The Jesus Christians. 6. Accusations of “Kidnapping”

Like other religious movements, the group was accused by its opponents of luring and “brainwashing” prospective converts.

By Massimo Introvigne and María Vardé

May 8, 2025

Article 6 of 10. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, and article 5.

Sensationalist tabloid coverage of the Bobby Kelly case, 2000.

Although the Jesus Christians were always much smaller than other controversial groups, their unconventional beliefs and radical lifestyle made them the targets of both secular anti-cultists and Christian heresy hunters. Controversy erupted, in particular, when some young people joined the group against the will of their parents, who, advised by anti-cult activists, took legal action. However, most memberships and disaffiliations in the group occurred without incidents, and the cases publicized in the media with accusations of crimes were disproved in court, as is often the case with most new religious movements (NRMs).

It is notable how the media tend to focus on familiar “horror” stories regarding these groups, while specialists and academics examine mixed accounts, both from ex-members or disgruntled family members and from current members and satisfied ex-members.

Unfortunately, journalism, which previously investigated from multiple angles, now often focuses on sensationalism and ratings. Media accounts portraying the Jesus Christians as a “horror cult” or “destructive cult” have multiplied in recent years, while works that present the voice and perspective of group members are scarce.

Controversies involving the Jesus Christians, including specific criminal accusations, are often driven by the underlying perception that they are a “cult” using “brainwashing,” which influences parents’ motivations to file complaints and collaborate with anti-cult organizations. The social and cultural constructions of the notions of “cult” and “brainwashing” thus affect the perception and treatment of the Jesus Christians in the public and legal sphere.

The accusation of “brainwashing” is a powerful metaphor used to exert social control over disadvantaged groups, especially NRMs. This term, which emerged in the 1950s, has been used to medicalize participation in NRMs, suggesting that the individuals involved suffer from a mental disorder and need intervention. These accusations have served to stigmatize these movements, presenting them as threats to society and justifying various forms of social control, including forced deprogramming. 

Eventually, professional associations and a large majority of scholars denounced anti-cult “brainwashing” theories as pseudo-scientific. In U.S. case law, a turning point was the “Fishman” decision of 1990, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California concluded that theories of “brainwashing” and mind control did not represent significant scientific concepts and could not be used in court cases.

Judge D. Lowell Jensen (from Twitter), who decided the “Fishman” case and excluded the testimony of anti-cult psychologist Margaret Singer (right, credits).

Over the following decades, academic research has continued to show that these accusations lack solid foundations and have therefore been rejected by the vast majority of scholars specializing in NRMs. On the contrary, sociological and psychological studies have revealed that participation in NRMs can be explained by theories of agency and informed decision, without the need to resort to pseudoscientific concepts such as “brainwashing.” Furthermore, most NRMs are small and experience high dropout rates, which contradicts the idea of powerful mind control techniques.

Despite this, the “brainwashing” metaphor is still used to justify the repression of these groups and the violation of their essential rights. For these reasons, the accusation of “brainwashing” —without which the pejorative idea of a “cult” would hardly subsist—has not prospered in the courts after “Fishman” and parallel decisions in other countries, being relegated to the realm of sensationalist media and anti‑cult associations that sell “exit” services—and even forced deprogramming—to grieving relatives.

From the end of the 1990s, the Jesus Christians were accused of “brainwashing” and “kidnapping” due to the opposition of some parents and relatives of young adults who joined the group. These parents argued that their children “were no longer the same” and that they were being manipulated by the group. Although none of the complaints involved crimes of sexual abuse within the group, the media took every opportunity to mention that McKay had been a member of the Children of God (normally without specifying the short time he spent with them), tacitly suggesting some link between the Jesus Christians and the abusive practices attributed to that other NRM.

Often, in the early years, the press still gave some space to the young Jesus Christians, who in all cases stated that these accusations were unfounded. They explained that they had joined the Jesus Christians because they believed the group embodied their true Christian ideals and they wanted to live in alignment with those values—an explanation very similar to the one shared by the members we interviewed. Parents, unable to understand such a radical change, were concerned to see their children abandoning their university studies, jobs, and professional or family aspirations to join a Christian group that promoted the abandonment of all earthly goods and a simple life dedicated to altruistic aims.

A different way of living: the group in 1990.

Not surprisingly, these concerns were fueled by anti-cult associations that encouraged parents to file complaints against the group. These conflicts reflect the difficulty of accepting decisions that, although voluntary and based on personal convictions, can be perceived as extreme and disconcerting by the relatives of NRMs’ members. Over the years, the media progressively favored over other perspectives the discourses of anti-cult activists such as Graham Baldwin, who advocated the concept of “brainwashing” and the need to intervene with these young individuals, denying the Jesus Christians the opportunity to respond.

One of the first controversial cases was that of Kyriako Sheridan (Kyri), a 19‑year-old who, in July 1999, decided to postpone his university year in London to undertake a trial period with the Jesus Christians. A few days later, despite Kyri maintaining regular communication with his mother, Bernadette, she filed a missing person report with the police. The young man promptly appeared at the police station to clarify the situation, but there he was met by some friends and Bernadette, who attempted to physically restrain him by clinging to his neck.

According to media reports, Kyri’s friends claimed he seemed like a “zombie” and was unwilling to share details about the group he had joined. Graham Baldwin, known as a “cult-buster” and founder of Catalyst, a UK-based NGO primarily focused on advising families of individuals involved in groups labeled as “cults,” also commented on the case despite never having met Kyri personally. Baldwin argued that Kyri had decided to join the Jesus Christians just days after meeting them and had undergone a drastic personality change after joining, transitioning from being pleasant and energetic to appearing like a “zombie.”

“A zombie with staring eyes”: classic anti-cult stereotypes in tabloid coverage of the case of Kyri.

However, after speaking with Kyri in private, the police decided that he did not require medical or psychological intervention. Furthermore, upon realizing that Bernadette would not let him leave, the officers handcuffed and detained her, allowing Kyri to return to his community. The inspector in charge of the case, David Callender, was clear: “We asked him if he was happy to be with them, and he said yes. Our hands are tied. Kyri is 19 years old and free to make his own decisions.” 

Later, according to the Jesus Christians’ official website, when Bernadette reestablished contact with Kyri and maintained a good relationship with both him and the group, she confessed that Baldwin had attempted to persuade her to file a theft complaint against Kyri so that the police could arrest him. Ultimately, Kyri decided to leave the movement. The Jesus Christians never had contact with him again.

A year after that incident, in July 2000, a significant media frenzy erupted when a 16-year-old named Bobby Kelly, living with his grandmother Ruth in Romford (Essex, Britain), decided to undertake a trial period with the Jesus Christians. Days after his departure, a photo of Bobby was published in newspapers under the headline “Cult Kidnaps 16-year-old Boy.” A nationwide search was initiated, and the case reached the courts. Ruth, advised by Anglican priest David Whitehouse from St. Peter’s Church, which Bobby had attended for several years, and who in turn connected her with Graham Baldwin, signed over Bobby’s legal guardianship to the state.

The situation escalated when Susan and Roland Gianstefani, then members of the Jesus Christians, were arrested for refusing to disclose Bobby’s exact location. The BBC conducted a telephone interview with Bobby, but a court order blocked its broadcast, arguing it could harm the young man. The BBC challenged this decision through a successful appeal, pointing out the lack of clarity regarding the supposed harm to the minor and that it constituted an act of censorship. Once published, the interview allowed Bobby’s version to be known, in which he stated that his departure had been voluntary, motivated by his adherence to a religious group that followed Jesus’ teachings as a guide for life. He described the group members as “normal” people dedicated to spiritual practices, denied any coercion against him, and added: “I know exactly what I am doing and exactly why I joined.”

Days later, Bobby was found with two group members in a campsite and brought before the court. There, he reiterated that he had not been kidnapped and requested the release of the Gianstefanis. They were released with a suspended sentence after apologizing and explaining that their refusal to provide information stemmed from the fear that an attempt would be made to deprogram Bobby. Finally, Bobby was assigned to a foster family.

Ten years later, Bobby Kelly provided a detailed account of the events from his personal perspective in a new interview. He explained that the media frenzy had surprised him because his grandmother knew he was not kidnapped. He had asked her permission to travel with the Jesus Christians, and some of his companions had visited her to meet her, with her initial agreement. Additionally, he called her every night, and neither she nor anyone in his family had expressed concern or a desire for him to return. He was also surprised to see the media circulating photos of him when he was younger, intending to make the situation appear more serious than it was, given that he was old enough to make decisions. Bobby asserted that Baldwin was behind the “news story,” and that the matter could have been resolved peacefully without him. 

Bobby Kelly with Roland and Susan Gianstefani. Credits.

Bobby also expressed frustration because the outcome of the state intervention was his placement with a foster family with whom he did not get along and who did not respect his religious beliefs. The situation distanced him from the group, his grandmother, and his faith. The media exposure led to his social isolation, as no one believed his version of events, and despite his attempts, he was unable to integrate into any church. He further explained that he never felt coerced or controlled by the Jesus Christians, but rather in the courtroom, where several people interrogated him for hours, he felt real pressure. 

He also stated that if everything were to happen again, he would still choose to join the Jesus Christians, but this time he would genuinely engage with the press and express his viewpoints and beliefs. Additionally, he would more vigorously defend his rights, as at the age of 16, he had the right to choose his lifestyle, and he would therefore remain resolute in pursuing what he wanted to do. Although there were no criminal repercussions for the Jesus Christians, the case of Bobby Kelly continued to be used as negative publicity by the movement’s detractors for decades afterward.

In early June 2005, another incident occurred in Kenya when Betty Njoroge, a 27-year-old journalist, decided to undertake a trial period with the Jesus Christians along with her 7-year-old son, Joshua. Despite visiting her family’s home with some companions on the third day to introduce them, Betty’s parents vehemently opposed this decision. They reported Roland and Susan Gianstefani for allegedly kidnapping their daughter and grandson. Roland was arrested on June 17 in public and held for ten days without being informed of the charges against him, undergoing intense interrogation to obtain information about Betty’s whereabouts. He was eventually charged with the alleged kidnapping of Betty and Joshua, and his detention lasted 25 days before he was released on bail.

Betty Njoroge and Joshua. Screenshot.

The case received extensive media coverage. The Jesus Christians were portrayed as a “cult” that forced its members to abandon their families and surrender all their possessions to the leaders, with the Bobby Kelly incident referenced as a precedent. From the beginning, Betty maintained communication with her family and the police, insisting that she was not kidnapped. She also published a video online explaining that she was hiding to avoid being detained, that Roland had been held as a hostage by the police to pressure her, and that she had emails and text messages from her father telling her that if she surrendered, Roland would be released. She stated: “I have the right to choose my own religion and way of life, and just because my father and the police disagree with me doesn’t mean that they can keep my friend hostage. Myself and the Jesus Christians have done nothing wrong.” 

In an interview with “ABC Radio,” she explained that she did not want to reveal her location because her parents threatened to report her. She also wanted to gain Joshua’s custody and was unwilling to return under pressure. She also clarified that the Jesus Christians did not force her to surrender assets to the leaders, but rather, upon joining the group, one could choose to share their money and belongings with all other members—those with whom they would live in community—or donate them to the poor. She assured, “It’s not a teaching that the Jesus Christians made up, by the way, it’s something that Jesus himself said. He said that ‘none of you can be my disciples unless he gives up everything he has.’” 

Some media outlets questioned how the case could proceed when the alleged victim categorically denied the accusations. Betty and the Jesus Christians maintained that the reason for this was that Betty’s father, a wealthy and influential individual in Kenya, had orchestrated the persecution of the community and the arrest of Roland with the police, in a clear case of corruption.

Roland (with red shirt) and Sue Gianstefani (with blue shirt) in Kenya.

On July 11, Roland was released. By then, he had contracted tuberculosis due to the unsanitary conditions of the Kenyan jail. Susan was detained a few days later, although she was granted provisional liberty due to her willingness to present herself to authorities when necessary. The trial was scheduled to begin on September 2, 2005; if the Gianstefanis had been found guilty, they could have faced sentences of up to seven years in prison. Finally, on September 2, Betty appeared in court, reiterated the same statements she had been making for nearly two months, and the prosecution decided to drop the charges against the Gianstefanis.

Source: bitterwinter.org