understand that it is our teaching that baptises people.”

In reference to Quakers, McKay further explains that “our understanding of communion is similar”: “Once again, we see that communion seems to be an outward ritual that has led to many “divisions in the church. It does not seem to be the kind of thing that Jesus wanted for the church.” For McKay, Jesus was rather “talking about the fellowship that he had with his disciples.”

McKay is careful to note that there is nothing intrinsically sinful or wrong in the practices of water baptism and communion. However, the Jesus Christians do not follow them and believe that rituals are not important and may lead to unnecessary quarrels between Christians. They normally avoid even minor rituals like sending birthday or Christmas wishes. McKay acknowledges that this is sometimes needed to keep civilized relations with “relatives and friends in the system”—the word “system” indicates that contemporary society is organized according to teachings that are very different from those taught by Jesus. However, he regards it as preferable to show appreciation to relatives and friends throughout the year rather than on special holidays.

Dave and Cherry with their children in 1970.

This discussion is part of a broader approach to the institutionalization of Christianity, which the Jesus Christians see as a betrayal of Jesus’ originally simple message. They insist on Jesus as “the cornerstone” of faith, supported by several Biblical references including Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6.

While no Christians would dispute that the cornerstone of their faith is Jesus, McKay argues that most of them fail to grasp the implications of this statement. One immediate consequence is that Jesus’ direct teachings in the Gospel should be prioritized over the Old Testament and the apostolic letters (without denying the value of the latter): “Every other stone must line up with the cornerstone. If the apostles or the prophets are quoted in opposition to Jesus, we must follow Jesus in preference to them.”

The Jesus Christians believe that “The churches gush about how much they love Jesus, but they almost always reject his teachings.” They have “thrown out Jesus’ teachings because they are difficult.” The “uncomfortable truth” is that truly following Jesus would lead to a radical lifestyle change. Since they “don’t like to change,” “churchies” end up either attacking the content of the truth or, more often, shooting the messenger, as evidenced by their persecution of the Jesus Christians.

“The churches” have replaced the teachings of Jesus with their doctrines and structures, converting Christianity into “Churchianity.” “Churchies,” McKay writes, understand their “diabolical difference” with the Jesus Christians. They are also behind, McKay believes, most anti-cult attacks against his group.

The Jesus Christians report that “nowhere have we found Catholics possessing a relationship with Jesus that produces confidence to stand alone before God,” as “something is rotten in the whole [Roman Catholic] structure.” But Protestants, who know their Bible “well enough to condemn Catholics,” then create their own “Protestant Popes,” and “it’s a rare church that will follow God in preference to its human leaders.”

Even “religion” is not a word particularly appreciated by the Jesus Christians: “The Christian religion (as Jesus teaches it) is so different from all other religions that you cannot call it a religion. The groups that call themselves Christian are more like the other religions than they are like Jesus and his followers.” In a way, “almost all religions are the same,” as they are “all different from what Jesus was teaching.”  On the other hand, in all religions sincere believers can be found.

Sincerity is important for the Jesus Christians. While they agree that Jesus’ teachings are normative for salvation, they also believe that sincerity is “another cornerstone,” although a “phantom” one: “There are two approaches to the gospel. One is the hard line and one is the soft line. The hard line is that obedience to the teachings of Jesus is necessary for salvation. The soft line is that all God is looking for is sincerity. Either approach should lead you closer to the other. A really sincere person will be drawn to the teachings of Jesus; and a humble approach to the teachings of Jesus will cause us to see that what he was looking for more than anything else were people who are ‘pure in heart,’ or sincere. These two approaches are like two cornerstones. By sighting down the sides of a perfectly square cornerstone, one can make a perfectly square building.”

Sincerity as “another cornerstone” for the Jesus Christians.

The Jesus Christians would eventually travel to all continents, preaching to the sincere in heart that they should abandon all loyalties, both religious and political, to acknowledge Jesus as the cornerstone.

In 1981, Dave and Cherry felt confident that their radical approach to Christianity could persuade others. They started printing tracts and, together with their four children, distributed them in the streets of Melbourne. Some were interested, and they moved with a handful of disciples to a small farmhouse in Tallangatta, Victoria, some 360 kilometers from Melbourne. As they gathered more followers, the farmhouse became too small, and the winter weather in Tallangatta was cold. So, in early 1982, they moved further north to Rappville, near the city of Casino, New South Wales.

Dave McKay in 1983.

It was in Casino that they started advertising their radical approach to poverty and fraternity, which they believed characterized the early Christians. They launched a campaign of “free work,” which has remained a distinctive feature of the group to this day. As Smith reported in her dissertation based on her participant observation, during which she engaged herself in the practice, “Free work is the concept of doing a job for someone without the expectation of anything in return. It may include, but is not limited to, gardening, maintenance work, construction, or cleaning… We fished cardboard out of the rubbish bin, sliced it into strips and borrowed texters from the reluctant staff at the local library. We made signs that said, ‘Free Work,’ and discussed using slogans such as, ‘Freely Receive, Freely Give,’ ‘What would the world look like if we all worked for love?’ ‘Is it possible to live without money?’ ‘Greed Breeds Mean Deeds,’ and ‘Welcome to the gift economy.’ On the back or side of our signs we wrote, ‘Will do any job for free for 1 day, as long as it’s not unethical or illegal.’ We took our signs to the busy street mall and stood on either side of the walkway. As people walked past, we asked if they needed any small job done and that we would do it ‘totally for free,’ ‘no strings attached,’ and ‘as long as it is legal.’ People looked at us with suspicion. I spotted one woman who halted in hesitation, locking eyes with her I gestured her to come over. After explaining what we were doing she asked if we could clean her kitchen. We agreed and walked with her to her home. After several hours of cleaning the floor, wiping the surfaces, and attempting to fix her window blinds, she was grateful and gave us lunch to take with us.” 

Free work group in the 1980s.

While free work was sometimes an opportunity for evangelization or could result, as in Smith’s example, in food and other commodities being given to them, they were taught that “the reason why we were doing free work was to do something out of altruism—we shouldn’t be motivated by the hope of return.”

Being given food was not unimportant, though, as the members of a group that was still not using any name—“Jesus Christians” will come later—were struggling with how to implement their most radical idea, to live by using as little money as possible. They took seriously, and literally, the Gospel’s admonition that “You cannot serve both God and wealth” (Matthew 6:24), or “You cannot serve both God and money” (Luke 16:13). Other contemporary religious groups have similar lifestyles, including some Catholic neo-Franciscan religious orders, which want to return to the origins of their tradition.

“Bin raiding.”

The Jesus Christians rely on “God’s provision,” collecting food and other items that have been thrown away but can still be used, and on friendly people or those who receive their literature and donate necessary items (or small money) to them. As for the credit cards and their microchips, they believe there is a risk that by using them, Christians would be led to accepting the “Mark of the Beast” mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14.

The Mark of the Beast is an important theme in the group’s beliefs. The Book of Revelation predicts a time when the Devil and the Antichrist “will compel all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name” (Revelation 13:16).

The group believes that the Mark will be a microchip inserted in the hand, which will provide radio frequency identification and function like a credit card, allowing people to buy commodities, thus completing the transition to an entirely cashless society. They teach that Christians should start preparing to survive without money “when the Mark comes.”

However, “precursors of the Mark” are already in use, in the shape of microchips inserted in credit cards, transport cards, passports, and other identity documents such as the Kenyan Huduma Namba discussed before. All these tools are rejected by the group when they directly involve financial transactions, notwithstanding the problems this may create for their activities.

DVD on the Mark of the Beast produced by the group (2010).

During its long history, the group has discovered that there are circumstances in which it is impossible not to use money at all, but it will always try to keep such use to a minimum. It does have collective bank accounts and accepts small monetary donations when distributing tracts. Despite Dave McKay’s reservations, the group also decided in a 1984 meeting to accept the allocations the Australian government gives to the unemployed. However, they ceased collecting unemployment payments a short time later.

They also started, since their early days, to publicly testify to their disdain for money. In 1983, they established a second community in Lewisham, a suburb of Sydney. While there, they “super-glued $1 notes to Martin Place [in Sydney’s Central Business District], spelling out ‘TRUST GOD, NOT MONEY.’ They were arrested for defacing a footpath. We refused to pay the fines. Instead, we threw the money away to the general public and went to jail for not paying the fine.”

In the same year, they were arrested again at Christmas for painting a mural over graffiti in Sydney’s Devonshire Street Tunnel, but the charges were eventually dismissed. By that time, the two communities of Rappville and Lewisham had reunited in a new “base” in Paddington, an eastern suburb of Sydney.

In July 1984, McKay’s daughter Sheri and her future husband Boyd Ellery were arrested for publicly burning money in Wollongong, New South Wales. A judge sentenced Boyd to three months in prison for burning a dollar and warned him of two years if repeated. Sheri, being too young for an adult prison, was placed in a juvenile facility for sixteen days.

Media on Boyd Ellery’s money-burning.

It was unclear what crime, if any, they had committed. The prosecutor argued that destroying government property was a crime and that all money ultimately belonged to the government. Amnesty International and the Council for Civil Liberties sided with the accused, and eventually Boyd was released after he had spent one month in jail. Ultimately, a court ruled that they had been wrongly arrested and should be indemnified Australian $1,000 each, although they claim the amount was never paid.

In subsequent years, both anti-money demonstrations and reactions by the authorities would continue. The group believes that it is part of its mission to publicly testify that, rather than money in itself, love for and attachment to money are incompatible with following Jesus Christ.

Source: bitterwinter.org