- Spiritual Fodder
- Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?
- Role of Women in Ministry
- Then What's a Good Church?
- Why So Quiet?
- Becky's UBF Roots
- The Letter
- Dissecting Ed's Brain
- Shepherding/Discipleship Movement
- Exit Strategy
- Moving On
When Christian kids go off to college, they must find a church away from home. Berkland primarily fulfills the Great Commission (Matthew 28) through the convenience this need provides. A church's legitimacy is defined by what it does or doesn't do, in accordance to Scripture. At the beginning of each academic year, Berkland members are mistakenly emboldened as they reap dozens into their fold. As they invite incoming students into their homes, feed them, visit them when they are sick, show interest about who they are and where they are headed, they grow convinced of Berkland's legitimacy, as it closely resembles the early church:
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. (Acts 4:32)The majority of incoming students are already churched, that is, they know what is expected of them as Christians, so it begs to question who is serving whose needs. However, both the churched and non-churched are impressed by the devotion of Berkland members, but the discerning eventually question to whom this devotion is directed. Ultimately, it is not one's relationship with Jesus Christ that defines Christian life in Berkland, but rather the degree to which one is emotionally rooted and ones eagerness to seek approval from leadership that does. It is no coincidence that after a purge, exodus, or split, koinonia becomes the centerpiece of Berkland ministry (the "dangling carrot"). According to a personal source, the 2006 freshmen consider Gracepoint to be the place for friends and fun, surrendering its most hardcore reputation to East Bay (KCPC is perennially the clique church).
The freshmen class may start out with fifty or more students. The first year is like summer camp, where one just kicks back and enjoys the fellowship. Many freshmen hear good sermons for the first time in their lives. Slowly, they are introduced to Berkland policies, like being forbidden to date. As sophomore year swings by, the class size reduces to half, with only the serious remaining. Seriousness is best demonstrated by showing disinterest in the opposite gender. "Church is not a meat market," as was said, in reference to other churches where normal social discourse occurs. Instead, Berkland has a system where leaders would confer among themselves whether two people are suited for one another. One is given permission to approach whom the staff deem a proper match, so ultimately a couple would owe their happy union to Berkland.
It is a numbers game. "If you want to leave, just leave. Don't waste any more of our time. I don't want a large church," Becky Kim would say. It is not a statement from someone whose interest is to serve others, but someone who is comfortably aware that there is no shortage of Christian students, spiritual fodder if you will, on whom to inflict her particular brand of ministry. Given a reckless directive that would later be recognized as un-Biblical, Berkland would merely wait for the furor to subside, have any damaged persons leave, and start afresh with a new batch.
An example is that of Becky Kim regarding those who decided not to dedicate their lives to Berkland, after experiencing the Berkland ministry full time during their college years, as goats:
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Matthew 25:31-33)No apologies were made then, or any other time; any outright sin/mistake is regarded as a spiritual lapse. Those that leave, leave with scars. Those that remain, wallow in delusion (at best). The staff (who will remain nameless but are no less culpable as the key leaders), complicit in her errors, have sinned and currently sin, for they too cause those under their guidance to sin; for their own sake, they do so unknowingly:
Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:1-4)In light of the recent split, it makes sense that, in the interest of self-preservation, no public apology has been issued from Gracepoint and that Ed's discrediting of Becky has been done in private. Ed and his staff had been accomplices to Becky's sins, so to discredit Becky's authority would be the same as discrediting his own. The result is that nobody admits to error. Apologists will make the plea that we are all sinners, but you cannot forgive those who will not confess to error, especially those who actively hide the truth (for the "greater good"), and leaders are held to a particular account:
Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (James 3:1)The "greater good" is not for the congregation but for the welfare of the organization. A church that exists primarily to perpetuate its own existence makes for a poor church, and in the process not only inhibits service to others, but actually harms. If from among the 50 students, five decide to dedicate their lives to Berkland, it can "enlarge its tent" (Isaiah 54). The rest are discarded.
NOTE: For the sake of my own accountability in how I reference Bible verses in this blog, I would like to share a passage from "Studies In the Sermon of the Mount" by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:
There is a sense in which it is true to say that you can prove anything you like from the Bible. That is how heresies have arisen. The heretics were never dishonest men; they were mistaken men. They should not be thought of as men who were deliberately setting out to go wrong and to teach something that is wrong; they have been some of the most sincere men that the Church has ever known. What was the matter with them? Their trouble was this: they evolved a theory and they were rather pleased with it; then they went back with this theory to the Bible, and they seemed to find it everywhere. If you read half a verse and emphasize over-much some other half verse elsewhere, your theory is soon proved. Now obviously this is something of which we have to be very wary. There is nothing so dangerous as to come to the Bible with a theory, with preconceived ideas, with some pet idea of our own, because the moment we do so, we shall be tempted to over-emphasize one aspect and under-emphasize another. We are all of us ready to fix on certain particular statements, and to concentrate on them at the expense of others. The way to correct that tendency, I believe, is to realize that no part of this Sermon [on the Mount] can be understood truly except in the light of the whole...Now the whole is greater than a collection of the parts, and we must never lose sight of this wholeness.
40 comments:
I agree fully with this statement:
"A church that exists primarily to perpetuate its own existence is not a good church"
A church should never put its church or leaders above the gospel itself.
I cannot recollect a time when Pastor Ed has been smug. But my experience does not rebut your view on this matter.
This and other blogs led me to click the link to Berkland's website. It hardly mentions the organizational structure where Becky JDSN sits at the very top. Pastor Paul may have been head pastor. But those involved at Berkland (Oakland and Boston) knew that Becky JDSN, as head of the college ministry (the core of Berkland ministry), was the de facto pastor. Most of the inner sanctum of leaders would consider Becky JDSN their spiritual "mother."
Come to think of it, in all my time there and in all the accounts I have heard, I have yet to hear of a rebuking session led by Pastor Paul. Becky JDSN actually refers to her title as "Becky the Rebuker" with an amount of pride.
Even a slight suggestion at raising the Biblical passages regarding women's roles in the church, and you would be invited to a sit-down with the leaders where your own "spirituality" was questioned.
The photo album at the website had some familiar faces, most evoking indifference to good feelings. But, I wasn't surprised to find the face of one individual that I could hardly call a model Christian in the days that I knew him. He was leader-track back then and the photos suggest he is a leader now. Berkland, where the insensitive and graceless thrive.
I think I remember the shaman's quote: "Leave her alone, for a great spiritual force is behind her," or something like that. I remember thinking, "Why would she be encouraged by the words of a shaman, who in the Bible says Christians should not consult?"
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (Deut 18:10-11)
Just an amusing recollection, not another criticism. Becky can derive a spiritual lesson from the back of a cereal box.
Wow. She actually disclosed that in a sermon?! That account is consistent with an something I heard years ago but dismissed as purely hearsay. A minister remarked that in college, Becky JDSN was involved in a ministry that we would now call a Christian cult. Apparently, they believed only their members were truly saved. She eventually left the group but, to this particular minister, the foundations of her zeal and her notions of ministry were forged while she was a member.
That cereal box reference I took to be both a statement of her insightfulness and her particular style of exegesis.
As to exegesis, I wonder if it is something taught to Baptists, but I observed similiarities in the sermons at Berkland with contemporary literary criticism. Much more than sermons I have heard in my years at Presbyterian churches. Drawing all manner of lessons from one particular metaphor in a passage, for instance. That sort of preaching is exhilarating when it works. When less skilled leaders employ the same technique, I wonder if the observations would have been better suited for their own personal quiet time.
I think that sort of interpretive technique can be dangerous when passages are not held tightly within their context. Becky JDSN's use of the goat/sheep analogy that you reference, for instance, and my recollection of her use of the remnant stump metaphor in Isaiah. Really, did Isaiah or God intend the "stump" metaphor to mean Berkland's favored?
Becky shared this story during a joint Korean/College summer retreat. She was speaking Korean to a largely Korean audience, so the story was culturally contextualized. In Korea, there are actually "shaman cafes," where you go in for a cup of joe and have your palms read. Not in the mainstream but still there.
Thanks for shedding a bit of light on her background. I'm also interested as to how that minister came across such information.
Yes, that's what I meant. She most recently gave a series of sermons on Frodo Baggins at the Veritas Forum at Harvard: "Most recently, she has discovered a passion for J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic, The Lord of the Rings, and has become quite adept at drawing a wealth of spiritual illustrations from Tolkien’s work. She identifies herself with Frodo, with whom she has often been compared...in height." I wonder if she read the books or watched the movies. Anyways, Tolkien claimed LOTR wasn't an allegory, but it's a distant relative of "Pilgrim's Progress," which no one would take credit for drawing spiritual illustrations from.
I know what you mean by less gifted speakers; Berkland wouldn't be Berkland without the strong charisma and oration skills of Becky and Ed. If you listen to the Prodigal Son podcasts (links on the right), Ed delivers quite a compelling sermon. You would feel spiritually moved afterwards, but if one were to summarize the kernels of truth from the message, they would hardly justify the emotions one felt (because it's the same familiar message).
I'm not familiar with this remnant stump" metaphor. Can you elaborate?
Isaiah chapter 6. Latter part of verse 13 to be exact.
Becky JDSN's fascination with LOTR is amusing. I recall Pastor Andy Pak allude to sci-fi/fantasy, naming Tolkien's work specifically, as a cause for some spiritual illness in modern society. BTW, I hear very little of Pastor Andy Pak. Will he be heading one of the baby-berklands? I really wonder how independent the baby-berklands will be. The pastors are so unified in their vision and in their reverence for Becky JDSN, that I just don't see another NCBC (once a Berkland Stanford ministry...ages ago) arising from the reorganization.
As to the source of that biographical/historical tidbit, he was a minister of a Korean campus ministry, one that has sister ministries at Korean universities as well as US universities. I'm not sure how useful or productive it would be to surmise how an alleged affiliation in someone's past may have affected that person's current views. But a good biographer would certainly look into it.
You may have noticed, I have very little to say about Pastor Ed that could be considered negative. I knew him to be a person of faith, conviction, reason and good humor. I hope that has not changed. His convictions were forged outside of the Berkland system, and I observed a lot of differences between Pastor Ed and other Berkland leaders.
I remember his prodigal son Bible studies. His messages brought insights that I still recall when I read that particular passage.
In my mind, there is somewhat of a distinction between Pastor Ed and Berkland. That may be a bit of compartmentalizing, as most would consider Pastor Ed to be much a part of Berkland.
I wonder if the years at Berkland have changed Pastor Ed. When I knew him, he was careful not to tread recklessly over people's feelings, even when Kelly SMN began to adopt that shrillness common to the Berkland matriarchy.
Really, I have known few ministers outside of Berkland that bring out the verbal artillery so readily. Sometimes I think that they see the spiritual benefit of brokeness and try to induce it with their raised voices. I believe brokeness that leads to true spiritual formation is brought forth by grace. And I do feel that Berkland relies less on grace than the effectiveness of their particular methods.
And this goes back to your blog regarding the "characteristics." I don't think that the leadership is cynically employing certain techniques only to wield control over the congregation. I just think that the leadership has found that certain things work on an organizational and psychological level. As you mentioned, a fresh class of freshmen come to their doors every year. If only by trial and error, they've found what works and what doesn't.
I recall my experiences in those rebuking sessions and in those two that I observed, there was this rather uncomfortable hugging session after the poor dudes were in tears. It's not like the leaders were huggy people. And it was sort of sprung at the end of the session rather awkwardly. Now, I see it as the emotional salve for the beatings that these guys took and part of the formula to break and mold.
Of course, the leaders do have the spiritual growth of the rebukee in mind. Still, if language is the staff of the shepherd, it certainly has more and better uses than as a club on the heads of the sheep.
My sharing that encounter with Ed was not to point to how my feelings were hurt so as to gain sympathy LOL. The point was to show that I do not have a superficial interest in reducing his esteem, like the way comedians joke about President Bush. Having had given a few sermons myself, I realize that the person behind the sermon does not necessarily reflect the person in real life. I became a keen observer of Ed Kang, at a distance.
There isn't a difference between cynically deploying control tactics and incidentally deploying control tactics. 'Characteristics' exist not because these organizations share a common how-to manual, but because people generally respond to certain persuasions in a similar manner. Anyhow, it's not as if Berkland's mature ministry is still unware of the negative influence of its tactics; I'm convinced that they believe that the ends justify the means. Berkland cannot exist without control tactics.
I agree with you that there is a peculiar utilitarian bent to how things are done at Berkland.
When Berkland deals with the huge numbers of students as it does every year, I think there is an economy of ministry involved. Why wait for the freshman to develop his convictions over the course of years through his own journey of faith when he and the rest of his class can be put on the assembly line to be pounded into Berkland's image of an ideal disciple.
Those that come out looking pretty get the leadership posts. Those that don't, eventually have a difficult time of it finding a place in Berkland. In my day, the young adult group had the feel of a reject bin.
I agree with you that those in leadership are responsible for the outcome of their decisions. Yet, I would consider a leader more culpable if he was exerting control for selfish reasons alone than if he was attempting to build the kingdom with the resources available to him.
By the way, I placed the quotation marks around the particular word only to reference your other blog. I read my comment again, and even in my reading there is a suggestion of irony or sarcasm. Not intended. Poor editing on my part. Speaking of intentional v. incidental.
You're not merely agreeing. You've been completing details I didn't address and verbalizing thoughts I hadn't yet fully formulated.
Yes, I've also viewed the Young Adult Dept. as the reject bin of the college crash course. My former roomate got the cold shoulder from his former college peers once he got bumped over. Under YB Im, he felt he had committed to an entirely different church than what he had initially "bargained his lifetime" for. It's clear that the criteria may have nothing to do w/ spirituality but looks and intelligence.
Ed Kang's sermons are tailored to Berkeley students, many of whom are competitive and driven. He would make the pitch that out in the world, "you must perform, be attractive, be wealthy, etc." to gain acceptance, and to these driven kids, they are starved for any suggestion that alternative criteria exist. Unbeknowst to them, Berkland is not free from requiring worldly criteria as well, for which I don't sneer at. I'd just wish Berkland would not advertise that they are truly different from other worldly institutions.
I would have been inclined to disagree with you on the "worldly criteria" observation, as I remember the Berkland leaders trying make the freshmen feel practically guilty for being admitted into Cal.
However, after viewing one Berkland website where contact info for a certain leader has an MIT alumni forwarding address, I have to wonder if this is yet another thing that has changed at Berkland since my time there.
Odd that this leader would do something so blatantly uncouth and, given Apostle Paul's resignation of his worldly titles, arguably unbiblical. As easy it is to set up a gmail, yahoo, or hotmail account, the choice to retain that forwarding address, so many years after he received his degree, is deliberate.
I cannot see it as anything other than a calculated marketing device to draw ambitious students and to dispel the concerns of Asian parents. The other explanation, innocent oversight, strains the imagination.
your views are based on a single MIT email contact? you spent three paragraphs on that! let us try to keep the examples hard hitting.
I remember Ed once declared, with his lower lip pouting: "Our God is a God of Excellence!" I think what he means by 'excellence' is a career obtained through a graduate school education from a ranked academic institution.
If I led a college ministry for a highly ranked school, indeed 'excellence' would be the vehicle to attract ambitious students to God. But to chastise ambitious students for their ambition, when it was ambition that brought the ministry there in the first place, is a logical contradiction that is trademark Berkland.
It is an example (referring to 10/04/2006 7:19 PM) that is verifiable. Your hard-hitting example is to quote Pastor Ed and conjecture at his meaning. Your earlier comment (10/02/2006 11:14 AM) puts words in his mouth ("you must perform, be attractive, be wealthy, etc."). Were you paraphrasing something that he actually said?
Let not your wounds cause you to sin, my brother. I say this without irony and in all seriousness. I think we were both raised to know that a pastor is still God's annointed.
your admonition is well received, thank you.
I will describe the first quote, "Our God is a God of Excellence!" in context: he bellowed it within the Alcatraz building after he got word that a number of college members were neglecting their schoolwork. "Christians aren't a bunch of hippies," he followed. Ed Kang's staple sermon topic is the futility of pursuing ones earthly ambitions, leading many students to spent a disproportionate amount of their time to ministry and forsaking the duties that brought them to the campus in the first place. Eventually, these students realize that they need to eat and put a roof on top of their heads, but not after significant damage is done. In 'Cult Characteristics', I mentioned a mother who called a cult watch group because her son lost his ambitions while attending Berkland; it's this phenomena. Ed's corrective footnote, said long after his ambition busting sermons, was an afterthought and not in measure to the effect his sermons had.
The second quote, "you must perform, be attractive, be wealthy, etc." is a paraphrase of what I remember him saying often and what I had jotted down frequently in my notes. In the movie "The Breakfast Club," Emilio Estevez's jock character struggles with this same issue, where he performs merely to gain his father's approval. Paraphrasing Ed further: "In this 'sink or swim' world, you will not find the unconditional love our hearts long for." While listeners understand that God provides this alternative, it's not a great leap to have it mean God's love through Berkland, which we know provides conditional love. I think a direct quote from Ed Kang saying something akin to this, but not dramatically, is in the Prodigal Son podcasts (found in the Berkland Podcast link to the right).
Your defense is well-articulated. Things have certainly changed since I was there at Berkland. But the logical contradiction that you mention in the earlier comment is something that I recognize from my experience. Pastor Ed's earliest sermons as a JDSN were about stewardship over the positions we were in, about embracing and engaging in our particular station and privileges being Berkeley students and about preparing ourselves for the task of defending Christian faith in a social climate that was godless. I recall the Boalt Hall sweatshirt he wore only for a brief time which read "Let the timorous stay home."
That was nearly a 180-degree shift from the prevailing discipleship training at Berkland which taught that we were Berklanders despite our admission into Berkeley. Perhaps the leadership saw too much ambition and pride associated with Berkeley admission and sought to squelch that source of identification.
Some leaders would come right out and say it: your parents sent you here to get a Berkeley degree; we will instead make you disciples. To the earlier leaders, UC Berkeley was merely the sea where they set their lines to fish for men.
What was so refreshing about Pastor Ed in his earlier messages was that Berkeley was our calling, too. That God brought us to Berkeley not to squander the opportunity but to take full advantage.
So, now it appears that the two views still reside in the ministry and may have found their places in the pedagogy despite the inherent contraditions.
A top leader at the Berkeley church once told me not to send money to my parents who needed financial help.
Another top leader questioned why I chose to visit my out-of-state family every Christmas — as opposed to staying in town for the Christmas and New Year's Day church services.
Kelly Kang then chose to blame my father for the issues I was having in her church.
Ed Kang really does evoke strong emotions. In one rebuking session, I started to cry. To which, Ed yelled, "Why are you crying????!"
Year...2002....
If your parents were asking you to send them your school loans for financial needs, it can be indicative of a problem in your family that your monetary contributions wouldn't resolve in the long term.
Was the top leader merely encouraging you to stay, or accusing you of having spiritual problems by spending time with your family instead of Berkland? To merely question is okay, e.g. "Why don't you spend Christmas with us?" as opposed to "You seriously need to consider where your heart lies, with your spiritual family or your earthly family". Perhaps the leader desperately wanted you to experience a Berkland Christmas, which can be quite pleasant.
Parents aren't perfect, and sometimes can exploit their own children through guilt and coercion. Perhaps Kelly didn't want competition ;)
Not to make light of your experience, but do you have a timid personality? Ed makes a lot of people cry, so he's probably an expert on what warrants crying and want doesn't ;) either that or he's less able to empathize to the newer college kids, or just plain sick of them ;)
No, not a timid personality — but a frightened, beaten down one after years within Berkeley's system.
And no, I was not sending school loan money to my parents! I had already graduated and was working a full-time job. My parents supported me all throughout college and my dad had just lost his job. Now, how does sending money to my parents while in their financial need sound dysfunctional? This was not sending money for my parents to vacation somewhere — this was survival money.
As for why I did not spend Christmas and New Year's with my "spiritual" family? Well, I looked at it this way. I saw my physcial family ONCE A YEAR, whereas I saw this "spiritual" family of mine everyday. EVERYDAY (NOT by any means an exaggeration).
The question to me was, "Where was my commitment? Where was my heart?"
It's very much cult-like when a church demands you loosen and eventually cut off your ties to the "outside" world. When you are told who to live with, who to lunch with, who to pray with, where to travel, where not to travel, how long to travel, how often to travel...
CULT. BERKELEY IS A CULT. ED KAND IS A CULT LEADER. KELLY KANG IS A CONTROLLING WITCH.
thank you for sharing and clarifying your earlier post. as hard as it may be to dredge up hurtful memories, specific, unambiguous details of abuse are the most helpful and less susceptible from being explained away by a Berkland apologist.
hamcycle,
Thank you for your wisdom in deleting some of the recent remarks. But also thank you for putting up the UBF link. Your blog is very healing.
Whatever changes may have occurred with Berkland from my time, I can tell by the posts to "Spiritual Fodder" that much of what I saw when I was there didn't go away when your turn came, guys.
I was touched by the part where one person here said that Berkland applied pressure so he would spend Christmas with Berkland and not with his family.
I remember this "pressure." I wasn't told flat-out NOT to go home for Christmas (perhaps because I was too immature emotionally or spiritually, or because I wasn't ready for that yet in their eyes).
In my case, it came in more subtle ways. After I met a number of other Berklanders in another city and I was preparing to leave town, one of the leaders said "have a good trip back to ________ (Berkland city.)" I was still a "new" Berklander, and I was a bit unsettled. I wasn't going back to the Berkland city, but to my actual hometown to be with my parents. Yet the insinuation was that now that I was a baptized Berklander, BERKLAND was my spiritual home and that it carried a weight even greater than that of my own home.
After my departure from Berkland (which I said elsewhere in this blog was not similar to the departures you guys experienced for a variety of reasons) and over time, Berkland's influences on me faded away, I had a talk with a family member once. This family member told me angrily that Berkland's style - students going to grad school specifically to keep going to Berkland, marrying within Berkland, having kids in Berkland, relocating to follow Berkland - was very troublesome and cult-like. I didn't understand the seriousness of this then, but I do now.
(There is so much I can say)...
Someone mentioned control tactics. I recall how I was pressured to attend retreats; a leader would say that as important as spouse and offspring were, that God was more important. The pressure was so intense, I felt I couldn't say no, and yet, the leader (and others) would say "But Orangehead, you know you had a choice right?" Almost as if to mean that the pressure didn't exist.
And the issue of no privacy... if I told one thing that I had done, suddenly all the leaders knew. This is what I now refer to, as I look back, as a "surveillance network." It was as if I was always being watched.
Hamcycle, you'll get that email sooner or later. It'll probably be long, as your excellent blog and the many comments here elucidate a number of memories from a past that I will never forget...
Orangehead
We all should get together and establish a website (instead of just blogs) as other blog writers have written--to present our collective stories, of the pain that we all share from Berkland. There is a great need to heal and doing it together would be an experience in itself.
As a first year student attending Berkland/GracePoint, I'm very glad to have found this site. I want to say that the grace of God led me here, but it could very well be my mere curiosity as well.
I will say however, that reading this puts me in an interesting position. I've told my small group leader what I've read on this site (actually the "Toxic Faith" one) and he knows that I'm hurt by the accusations that it's a cult along with these sad power struggles. The thing is, I think I'm in a prime position to lead, but I'm not sure what I can really do (after all, I'm just a stupid little freshman.)
After putting on GracePoint Live!, a triannual play explaining the gospel, showing how we're not perfect, and how it's never too late to change) I felt a deep connection with the rest of my freshman class. I doubt any of them know of the power struggle along with the the pain Pastor Ed and Kelly have caused. In fact, I have never spoke to them in person, which means I can't give a first hand account of what they are really like.
All I'm wondering though, is what I should do in my situation. Should I try to get myself, along with my friends out of this church? Where will we go? And if at all possible, is there any way for me to change the direction this church is headed, even if we're years away from being staff?
All I know is that in the end, I will keep praying for the salvation of all those that have sinned. That includes Pastor Ed and Kelly, who I hope know that their means do not justify their ends, but they're doing it anyway.
I think a website of our stories will serve to prove:
1) It's not just 5 people posting over and over again.
2) A more thoughtful presentation, instead of just short blurbs as a blog comment page would encourage.
3) The stories would adhere to a community standard. I have been wanting to post more, but didn't want to since some blog comments weren't very gracious and well thought out. Those posts take away from the credibility of the rest of our claims.
The ultimate goal would be to hold leadership of berkland (gracepoint) accountable to past errors and hopefully change their ways. It's like Japan to this day denying "comfort women" ever took place. Ed and Kelly have never admitted wrong to anybody, but instead expect special honor and treatment from members to this day. That's where change has to start. They have to step down from their pope-like positions. You can't change without admitting you were wrong. Even if change doesn't happen, the site would empower current staff to know it's not biblical to have to email your list of sins and "struggles" to kelly. Nor is it ok for emails to be sent out encouraging people to take out 0% credit cards to finance the North Loop building. It's not about berkland being too strict, it's about kangs lording over people.
Although you are a freshman, you're an adult now. There are men older than Ed Kang that that are sending kids your age to fight in Afghanistan. As an adult, the choices you make are your own responsibility.
Consider what motivates a Berklander. Consider the fact that he will have nothing to do with you as quickly as he will genuinely minister to you after preparing you dinner. The majority of motivations, of people in general, are rarely unadulterated.
You should question why I wrote this blog. You should also question why the staff lead you to do certain things (if it isn't of God, why bother?). You'll find that there are a mixture of motivations, both selfish and noble. Likewise, you have your own motivations to contend with.
I don't think it should be your role to be an agent for change at the moment. Rather, you should still be learning and growing, assessing yourself, and gauging whether you can influence effectively. It's not so much the content of what you say, but who you are when you say it.
I heard East Bay is okay. KCPC is a bit far and starts later, but I don't know too much about it. That, coupled with a campus ministry, will be enough for you to handle.
Gracepoint, even though it may be more fun, has a 25 year history of ambitious mistake making, and therefore not sensible to continue giving them the benefit of the doubt...that's my opinion.
To the first-year Gracepointer, I feel for you. On the surface, you will be treated as a black sheep and pariah if you do leave. However, the benefits of leaving I assure you--will be happiness in Christ, a liberating and freedom-filled experience from their brand of what the church should be. As an ex-Berklander, I attended KCPC but there are also alternatives. Check out Korean American Ministry Resources (www.kamr.org)which provides a wealth of information and links to Korean churches all around the world, wherever you are. Once you leave, you will never look back and wonder why you didn't leave sooner. Do so before you become the subject of their ill-intentioned demands and before you get sucked into the little, small-minded bubble they call "family of God."
Haha, I guess the general assumption is that I'm Korean from all the suggestions to go somewhere like KCPC and other Korean-American churches. I'm actually Chinese; what I will say is that GracePoint/Koinoinia is trying its bestest to become more diverse, in a slow and painful way. One of our few white guys sticks out like a thorn; so does the Mexican in one of my friend's small groups. In terms of Asians however, the chruch is has grown extensively to include almost every minority possible.
Leaving my home church was hard enough in the first place; Doing it all over again's going to be a bit of a pain as well. But the main question I ask again is this; should I tell my other friends plugged in to Grace Point as well?
First, you may want to stop praying for the salvation of Pastor Ed and Kelly SMN. I'm pretty sure they're saved.
Second, are you really in a "position to lead"? If you haven't figured out that Berkland-Gracepoint gives very little weight to a freshman's opinion, you really haven't spent enough time there.
Third, why try to stir things up among your fellow freshmen brothers. Weigh what you've read here and in other blogs with what you've experienced. If your experience at Berkland has led you to believe that it is a place where you can genuinely mature as a Christian, why leave? Why try to get others to leave with you if you're not convinced yourself?
If none of your leaders at Berkland-Gracepoint have addressed the criticism honestly with you after you've brought up the issue, you have to do some serious thinking about whether Berkland-Gracepoint should be your spiritual home for the next few years.
The criticism of Berkland isn't something new. It has been floating around for years. Principled people have left Berkland over the years (along with the "I want to enjoy my college years" crowd). There are also the hushed departures of those in leadership. So, if they're not addressing these issues, consider it a deficiency in candor or wilful blindness on their part.
The rule of the oxygen mask on airplanes apply here. Help yourself first. Or get to some clarity on the issues. Then see what you can do for your classmen who may or may not consider you a leader among them.
Hmm...I don't know of other churches to recommend, Korean or not.
And to answer that question you've asked twice, as to whether you should lead to pull your class members out, perhaps it would be wiser to determine what that alternative church would be first.
And instead of leading, you can just inform and let people decide individuallyy.
To the new freshman at Berkland-Gracepoint,
Study hard and get grades!!! If you have to miss Gracepoint activities because you have to study, then do so. Enjoy your college life with your fellow college students and build relationship. Some of them may become your friends for life even if all of you leave the church. Good luck with your school and your future career and give all the glory to God!!!
to the freshman,
also try to attend at least one Cal football and basketball game every year. I regret for not going to games as an undergrad.
Thank you for your responses. I suppose I did seem a bit headstrong when I said I was in a "position to lead," and in careful analysis I feel that's less and less the case.
As for my decision, I think I'll stay the course for this year. I'll consider other places to find God when the time comes, which if it's anything how I envision it, will be around summer time.
Oh, and I already go to the games, but my grades... well I'm focusing as much as I can.
Sounds like a good plan.
On the topic of making use of your time at Cal, I would add the following: Cal Performances (student tickets are significantly discounted) and non-KBSU/ABSK/BSK student activities. Unless you know you will be a Berkpointer for life, you should broaden your social circle to include non-Berkpointers. Oh, despite what some Berkpoint leaders may say, it's not necessarily a sin to catch a good film. And the shrill Berkpoint leader would say: "What's your definition of 'good?'" I did qualify it with "some." You know the nutshell: "There's no 'policy' about that, here."
But let me repeat another author's advice here in the comments: study hard. Even certain Berkpointer staff knew how to study late into the evenings after token appearances at meetings. One fellow studied so much that I was surprised that all he could muster from all that work was Hastings.
At Berkland, or any church really, personal ambitions are tucked away just below the countenance of the biblical call to excellence. Given a choice, most of us Asian Christians would rather serve God as a doctor than a taxi driver. Have you seen the cars parked at some of the South Bay ministries? Well, perhaps, they're just visiting.
I have very mixed feeling about BBC. Post college, I have yet to experience another mass fasting retreat while reading from a spiral bound reader. Berkland is not a “weak sauce” church. It was really a boot camp where they teach you how to beat your body (for Christ) and do more than what’s humanly possible (for Christ). Sometimes staff members will play nice; you’re allowed to indulge in caffeinated beverages and take from the bottomless basket full of candies if you cannot stay awake for an all-day without play retreat. One time I was “hurting” because I couldn’t overcome my own drowsiness.
The “clutch butter” lessons I learned were mostly positive. The true reason I left Berkland was because I couldn’t grow any more spiritually. I had to experience God on my own and take active steps of faith (not scripted by someone else). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bashing Koinos and encouraging “lone-ranger” Christianity. Berkland was where I seriously reaccepted Christ and it was where I met one of my true friends in Christ. I currently serve at another Baptist Church in the Bay Area and I apply many of the practical lessons I learned (testimonies, quiet-time/daily-devotionals/devotion-time whatever they call it now) over there. Right now I’m growing in prayer and worship at that church.
In conclusion, what works for some people may not work for others. As Pastor Ed once played Linkin Park, I found Somewhere I Belong. It was at another church...
Luke 10:2
He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.
Thank you for what you've shared (5/23/2007 1:45 AM). I'm grateful for the way hamcycle's blog has allowed the experiences of ex-Berklanders to be posted here.
You know, the retreats you attended and speak of do not seem, in and of themselves, cultish. In fact, I could probably use something similar myself. Discipline in the study of Scripture and in prayer is a good thing.
But your decision to leave says something about Berkland. The cookie-cutter experience where leaders are not willing or able to give you room and to perhaps creatively work with you to find a unique plan for growth. Where participation in activities like the retreats you mention are demanded of you rather than made available to you.
You conclude "what works for some people may not work for others." That is a lesson you likely learned outside of Berkland.
I don't want to project my experience of Berkland onto yours or suggest implications in what you wrote that may exaggerate your experience, so I will speak of my experience at Berkland. At Berkland, the lesson seemed to be "if it doesn't work for you, then there's something wrong with you." Sometimes I was rebuked and submitted. Sometimes I felt obliged to go along without engaging my true convictions.
I will say this for Berkland: discipleship is not taken lightly. Most churches will stop with group Bible studies using tepid, and sometimes poorly written, study booklets from the Christian bookstore. I think many of us who left sometimes long for the weight and substance of Pastor Ed's messages.
Anonymous Poster from 5/23/2007 1:45 AM,
Did you really mean to say you RE-accepted Christ? Can you explain...?
Post a Comment