Reading the narrative about the “hot-seat” used in OI meetings brought up painful memories for me. It was a brutal and deeply humiliating experience — not just for me, but for many others I witnessed. Grown men and women were reduced to tears, often in front of young children, under the intense emotional pressure of these sessions. These sessions were called ‘being challenged’.

This wasn’t a process rooted in care or love. It mirrored techniques used by other coercive and controlling groups. Looking back, I can’t see how any of it was spiritually healthy or redemptive. I’ve since heard of many ex-members who needed psychologist’s support after leaving OI — a clear sign that something was deeply wrong. This is not normal.

If someone in the hot-seat dared to disagree with the group’s perspective, the blame always landed on them. They were the problem. They were the ones with a block. They were told they weren’t “teachable,” or “lacked conviction,” or asked, “What does your heart say about this?” — a question loaded with pressure to conform. This process crushed people. It left deep emotional scars. I even heard OI leaders refer to those who didn’t “measure up” as “lame ducks.” This kind of language speaks volumes.

What’s more disturbing is the dual life many members seemed to live. While they’d never admit it, OI members wore masks. For years, the church operated in secrecy. Even the reason and what happened during Tony’s Russian trip in the 70s was kept hidden from the wider OI community for years. If members truly believed they were God’s chosen people, why hide it? Why the secrecy? Why the fear of telling colleagues or other churches that they were “married to Jesus”? It all felt so cloak-and-dagger.

Now, with a new public-facing website (aside from the private member login), OI seems to be trying to expand — projecting an image of warmth, inclusiveness, and spiritual depth. But from what I’ve seen, it’s just the next phase of a familiar tactic: love bombing. Overwhelming newcomers with praise, affection, and attention as a means of control. It’s manipulative. It’s calculated. It’s not love — at least not in any healthy, honest sense of the word.