Elim President Denounces "Slanderous Disinformation" Amidst Growing Feucht Controversy
Lima, NY – Tensions escalate as Elim Bible Institute and College President, Christel Pulles, vehemently denies allegations leveled against the institution and herself regarding their association with evangelist Sean Feucht. In an official statement released today, Pulles characterized the claims as "slanderous disinformation" aimed at undermining the institution’s reputation and Christian mission. The controversy stems from Feucht’s upcoming "Kingdom to the Capitol" tour, which includes a planned stop at Elim on September 23rd. The event has drawn sharp criticism from various groups, including alumni and local community members, who express concerns about Feucht’s controversial rhetoric, political stances, and past activities.
Pulles’ statement meticulously refutes several key accusations circulating online, including the claim that Elim is actively promoting or endorsing Feucht’s political agenda. She emphasizes that Elim’s decision to host the event is based solely on its commitment to religious freedom and the principle of providing a platform for diverse Christian voices, regardless of their political affiliations. The statement highlights Elim’s long-standing tradition of hosting events featuring speakers from across the theological and political spectrum, underscoring that extending an invitation to a speaker does not constitute an endorsement of their every view. Pulles further clarifies that Elim, as a tax-exempt religious institution, does not engage in political campaigning or endorse any political candidates, and the Feucht event will not deviate from this established policy.
Addressing accusations of financial impropriety, Pulles categorically denies claims that Elim is profiting from the event or using funds inappropriately. She explains that the event is being managed independently by Feucht’s organization and that Elim is merely providing the venue. Furthermore, she asserts that Elim’s financial practices are transparent and accountable, subject to regular audits and adhering to all applicable regulations. Pulles invites anyone with legitimate concerns to review the institution’s financial records and engage in constructive dialogue rather than resorting to spreading misinformation.
The controversy surrounding Feucht’s appearance also extends to broader criticisms of his ministry and public persona. Critics point to his involvement in politically charged events, his association with controversial figures, and his rhetoric, which some perceive as divisive and inflammatory. They argue that hosting Feucht provides a platform for harmful ideologies and contradicts Elim’s stated values of inclusivity and respect. Pulles counters these arguments by reiterating Elim’s commitment to freedom of speech and the exchange of diverse viewpoints within the Christian faith. She emphasizes that engaging with different perspectives is crucial for intellectual and spiritual growth, and that shielding students from controversial ideas would be a disservice to their education.
Despite Pulles’s forceful rebuttal, opposition to the event remains strong. A petition circulating online calls for Elim to rescind Feucht’s invitation, garnering thousands of signatures. Alumni and community members have organized protests and plan to hold demonstrations outside the event venue. They express deep disappointment with Elim’s leadership and argue that hosting Feucht sends a damaging message to students, alumni, and the wider community. They contend that Elim’s decision prioritizes platforming a controversial figure over addressing the concerns and potential harm to marginalized communities.
The clash between Elim’s leadership and those opposed to Feucht’s appearance highlights the growing tensions within the evangelical community regarding the intersection of faith, politics, and social issues. As the event date approaches, the controversy is likely to intensify, putting Elim under increasing scrutiny and posing challenging questions about the balance between religious freedom, institutional responsibility, and the need for constructive dialogue in a polarized society. The fallout from this controversy could have lasting implications for Elim’s reputation and its relationship with both its internal community and the broader public.
