Hope Church ASU Cult Practices: U of A Religious Council, "Red Flags"

The following behaviors have been listed by the University Religious Council at the University of Arizona as “red flags” regarding religious groups. A document containing these points was shared by a Facebook group for former members of Faith Christian Church in Tucson and its offshoots (of which Hope Christian Church is listed by the group as one)

NOTE: It is important to note that none of the behaviors epitomized by Hope Christian Church ASU here are considered “normal” for Christian ministries or faith­-based groups to engage in. Any ideas such as “that is just how Church­-groups operate” would be egregiously in error.

Dozens of experience reports were collected from former members which demonstrate these violations by Hope Christian Church ASU.

1: ​“Religious Stalking”:​“Persistent unwanted door-­knocks, phone calls, or hanging around your living space means people have crossed boundaries. You have the right to say ‘no’, and that should be respected”

Summary: ​As demonstrated on the page concerning “Code of Conduct Violations”, Hope Christian Church’s leaders regularly apply overbearing amounts of persistence in trying to win new members.


2: ​“Invasiveness”: ​“Attempts to gain inappropriate personal, financial, sexual, and/or emotional information about/from you”

Summary: ​Hope’s entire discipleship model is based upon letting Hope leaders into one’s life on every level, not only by way of influence (See the page on “Front Groups and Campus Concerns”; the entry on “Micromanagement”) but by way of obtaining personal information, also.

3: ​“Deception”​: “Failure to clearly identify themselves. A religious group’s identity, affiliation, and advertising should be unambiguous, with beliefs and practices transparent. For example ‘surveys’, ‘contests’, should identify the organization and the full­ purpose of the contest/event.”

Summary: ​Hope embodies this through their use of front groups, as well as through many of their techniques in “discipling” members.


4: ​“Pressure”:​ “Pressure to not date or associate with others outside the religious group; to lie and/or disengage from your family and/or religious community; or to avoid other campus activities and groups.”

Summary: ​As mentioned elsewhere, Hope embodies this characteristic by pressuring its members to not engage in other religious activities, or personal relationships, which do not directly involve Hope Christian Church or are not monitored by them.


5: ​“Shame”:​“Religious groups who say that if you don’t join their group, give money, or spend time with them, then you don’t really love God.”

Summary: ​When Hope leadership identifies something they are not pleased with in a members, the member is often publicly shamed in front of large groups. Certain criteria are also expected to be met by student members to “prove” or “demonstrate” that they are really “committed” or “sold out” for God and the church, including financial giving and time­-commitment.


6: ​“Religious Manipulation”: “​Methods which target vulnerable students. Methods which seek to break down, and then rebuild students. Instances of over­ the­ top niceness used as a form of entrapment”

Summary: ​Hope fully embodies this methodology, which is sometimes referred to by Hope leaders as “love­-bombing”. Hope leaders intentionally seeks out students who are vulnerable or insecure, bombard them with affection (which is often, though not always, non­-genuine) in order to gain their trust, and then get them to “open­ up” about their personal lives, followed up by the assertion (immediately or at some point down the road) that Hope Christian Church is the solution to their problems. Hope leaders will even “assign” members to be the “primary friend” to various “guests” if they see a particularly vulnerable student and think that a certain member would do well in getting them to the “opening­ up” stage.