Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?

1. Spiritual Fodder
2. Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?
3. Role of Women in Ministry
4. Then What's a Good Church?
5. Why So Quiet?
6. Becky's UBF Roots
7. The Letter
8. Dissecting Ed's Brain
9. Shepherding/Discipleship Movement
10. Exit Strategy
11. Moving On

There is no authority in the United States that can deem a group a cult and prohibit their practice unless they break existing laws, e.g. stockpiling munitions, condoning underage marriage, etc. Adults, which unfortunately include college freshmen, must choose by themselves whether to recognize they are in a cult or not. Thanks to the Internet, we can make an informal assessment. Please click and read the first three links below; they need no further elaboration. The fourth source includes detailed commentary of how well its list of characteristics matches up with my own assessment of Berkland.

Source 1: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

Source 2: Leadership University (Abusive)

1. Control-Oriented Leadership
2. Manipulation of Members
3. Rigid, Legalistic Lifestyle
4. Frequent Changing of Group/Church Name
5. Denouncing All Other Churches
6. Persecution Complex
7. Targeting Young Adults
8. Painful Exit Process

Source 3: New England Institute of Religious Research (Aberrant)

1. Scripture Twisting
2. Controlling Leader/Leadership
3. The Chosen Few
4. Uniformity Of Lifestyle
5. No Dissent
6. Traumatic Departure
7. In Transition

Source 4: University of California at Berkeley (Cultic)

Recruitment 1. Deception - Group identity and/or true motives are not revealed. The group leaders tell members to withhold truth from outsiders.

Yes. On the outset it appears that Berkland's goal is to mold future leaders of the church (one presumes the Universal Church). I have personally heard this stated, and it is a great goal for a campus ministry. Later, it becomes clearer that the goal is actually nurturing lifelong Berkland members, exclusively. If someone decides not to be a life member, the overwhelming majority has experienced being shunned by the congregation members. It is not official shunning, like the Amish practice, but the situation is so awkward that those involved take the "out of sight, out of mind" route. Pastor kids are treated more delicately, as to offset the tide of resentment from pastors to whom former Berklanders often go for counseling. Former members who do not have alternative support systems, on rare occasions, abandon Christianity altogether.

2. Emotional Leverage/Love Bombing - Instant friendship, extreme helpfulness, generosity and acceptance...Group recruiters "lovingly" will not take "no" for an answer-invitations impossible to refuse without feeling guilty and/or ungrateful. "Love," "generosity," "encouragment" are used to lower defenses and create an ever increasing sense of obligation, debt, and guilt.

A resounding yes. It is especially difficult for young students to resist because they don't realize how starved they are for the tight camaraderie and close friendships that Berkland encourages. Most kids come to realize they have never experienced such closeness with kind, intelligent, like-minded people, and is especially welcome compared to the other fellowships on campus. The emotions involved are at the level of those formed when one attends a splendid summer camp where one makes a handful of lifelong friends. For Harry Potter fans, the feeling of being part of Berkland is similar to Harry's when he first arrives at Hogwarts, of finally finding a place of belonging. Asian Americans particularly feel this because America is afterall predominantly not Asian, and finding a niche is far and few between. Berkland sends out seniors to dorms who "love bomb" on the unsuspecting freshmen (emotional exploitation). Because it is viewed as ministry, seniors participate with the giving spirit of Peace Corps members (they are giving in the same manner in which they received as freshmen) and freshmen naturally reciprocate because they recognize their genuine efforts. Seniors, try telling your leaders that you don't want to do this type of ministry.

3. Exploit Personal Crisis - They use an existing crisis as a means of getting you to participate. They exploit vulnerability arising from: broken relationships, a death in the family, loss of a job, move to a new location, loneliness/depression, guilt/shame, stress/fear.

I wouldn't call going to college a crisis per se, but one's college years are very trying times during which one is the most vulnerable. Young adults are forced to grapple with many issues aside from studying. A church is supposed to help those who face crisis, and Berkland may use a crisis to pat itself on its back for being there.

4. Crisis Creation - They employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt. i.e. "you aren't serving God the way He intended." Questions areas of faith never before examined or explored and attack other faiths specifically.

Maybe. My personal experience was that when I started doubting that Berkland was the church for me, my leader started questioning my faith. But I can't say for certain that this is a collective tactic. It may well have been his honest assessment, that because I wanted to leave Berkland, my salvation was in doubt. In his own personal estimation, Berkland is the truest church (an unspoken yet pervasive view, a topic deserving its own post). Speaking of collective tactics, I am certain that Berkland leaders are directed to nonchalantly snoop around bookshelves and desk drawers. I felt ill the four times I've observed it occur.

5. All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Support these answers with material produced or "approved" by the group.

All churches encourage their members to learn Christian apologetics, which in themselves do not offer reason for faith, but offer logical responses to skeptics. While I was a member, I found myself having to defend Berkland, let alone Christianity, against it having cult-like characteristics. These allegations formally addressed by the leaders, aren't. A common way to diffuse suspicions about Berkland's cult characteristics is to openly mention it, tersely, during sermon. Everyone presumes, "Oh, they've already thought this one through. I can give them the benefit of the doubt, given the graduate degrees they hold." So no one investigates that issue any further, because they don't want to. Many realize that they have something good there, and they don't want to jeopardize it; a cursory investigation will do. "We are not a cult. Some people came over and checked us out after they received complaints about us." The allegation, made by a mother, was that her child was no longer ambitious as a result of attending Berkland. The investigating group proclaimed, "That's wonderful," congratulated Berkland for a job well done, and went off to find those churches stockpiling munitions and condoning underage marriage. Remember, the United States is a country that legally acknowledges Scientology as a religion. Other Berkland apologists frequently point to exceptions to counter allegations describing cult-like characteristics, but exceptions cannot suppress the truth of general trends, and in the case of leader arranged marriages, even a minority percentage is egregious, e.g. "leaders arrange dates and marriages > as someone who dated and got married without being arranged, I dispute this one too." from this Open Guide to Boston link.

Programming 1. Intense Study - Focus is on group doctrine and writings. Bible, if used at all, is referred to one verse at a time to "prove" group teachings.

There is Christian doctrine (from didache, Greek for "teaching"), and there is "group doctrine," that is, teachings particular to a certain group. The word doctrine means "that which is taught as a formal truth or belief of the faith." Members of the Southern Baptist Convention, as a rule, do not have catechisms or creeds, which formally lay out doctrine to prevent deviating interpretations of the Bible (the reason for so many denominations). Folks from Presbyterian backgrounds will immediately notice the absence of the recitation of the Apostle's Creed or the absence of catechisms at Berkland (although some Baptist churches adopt practices found in Presbyterian traditions). Baptists are characterized by the autonomy of the local church, and thereby adhere to local interpretations while being consistent with the general tenets of the broader Evangelical community. Being Baptist affords the convenient leeway that Berkland uses to decree transitory directives (not to confuse with "group doctrine") that leverages control over the community members. Doctrine is written down. Berkland directives, on the other hand, are accepted without being formally decreed. Leaders do not stand firm by their directives, e.g. don't date during your college years, as they are changed according to their needs and not held accountable for them when they end up being recognized as un-Biblical (owing to spiritual lapses, lack of maturity). However, when these directives are challenged by followers, they are treated as Gospel: "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you" (Hebrew 13:17) which produce such arbitrary directives, which differ from leader to leader, such as "Don't listen to Billy Joel," to the implied, "You may enjoy the Super Bowl on the Sabbath" (love of sports is their prominent claim to normalcy; most else gives cause for scrutiny). What really stands out in my memory is how they did not demand an acquiesence to God's Word, but to their leadership. I have heard that Boston students are required to attend Bible studies five times times a week, each session inordinately long. During these times, rebuke sessions would be held, to which I've been privy to, where a leader would viscerally yell for about an hour for such offenses as not calling when a leader was sick or scheduling an errand that conflicted with a Berkland activity. Only students in their 3rd year and those having demonstrated loyalty are privileged to this treatment. If you haven't been yelled into submission before, it is hard to imagine its power to change mindsets. Used also in the military, yelling is effective in training followers not to question their authority figures. I'm particularly sensitive to this because it happened to me during elementary school, where my perspective of an event was changed through yelling. You may observe fledgling Berkland staff eagarly finding any opportunity to rebuke, for the most questionable reasons. Some actually go "ape crazy," perhaps to demonstrate the sincerity of their convictions (or to convince themselves of their allegiance to Berkland). Yet their emotional outbursts merely come across as plain eerie and utlimately selfish, because their efforts merely alienate the recipient, whose spiritual health the rebuker is supposedly concerned for. Jesus reserved rebukes for the gravest situations, like in Mark 8: "But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men," concerning the matter of his pending death on the cross. Indeed, the church does have the responsibility to rebuke, as stated in Titus 10: "For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain," but these rebuke sessions have also silenced other voices in the community: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9). I have personally observed that staff were chosen for their loyalty to the hieararchy, and not for their authority with the Word. I've noticed some of these were actually disinterested in the knowledge that made up their faith, and interested only in the social clan dynamics of the organization; these persons often fall back on rebuking at the slightest resistence, because they don't know the Word to find support for what they enforce. The following verse may partially explain the reckless leadership Berkland is famous for: "These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you." (Titus 2:15) Ultimately, one gets into trouble not by listening to Billy Joel per se, but for questioning the authority of the particular leader who gave you that directive. So much for the Protestant Reformation--we're back to Catholicism at Berkland Baptist. A liberal take on the verse, "You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine," (Titus 2:1) translates to do whatever Becky and Ed says, Berkland's pontiffs. And indeed, Becky does pontificate, as in this example of a creative twist to existing verses (motivated not by what is Biblical, but by what controls): "If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen"(1 John 4:20) changed to "If you cannot obey those who you can see, how can you obey the One who you cannot see?" Another creative twist of "love one another" found all over the New Testament" is "But are you being lovable?" They may very well be legitimate extrapolations from scripture, e.g. "Obey me so that my work will be a joy, not a burden," but they must be tempered by the passage in 1 Corinthians 13: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

2. Opposer Warnings - Recruiters are told that "Satan" will cause relatives and friend to say bad things about the group to try to "steal them away from God." Recruits soon believes group members, alone, are truthful/trustworthy.

Update: actually, Becky had recently been calling various Berkland Baptist pastors and SMN's "Satan" for resisting her will. Those individuals are now part of the group that broke off from Berkland Baptist. I suppose she wouldn't waste the impact of using that label on mere relatives and friends that warn against the church.

3. Guilt and Fear - Group dwells on members' "sinful nature" (many use public confession). Guilt and fear arising from "failing God" are magnified to manipulate new member.

A resounding yes. Taken from another blog: "You'll find it pretty common to see a regular member of BBC Berkeley accept Christ 2-3 times." You can bet that these are due to a leader applying pressure. Please read the blog What's Wrong with the Berkland Baptist Church in Berkeley, California?

4. Schedule Control & Fatigue - Study and service become mandatory. New member becomes too busy to question. Family, friends, jobs and hobbies are squeezed out, further isolating the new member.

A resounding yes. My personal experience is twenty hours of church weekly, on average weeks. Boston Berkland apparently holds Bible studies five times a week, each session inordinately long. Should you complain about the schedule, you become subject to scrutiny and ostracization, all the while told that one is "free" to follow the schedule, as if it was entirely volitional. If you are not a strong student by Berkeley's standards, expect to change your major to one you didn't intend. Gifted students are coddled and given preferential treatment with respect to their study schedules.

5. Attack Independent Thought - Critical thinking is discouraged as prideful and sinful, blind acceptance encouraged.

Yes. I had been confused by a term, "Lone Ranger Christian," coined by Becky Kim to describe a person seeing himself as a Christian, but for whatever reasons not wanting to belong to a church. The "Lone Ranger Christian" is not a Christian, because in essence a Christian must belong to a church. This term had to be coined because firstly, there is no functionally equivalent term in the Bible, and secondly, she needed a pejorative term to stress the requirement for a tight, communal community, its members devoted to each other like "sticky rice grains." This is not contradictory to what the Bible and what other churches teach (Acts 4). The unspoken drawback of this call for community is the quelling of dissention and independent thought, not against the Bible, but against the Berkland community which abides by its own rules altogether. It's a simple bait and switch. Berkland takes one verse in the Bible, "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)," and hails it above all the other examples where one's personal relationship with God directed one's actions (please refer to Lloyd-Jones passage at the end of 'Spiritual Fodder' post). Permit me a moment to list some prominent "Lone Rangers":

• Noah (Genesis 6), who heard only God's Voice through the jeering from his community.
• Samuel (Samuel 3), who bravely spoke God's Word against the sons of Eli, who knew only of enjoying the privileges of their community.
• Daniel (Daniel 6), in spite of all the privileges granted to him by his community, he listened only to God at the cost of everything.
• Elijah (1 Kings 18), who after making fools out of the entire Baal community, sat down next to a tree and prayed that he might die.
• Jesus, who always took time away from the crowds, was no favorite in the Jewish community. He is the archetype against the group think mentality.

My point is this: Christian individuals make Christian communities, not the other way around. Berkland does not foster the kind of people listed above; rather it rewards people who will do almost anything to satisfy what their community demands of them.

6. Divine Commission - Leader(s) claim new revelation from God, within past 200 years, in which all but their group are rejected by God. They, alone, speak for God.

No, but a pervasive view of elitism exists. Read below.

7. Absolutism - They insist on total, unquestioning obedience and submission to the group, both actions AND thoughts. Group "love" and acceptance becomes dependent upon obedience and submission. Unconditional love...isn't.

A resounding yes. Junior staff are required to submit "Weekly Reflection" emails to their leaders, who may refer to the upper ranks should they need more input. Here is a copy of a form from 2005:

Please limit this to 1-2 pages.

Adoration/Thanksgiving (Things you want to thank God for this past week.)

Confession/Personal Issues (eg. sin issues, relational conflicts (leaders, peers, spouse, parents), financial difficulties, etc)

Supplication/Ministry (Write about situations that require wisdom/guidance and/or prayer.)

Ministry Plans for this week

Personal Equipping (List how you are equipping yourself spiritually/intellectually/emotionally)

Should a staff member not do enough outreaching, or have a personal issue, a Berkland leader is involved. Given the nature of the questions, it is expected that a member consult a leader for any issues that are normally between husband and wife: "Oh, my husband hasn't been very spiritual lately." All spousal conflicts are regarded as spiritual issues, where leaders must be involved. There is accountability, and then there is complete knowledge and absolute control.

8. Totalism - "Us against them" thinking. Strengthens group identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label.

Yes. Even other churches are part of "them." From my overhearing of comments and conversation, the staff do not have high regard for the majority of other Bay Area/Los Angeles churches or campus groups, who do not believe to be adequate manifestations of the church as Jesus intended. The other campus faith groups, listed on http://www.jesusinberkeley.com/, do not list Koinonia (Gracepoint's campus group), nor do other East Bay churches include Berkland among its community of churches. Southern California churches spawned from Berkland schisms do not communicate with Berkland. Update: Gracepoint Fellowship makes a conscious effort to repudiate the various claims made against it over the years. Koinonia is on the list now, starting at the 2007-2008 academic year. It's uncertain whether this is reflective of genuine change or something positioned to provide a defense.

Retention 1. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter. The verifiable (sound documentation) is ignored because of doubts over the unverifiable (presenter's motives). See Opposer Warnings (#2 above).

A resounding yes. My anonymity is partially motivated by this factor. Back in the day when my identity was known, my complaints against Berkland were dismissed because people were able to come up with convincing (albeit false) ulterior motives that weakened my arguments. To reveal my identity would be exposing myself to personal attack, and while there is not much to dredge up for anyone to mudsling, it certainly restricts the freedom to write what needs to be stated. Admittedly anonymity weakens the integrity of the blog's content, but that is the tradeoff I am willing to make. Berkland staff are experts in hunting for weaknesses or skeletons in closets (a la John Grisham's The Firm). The collective directive to nonchalantly search through bookshelves and drawers may have been done to find evidence for things to dredge up against former members after they leave (racy magazines, cigarettes, etc.). I personally observed the character assassination of a former member after she left, whose personal details, confessed in confidence, were divulged to whomever inquired. The college staff are not chosen for their magnanimity, but for their ability to stomach and follow through with the most sordid of directives.

2. Information Control - Group controls what convert may read or hear. They discourage (forbid) contact with ex-members or anything critical of the group. May say it is the same as pornography making it not only sinful and dangerous but shameful as well. Ex-members become feared and avoidance of them becomes a "survival issue."

A resounding yes. Their attempts at information control can be Orwellian. The leaders share everything with each other about the personal affairs/conversations of their followers, from what they observe on the street, on the church grounds, and that told in confidence by students themselves, all the while guarding their own private affairs. This "surveillance network" becomes apparent over time because the staff are not trained to disguise their tells. An example of Berkland information control comes from the Korean department, where an adultery scandal broke out. A hush job was attempted by Becky, as it concerned a relative, but the attempt itself is telling of her double standard on transparency and abuse of authority. Additionally, Becky and staff prided in their spiritual discernment, and the fact that it happened right under their noses shattered their reputation for infallibility. Berkland frequently make use of character assassinations of former members, with unproven presumptions ("well-intentioned" slander), all the while beseeching their followers to give the staff "the benefit of the doubt". Acting as cautionary tales, these post-departure assassinations really put the fear of Berkland into the hearts of remaining members. I believe certain staff recognize this as bad and try to stem the rumors that erupt from departures, except when Becky openly uses such material to make an example during her Bible studies. Now this is not a problem that only Berkland faces. It's just sinful behavior found in all organizations. The point in bringing this up is just that: Berkland is no exception in the mold of human institutions.

3. Isolation, Separation & Alienation - Group becomes substitute family. Members encouraged to drop worldly (non-members) friends. May be told to change jobs, quit school, give up sports, hobbies, etc.

Yes. Members are reminded that it is always of their own choice that they do, even as they are directed to do them. "Why don't you just leave," is a popular ultimatum and not used sparingly. "People think we live in a Christian ghetto. I encourage you to make non-Christian friends." After a couple of years, Berkland takes control of how you spend your time and who you spend that time with. There is no time for people outside of Berkland. But with his disclaimer above, the monkey's off their shoulders, and the church itinerary handles the rest.

4. Coercion - Disobedience, including even minor disagreement with group doctrine, may result in expulsion and shunning.

A resounding yes. Experienced first-hand. Have an important exam and want to skip out on a Berkland activity? Be prepared to for the cold shoulders by your peers later, and a possible talk with your leader. For those who leave, the ostracization is shocking because it is such a contrast to the "love bombing" one first encounters. The same people who were so kind don't even meet your stares on campus once you leave the church. Once word gets around that you left, in their minds you're branded a traitor, at the very least. This comment, taken from the blog What's wrong with the Berkland Baptist Church in Berkeley, California? is a common experience that occurs despite the leaders admonitions to stop behaving in this manner:

I thought that I had made some "eternal" relationship in Christ there. But when I left, all my class "sisters" basically cut off all contact with me. Now when I see some of them around they treat me like some kind of of pariah, or at the very least they look down their noses at me.

This behavior is not due to any directive from the leaders, but a natural byproduct of the unspoken "us versus them" mentality fostered at Berkland. The leaders wipe their hands of the business, finding fault in the students for their own warped behavior. I disagree. Many unspoken conclusions are made in the minds of its members which the leaders can't take account and leave unchecked. As Becky says, God may act through circumstance; if He should bless you with the opportunity to attend Berkland and you refuse it, students can't help but conclude that the salvation of those who depart are suspect.

5. Phobias - The idea is planted that anyone who leaves goes into a life of depravity and sin, loses their sanity, dies, or will have children die, etc. Constant rumors of bad things happening to people who leave. No one ever leaves for "legitimate reasons."

Sometimes. There are people who just leave without incident. However I can't help but feel that the Berkland congregation actually is encouraged, uplifted, and blessed by news of tragedy befalling former members, in spite of what they are told to feel, because it is in the nature of such an "us versus them" group. Also, because it is a church that presents the Bible squarely, critics are conflicted and wonder by opposing Berkland they are in essence opposing God. Admittedly, it's a tough call. I present here a rather kind example of a warning to a departing member, taken from the blog Berkland Baptist Church is not a cult but it is still messed up:

P Lee confronted me about deciding not to stick around indefinitely. He made a prediction which I later regarded as a curse upon me: You will always be moving around, never staying in a place for more than a few years. You will not affect or influence anybody, except maybe your wife if you ever get married.

Lee doesn't realize that the best two things about Berkland is the preaching (the presentation of God's Word through Ed and Becky's gifts of oration) and the comfort in having a place of belonging. The influence the Berkland staff provides, that is policing, is not something one should really point to as reason for committing.

6. Striving for the Unreachable - Group membership and service are essential for salvation..."Work your way into God's favor." NO matter what you do, it is never enough.

If asked, the official answer is that one does not have to be baptized at Berkland Baptist to be saved. However, given the low regard they have for other churches, any baptism at other churches is questionable at best. As I mentioned earlier, the unspoken, pervasive view among the staff is that theirs is the most true church.

Conclusion: Berkland Baptist, as I knew it, was an aberrant and abusive Christian church. The overwhelming opinion indicates Berkland is not "cultic," on the basis that its theology is correct. What I learned later was that the correctness of theology does not translate to correct and proper leadership and governance.

Berkland is a reaction to the weaknesses of the Korean American church: the majority of members do not take ownership of their churches; they participate enough to get what they want out of church (e.g. people to go their special life events, which includes marriage, funerals, baptisms), and leave the rest of the important work to a handful that comprise of the core; members tend not to invest in their relationships within the church, because like all investments, they want to invest in something secure and with high returns, but often times people go and leave as they please; congregations are also known to split over money or leadership issues, not over doctrinal issues; people are generally prestige whores, and parade their affluence in the same manner as non-Christians; the social atmosphere tends to verge on the worldly; pastoral positions do not attract the best and brightest, etc. Berkland feels like the only true church in the context of this cultural background, because chances are that home churches pale by comparison.

I do believe God does work through certain individuals in the Berkland community, because they follow Christ, not Berkland. In that respect, Berkland Baptist is just like any other church. It is a mistake to believe that genuine faith arising within Berkland legitimizes the bad things that it does.