The Jesus Christians. 8. “Kidneys for Jesus”

The group is primarily famous for its altruistic donations of kidneys to patients whom donors do not know.

By Massimo Introvigne and María Vardé

May 12, 2025

Article 8 of 10. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, article 4, article 5, article 6, and article 7.

One of the early Jesus Christians kidney donations.

Some media outlets have called the Jesus Christians “the kidney cult” and spread the idea that to become a member it is necessary to donate a kidney. Curiously, this nickname was initially thought of by Dave McKay during an informal chat with journalist Jon Ronson, in which he imagined what the media would call them once the altruistic donations that some of them were making in different countries became public. However, in more than twenty years, no current or former member of the Jesus Christians has stated that this was a requirement to join the group, and not all Jesus Christians have donated an organ. Even those who have left the community due to personal conflicts with Dave McKay have stated that their decision to donate a kidney was completely independent and personal.

For example, in a 2017 interview, Susan Gianstefani stated that donating a kidney and part of her liver was about following Jesus’ teachings on sharing what one has in excess with those who need it more. Even though she was very critical of McKay and his leadership model by then, Gianstefani made it clear that there was never any coercion in the group to make donations. Her liver donation took place years after she left the group.

A colorful note about this interview is that Bobby Kelly, the young protagonist of the first major controversy of the Jesus Christians, conducted it. In a guest blog on the website of the Kidney Information Network (a patient-led community that provides information and support to people with chronic kidney diseases), Susan Gianstefani, well after she had left McKay’s group, stated the following: “For me, being a living organ donor is one of the best things I have done with my life. Since I first considered being a living organ donor, I have come to realise that it is by far the best way to help people suffering from kidney (or liver) failure, if patients are well enough to undertake a transplant. As far as the actual donation experience goes, it made me feel very privileged to play a part in the wonderful miracle of healing that is living organ transplantation at this point in history.” At least until January 2023, the date of the last update of her X @living_donor account, Gianstefani continued her activism in favor of living organ donation.

The idea of donating a kidney to a complete stranger came to McKay on an international flight, after watching the movie “Gift of Love,” which tells the story of a boy who, desperate because of the imminent death of his grandmother due to kidney failure, decides to donate one of his kidneys to her. As he has said on several occasions, this film made McKay think that, having two healthy kidneys, a good way of showing Christian love would be to donate one of them to someone who really needed it. After researching the situation of transplants worldwide, McKay and three pioneering members, Susan Gianstefani, Casey Crouch, and Robin Dunn, believed that their donation could be more than just an act of love. It could also be an example for other healthy people to consider becoming donors, helping to reduce the long list of people waiting for a transplant without much hope. 

Media coverage of the Jesus Christians’ kidney donations.

So, they decided to tell a journalist about their idea and offer him to cover the process. The chosen reporter was Jon Ronson, an investigative journalist and best-selling author whose coverage of the Bobby Kelly case had maintained a moderate tone and included the voices of some group members and even Bobby himself, in an effort to question the sensationalist versions. Ronson documented the donation processes of Gianstefani in Great Britain and Crouch and Dunn in the United States in 2002 and wrote a two-part article about them entitled “Blood Sacrifice,” published in “The Guardian.” 

During the year that Ronson was in contact with the Jesus Christians, personal conflicts arose between him and McKay. According to Ronson, McKay was very keen to influence how the Jesus Christians would be portrayed, and it was not clear whether the whole thing was not really a form of publicity. According to McKay, Ronson was unstable and could not be trusted not to end up writing another exposé against the group, when what was important was to encourage altruistic donations.

The project went ahead and included making a documentary about the donation process, entitled “Kidneys for Jesus.” The film offers an inside look at how some Jesus Christians members became involved in organ donation and the challenges they faced, while revealing the conflicted nature of the relationship between Ronson and McKay, as well as the latter’s strong and outgoing personality.

However, one of the documentary’s weakest points is the testimony of the mother of a female group member, who claims that McKay manipulated her daughter into distancing herself from the family. Although Ronson had access to all community members, he did not include a testimony from the young woman that would explain her situation. The mother’s testimony seems like a bitter note attempting to portray McKay as a manipulative leader, a perception that Ronson shared and had clearly expressed, but without offering an exhaustive analysis of the matter.

Jon Ronson. Credits.

Ronson’s opinion of McKay evolved over time. In 2009, Ronson made a public statement to rectify his remarks about McKay in an interview, which was eventually published with the interview itself: “In my interview with Barry Donovan on ‘Den of Geek,’ I stated that Dave McKay was ‘slightly psychopathic’ and that he instructed members of his religious group, the Jesus Christians, to donate their kidneys to strangers. Actually, neither claim was fair. I was wrong to call Dave slightly psychopathic, and in my year studying the Jesus Christians, I didn’t find any evidence that Dave was instructing his members to donate kidneys. I apologise for making those statements.” 

Following the donations of the four pioneers, other members of the community considered donating as a way of living by faith, and over the course of twenty-two years, several have donated a kidney to patients needing it. However, not all members have followed this path. In interviews conducted between 2023 and 2025, we asked different members how they joined the community. None of them, not even those with the longest membership in the group, mentioned organ donation as something significant in the joining process or as a requirement.

Only half of our interviewees had been donors in the past, while the other half not only had not donated, but had no intention of doing so. According to what they told us, donation is not a relevant issue in the community’s life or its internal discussions, unless a specific request for a kidney is received. In general, about one in five full-time adult members has been a donor, which remains a very high percentage compared to the general population.

Even so, for those who are interested in donating an organ, the community’s website includes a detailed section, written by an experienced nurse, which describes the donation process from the days leading up to it until the end of post‑surgical recovery. This resource provides exhaustive information about the possible discomforts of the process—by no means negligible—intending to ensure that volunteers are fully informed before making a decision.

The Jesus Christians’ kidney donations were not always easy to achieve. On the one hand, the obstacles were legal. In some countries where altruistic live donation is not legal, they encountered serious difficulties in donating for transplants. As they later publicly admitted, in some cases, they lied to be able to donate a kidney, assuring the hospitals that there was a relationship between them and the recipients where none existed. As they told us in the interviews, they considered that the end of saving a life justified the means, especially when the law was not being broken to obtain an economic benefit.

2005: the media echoed objections by some doctors.

On the other hand, prejudices have posed significant obstacles for the Jesus Christians, and organ donation is no exception. In certain instances, professionals overseeing potential donations from members of this group suspected psychological coercion when they learned that the candidates belonged to a religious minority, and they canceled the transplant without conducting psychiatric evaluations, as was the case with Roland Gianstefani.

In another case, the donor’s parents opposed the donation so vehemently, saying that their son was “brainwashed,” that the hospital decided to dismiss the opportunity –even though the donor was of legal age– to avoid negative publicity. That was the story of Ash Falkingham, which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation documented in a report on the program “Australian Story,” entitled “Ash’s Anatomy” and broadcast in June 2007. In June 2008, a follow-up report entitled “Body and Soul” was broadcast, which tells how Ash continued to try to donate, and his eventual success in doing so.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s coverage of the Ash Falkingham story.

Living organ donation by altruists, that is, living people unrelated to the recipient, is widely debated in the medical and public policy spheres. On the one hand, some experts argue that this type of donation can ultimately express altruism and solidarity, saving lives and improving recipients’ quality of life. However, others raise ethical and psychological concerns, such as the risk of coercion and social pressure. Despite ongoing debates, the majority of health professionals tend to support altruistic living donation, as it significantly increases the number of organs available for transplantation and benefits more patients in need. In line with this perspective, healthcare professionals increasingly emphasize that, with the due psychological assessment of individuals, there is no valid reason to challenge the wishes of competent persons willing to donate an organ to a non-related recipient.

This consensus is based on studies showing that altruistic donors tend to have positive physical and emotional results, and that living donation can reduce waiting times and improve transplant outcomes. For this reason, more and more countries, such as the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Spain, have implemented new policies to allow and even encourage altruistic donation.

However, the decision to donate an organ to a stranger while still alive, although based on personal and altruistic convictions, can be viewed with skepticism and even rejection by those who do not share the same values or beliefs. The prevailing narrative in the media tends to portray these actions by members of religious minorities as extreme or manipulated, which reinforces cultural and moral stigmas about non-mainstream spiritual communities.

Recent research has pointed out that ethical concerns about altruistic donation may be based more on stereotypes than on concrete evidence. Numerous studies have shown that altruistic donors typically make these decisions following careful deliberation. This evidence challenges prevailing stereotypes that associate non-directed donation with manipulation or diminished autonomy. However, these stigmas persist due to a lack of understanding of the internal process and religious concerns that lead a person to perform such a generous act.

Media controversies have exacerbated these prejudices in the case of the Jesus Christians. Detractors have interpreted some members’ decision to donate organs as proof of manipulation or “brainwashing” by the group, ignoring the testimonies of the donors themselves, who describe these actions as voluntary expressions of faith and altruism. This type of narrative reflects a broader tendency to pathologize individual choices when they challenge prevailing cultural norms.

Despite these difficulties, the actions of the Jesus Christians did help change some opinions. For example, Susan Gianstefani’s decision, her firm conviction, and the consistency of her actions with her religious beliefs led the director of medical ethics at the Lahey Clinic Medical Center, David Steinberg, to reconsider his position on altruistic organ donation. Through his conversations with Susan, Steinberg concluded that, in carefully selected cases, the donation of a kidney by altruistic donors is morally appropriate and can inspire others to follow their example.

Source: bitterwinter.org