Why So Quiet?
- 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
It's embarrassing to admit to others that you had belonged to such an organization, or been so profoundly influenced by this seemingly benign group; it's hard to convey the subtleties that amount to your discontent; your experience will always appear as a failing of your own responsibility to listeners who simply cannot empathize. Few can match Ed and Becky's authority in declaring what is Biblical, because they have devoted their entire lives to ministry, full time. As Christians, we're aware that there are too many positive works that take priority in our endeavors before we should spend our energies to break down. No Christian wants to dedicate their life to fighting a problem church. I'm reminded of this passage from Acts 5:
But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
While this statement is present in the Bible, Gamaliel does not necessarily speak for God in this passage. Clearly Scientology, Mormonism, International Church of Christ, the Unification Church, University Bible Fellowship, etc. will continue to thrive and congregate, because negative criticism is no match for positive will (e.g. the lobbying of the NRA can offset the passive inaction of the majority of Americans who disagree that having assault weapons is an "unalienable right"). I remember Becky pronouncing this platitude found nowhere in the Bible: "
If you have nothing to die for, you have nothing to live for." I remember thinking, "There is no point in dying for what is false." Simply put, we live in a fallen world.
Here's a passage that may have silenced many:
To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14)
And another:
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go. "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." (Matt 18:21-35)
Since 1981, many a lone student found himself to be in the position of the self-righteous Pharisee or ten thousand talent debtor, all having the same relationship to Berkland Baptist Church as the repentant tax collector/hundred denarii debtor,
who has yet so far made no public confessions to error and continue to outright lie for the sake of the "greater good," making Berkland, well, of the typical mold of human institutions. In acknowledging the grace bestowed to him by his Father, as well as the gratitude he feels for Berkland's good intentions, does the lone student keep a respectful silence, even as Becky has no qualms besmirching whom she pleases, exploiting the audience afforded her as a servant of God. The passage that hits particularly hard is this one:
When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers! Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves? Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life. If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church? I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues? But instead, one believer sues another—right in front of unbelievers! Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated? Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers. (1 Cor 6)
Admittedly, this public blog runs contrary to Paul's admonition. In fact, this is the very passage that held my tongue for years. However, remaining silent can also be a position of timidity:
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God (faith), which is in you through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline (2 Tim 1). Yet another passage:
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. (1 Cor 3:10-17)
A staff member once composed a song, with the chorus speaking of how a church will be tested by fire. I interpreted it as an acknowledgment that even if Berkland does build its foundation with man-made materials, she and her family would still be able to say with a clear conscience that they had lived for Jesus. In my opinion, when one needs Biblical support to clear one's conscience for illicit church activities, e.g. enforcing lies fed from the upper ranks (sorry I can't specify), the foundation of that church is
other than the Rock on which we want to stand. However, it must be said that it is not the goal of this blog to shut down the doors of Berkland, but to help those rightfully confused by their Berkland experience to realize they're not the only ones to feel that way.
For those who have their minds set in favor of Berkland's legitimacy, this blog is not going to remove the scales from their eyes unless they are abused at the level of their UBF cousins. Sometimes it can take someone 15+ years to understand the situation, regardless of how many cases of people they see get hurt. As long as the yes-men are comfortable in their positions, they will remain complacent and complicit while they offer up for the wounded their short prayers, only adding insult to injury. At most, this blog can merely provide confirmation for those who have independently drawn similar conclusions. And this one:
When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. (James 3)
All these passages indicate that I leave justice in God's hands. I walk a tightrope with this blog; were it not for the support and encouragement I have been receiving, I would take it down instantly. In fact, I did take it down for about a month. And these:
Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? (James 4: 11-12)
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Eph 4:29-32)
Slander is falsehood, and I am trying to present truth. I am open to correction via email. And finally this one:
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. (Rom 12:19)
I have but only a few verses that support this blog, to reveal the erring of those in authority, taking the example of Samuel:
"What was it he said to you?" Eli asked. "Do not hide it from me. May God deal with you, be it ever so severely, if you hide from me anything he told you." So Samuel told him everything, hiding nothing from him. Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes." (1 Sam 3:17)
And here are some verses that exhorts us to expose darkness, but are vague enough to be interpreted any which way:
"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph 5:11)
"Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Cor 4:2)
During my most difficult moments at Berkland, I had to remind myself that no matter how passionately someone feels about something, or how grand a group's pageantry may be, the small voice inside my head
had to hold sway. Not to say that your conscience holds the final authority,
My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. (1 Cor 4:4)
because conscience is bound only by one's innermost beliefs, but through the studying of God's Word, you would be able to detect Him through your spiritual "senses":
But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God. (2 Cor 2)
When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice. (John 10)
Please send suggestions/corrections to gmail with the same handle.
I found this verse too:
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned (Matt 12).
I may have to give an account for this blog at the day of judgment. But in the present, I don't see another recourse.
47 comments:
"The problem that is Berkland" ?!
Is Berkland really a "problem" or is it a church with problems? I would say that it is the latter despite the nice rhetorical flourish of the original statement.
I think that there are quite a few that speak out against Berkland. Usually, the comments remain within a group of close friends or post-Berkland ministers.
I was surprised to find out how many local ministers have strong views toward Berkland. Berkland does have a reputation, unfounded or otherwise, in the Korean Christian community.
You won't see the Southern Baptist Convention or other church groups go on record. Perhaps it is because of the sheer volume that Berkland deals with. A handful of complaints among the hundreds of devotees.
And it is not as if Becky JDSN is preaching nonsense. You would be hard-pressed to find flagrant unorthodoxy in the sermons at Berkland--well, their take on the sheep-goat and remnant stump passages doesn't help them.
The cultish aspects are embedded in the discipleship training, which may be the reason that people "feel" they have been involved in a cult for the past few years but can't fully articulate the basis for that sentiment. This is why I think your approach, to consider the characteristics of Berkland, is particularly helpful in fleshing out some of the problems at Berkland.
I think that those leaving Berkland leave for a host of different reasons. Only a few would part for reasons that are spiritual or biblical. And only a few of those would even go through the trouble of articulating the problems at Berkland as you have.
I'm not sure whether you are asking why so few WITHIN Berkland speak up or why so few FORMER Berklanders speak up.
In the case of those currently actively involved in Berkland ministry... as anonymous says above
"You would be hard-pressed to find flagrant unorthodoxy in the sermons at Berkland"
Often, one has only a slightly off-kilter feeling which is explained away as "personal sin" or "spiritual immaturity" or "not having the same heart." If you question anything at Ed Kang's church in Berkeley, for instance, you are told to fast and pray until you see your issue in the "right" light. Because there is often no tangible, concrete thing to grab hold of, you only have intuition and emotion as a guide — which, in a face-to-face with any of the leaders at the Berkeley church, would not amount to anything. You are conditioned not to complain, not to think differently, and not to feel. And, since the messages and Bible studies don't go against the Bible, it's very difficult to pinpoint exactly what is going on.
As for former Berkland members...
You either want to forget or you are convinced 4-5 comments will either be mocked, counter-criticized.... or you just think it's an exercise in futility since the authority of the church has made it a practice not to listen or change. Either that... or you're just too pissed off and you'd end up just ranting and raving with no real fleshed out thoughts.
I hope you keep up your blog...
Having read the comments, here and in other blogs, there is certainly healing grace and work needed to address the wounds people have suffered. Some have left Berkland with mild offense, others with deep emotional scars. The nutshell "get over it" spoken from Berklanders/Gracepointers and from those that have gritted their teeth past the pain after leaving only serves to aggravate the wounds.
I encourage those bearing these injuries to give these wounds to God for Him to heal. Learn to let grace dissolve anger. Learn to love God in the freedom that He alone can grant. Understand that human hands have caused your injuries, not our Father in heaven. Forgive. But do not be silent. It is the silence of those that left Berkland before you that is complicit in the way Berkland has functioned unchallenged all these years.
It is not a sin to have a voice. But use it with grace lest your words condemn you more than it illuminates the dark corners of Berkland.
I think about my years at Berkland and how it made me more subject to human authority rather than God's. It is no wonder that I see those that have recently left Berkland inclined to wander. If you left Berkland to find yourself a bit aimless, you are not alone.
It is in the decision to accept and follow that is the beginning of a life as a Christian. God left that decision (is there any fork in the road more important) for you to make. He didn't give us that gift of free will only to take it away when we joined a church.
"Find your voice" sounds like some liberal platitude. But it is something many former Berklanders have to do. When God speaks, our response is "yes." When other Christians speak, our response should not always be in the affirmative. There's a lot of Christian literature written in response to what other Christians were saying and doing.
So, when you hear "get over it," I suggest you thank the person for the advice. Pray for the person. But don't be bullied into silence. Didn't you just leave Berkland? I know, it takes some getting used to.
There's light up ahead, brothers and sisters.
Who could have guessed that Berkland would be undone by its strongest proponent, its most articulate advocate? The Berkeley ministry was the root of all other Berklands. And now it is Berkland no more. There's a fitting irony to all of this.
I wonder if these events have caused Becky JDSN to contemplate how she ran things. And now that Pastor Ed has left Berkland, is he, in her eyes, lost and unworthy like the rest of us who left?
She should be consoled: Berkland by any other name is still Berkland. In an attempt to make the transistion seamless (and very quiet), the leaders at Gracepoint may have inadvertently lost the best opportunity to renew the ministry.
Hmmm...inadvertently? No, on second thought, I suppose they never really wanted to change how they were doing things. The split was just a Becky vs. Ed event all along.
There is indeed a sad and terrible twist to all this.
Ed and Kelly Kang have not merely slapped the ‘hands that fed them’ but destroyed the ‘home’ that received them as well. History has indeed repeated itself. Originally the Kangs had left KCPC on not so friendly terms (no surprise there) and arrived at Berkeley Berkland for a new beginning. They were lovingly received by Becky Kim and other fellow pastors.
Now using problems with Becky Kim as the scapegoat, the Kangs have not only seized Berkeley (of course done with ‘spiritual’ justifications), but apparently has denounced other Berklands and backstabbed their fellow pastors by calling back the former Berkeley members, who had been at other Berklands, back to Berkeley.
They may have changed the name, but the foundation of Gracepoint Community is certainly absent of grace but seems to be built upon betrayal, anger, manipulation, power and ambition from the Kangs….
Whoa...hold on. "Destroyed," "seized," "backstabbed" and "betrayal." Those are some pretty charged words. Are you sure you want to be leveling such accusations? I'm no fan of Berkland, and I can only hope that there would be some renewal at what was formerly known as Berkland at Berkeley, but labeling Pastor Ed as a betrayer and destroyer while describing Becky JDSN's actions as "lovingly" seems a little off. Well, more than a little.
I'm not sure if you've left the Berkland system (referring to anonymous 9:44PM). I would like to think that you're not just a member of the Becky axis drumming up acrimony against Pastor Ed's newly grafted ministry. It's strange to see former Berklanders take sides in the split (assuming you are an ex-Berklander).
In the interest of keeping things accurate here, I should contest at least one of your historical nuggets. First, I was at KCPC when there was the stir that resulted in the departure of elders, deacons, teachers and their families. Pastor Ed's departure from KCPC was quiet, dignified and justified. Even among the Pastor Lim loyalists, there were few to begrudge his exit.
Somewhere else in the comments to the blogs, someone purporting to have ancient knowledge of Pastor Ed says he was a skinny Korean kid, or something to that affect. Unless Pastor Ed had a bad case of the stomach flu right after he left KCPC, or if the author knew Pastor Ed growing up in Southern California, he has always had a healthy paunch going back to his days at KCPC.
And not to get into a debate about who fed who, but it seemed Pastor Ed ushered in a new era at Berkland. Same ministerial playbook, mind you. But certainly a different demographic. Pastor Andy Pak would have been the heir-apparent to Becky at Berkeley, but that personality some have perceived to be misanthropic would certainly have hampered the growth of the ministry to what it is today. For better or for worse.
I remember the days of KBSU and how non-Koreans would slip in to hear Pastor Ed speak. That organic growth toward an Asian ministry could not have happened with the Korean-centric leaders at the time. I mean, some of these people seemed fresh off the KAL 747.
Surely, there was some good Pastor Ed contributed to Becky JDSN's ministry. And surely, there must have been some legitimate basis for the claims made by Pastor Ed against Becky. The assertion that Pastor Ed is a conniving usurper and that his claims were only pretense just doesn't ring true.
If we are still a praying people, let's say a short one asking that this cleaving of Berkland would result in more humble, more gentle hearts. In a ministry (now ministries) that places such a focus on brokenness, this may be one of the few occasions when such brokenness might be found in them.
Yes, a little more humble and gentle out of Berkland and Gracepoint would be nice.
But while Ed Kang may not be a conniving usurper, I think the power has gone to his head over the years, as many of us have experienced and been the victim of. And based on what I've heard, I think he and Kelly have become so completely used to controlling how things are done, that it was inevitable that they would have conflict with submission to Becky jdsn.
I also think the split is fundamentally about a philosophical difference in the direction of the church -- Ed's desire to expand the place of the tent and/or ego-driven vision of having a megachurch vs. Berkland's view of being a family of God, i.e. small church. Or something like that. I agree with the previous poster about how this growth and move from Korean-centric ministry could not have happened under Pastor Andy Pak. Only Ed could have taken the KB and AB out of the Student Koinonia.
Leaving the tight little world of Berkland felt like a rush of oxygen and it's funny how what seemed so important when I was doing it at Berkeley now seems so inconsequential in the larger scheme of life.
http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-grief.html
Song of Solomon ii
10 My lover spoke and said to me, "Arise, my darling, my beautiful one, and come with me.
11 See! The winter is past; the rains are over and gone.
12 Flowers appear on the earth; the season of singing has come, the cooing of doves is heard in our land.
13 The fig tree forms its early fruit; the blossoming vines spread their fragrance. Arise, come, my darling; my beautiful one, come with me."
Yes, yes. Whoever is posting the link and the verses, could you at least refrain from posting it in every comment section to all the blogs and, perhaps, give some commentary on the relevance of the verses.
Those of us who grew up in conservative churches understand that the lover and his beloved is a metaphor for God and His church. Is the particular metaphor really that relevant to the abuses of the leadership of certain churches, Berkland in particular?
Just dropping those verses with their evocative language seems a bit misplaced and manipulative. I'm sure there are better verses out there if you looked a bit harder. Or if you had a better concordance.
Please, use your metaphors wisely.
Wow, someone actually took the effort to blog about Good Ole Berkland. You must be seething with Righteous Anger, indignation, spiritual victimization etc etc... Were your hands shaking with joy and happiness at finally being able to vent all of those pent up frustrations? Yet I find it weird that you're directing it mostly at Ed and Kelly. I know others who would deserve it far more.
I became a Christian in my freshman year at Cal and was baptized by Pastor Paul one week before Isaiah was born in 90. The Kangs, the Suhs and the Lees were the only reason I stayed. All the others I didn't really care for one iota. I respected Pastor Paul, found Becky to be intellectually and spiritually stimulating, but avoided her like the plague. She just always had a nasty expression on her face. People took it personally but didn't realize it was just her.
Anyways to my point, which is this... It is a rare person that has left Berkland for "spiritual" reasons really do better away from there. The more common scenarios are going back to the status quo of comfort, informal and innocuous settings where all types of activities and ambitions can be explained away and none held accountable. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think there is something wrong though when you leave in a manner that is a fake sense of righteous indignity. Berkland is not for everyone. Rephrase, most will not like Berkland. But you're only shooting yourself if you criticize their methods while you agree that their theology is correct. Try to surpass them in spirituality and service to God first. Then I doubt you would even find time or desire to be spiteful. Also have the decency to post your name with your thoughts and comments.
Jonathan Kang
Class of 93.
In the first paragraph, you've demonstrated a classic Berkland assault: make a brief psychoanalysis of the target like the way a palm reader might search for emotional scars, identify and then denigrate wildly at any potential points of sensitivity, and hope some attacks will hit their mark. It doesn't matter if the presumptions are accurate; the incorrect ones hurt just the same. This was the beautiful way Ed and Becky would subjugate their sheep. I'm only addressing Ed and Becky because they are the public figures. Addressing the staff as a whole instead of addressing the wrongs of the individual staff member is in fact addressing the ills of the organization.
Those presumptions were killers. For every action, like say when someone expresses interest in volunteering in a certain ministry, there are easily a handful of motivations one can assemble to question his character. Anyone can do it. I can come up with four easy: 1. "he's after the chicks" 2. "he's a loser and can't make friends outside of church" 3. "this guy loves hearing himself talk" 4. "he bombed on his test and he's surrounding himself with people like an emotional crutch," and on and on. Let's say you really hit the mark with #4, but congratulations, bombs 1 through 3 hit even as they miss.
What is "spiritually better?" Again, presumptions raise its ugly heads like a hydra. 1. You teach Sunday School. You love the kids; your heart just goes out to them, and the motivations are clear and pure. If someone says, "He's a closet pedophile," you don't care because you know that the guy who accused you of that is a total jerk. 2. You go to prayer meeting. You've had 12 hour work days for the entire week, but you go because...you need to talk to God that badly? No, because you don't want any eyebrows to be raised. Otherwise, that jerk's gonna say, "You spent 60 hours for your work, and can't spend 2 hours with your Creator?" 3. Your leader gives you a directive that you don't agree with. Do you obey them because you believe this is for the best for the Kingdom, or because you don't want to raise any eyebrows? 4. Your leader says something untrue to "protect" the congregation, a secret that wounds your heart. Do you keep quiet because you believe this is what Christ wants, or because you don't want to get hurt?
Appearing "spiritually better" is not "spiritually better." I can already hear the jerk saying, "It's your fault if your actions are merely an appearance." The heart behind a worshipful act is of greater importance than the final result of the act. That's the difference between the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, the difference between the copper pennies of the widow and the amounts given by the wealthy, and why Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead. Berkland "accountability" suffocates the heart. This is in stark contrast to your general presumption of "status quo of comfort."
But you're only shooting yourself if you criticize their methods while you agree that their theology is correct.
This is a false comment. We can both agree that "I [Jesus] am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through me." If the same person who convinces you of this leverages this correctness of theology to assert his authority over you to do something you disagree with in principle, is it wrong for me to believe this to be a travesty of ministry? Teaching the Word properly and executing a ministry properly are different things. You would think the first necessarily provides the grounds for the other, but there is such a warping of what is "Biblical" in execution.
I do lack of decency, but mostly I fear reprisal. However, I also believe in the correctness of what I've written, and that it will help others. If I do exhibit false righteous indignation, it should be apparent to more than just you. I think you're the first to accuse me of that.
There's something troubling about the post written at 7/09/2008 5:56 PM.
First, writing anonymously has nothing to do with decency. Of course, there are the illogical mockers who like to throw around epithets under the cloak of anonymity. You will certainly find a couple in these comments and even more at the other blogs. To the writer of the comment above, if your name is indeed Jonathan Kang, identifying yourself hasn't made your post any less indecent. In fact, it has made me wonder how our paths may have crossed rather than address your post directly.
I will remain focused on your post. There is so much caustic resignation, there. You speak of your years at Berkland like some inmate who latched onto the protection of certain bosses while steering clear of others. Berkland, while it may be cold, is not that big. How do you "avoid like the plague" the leader of the ministry? How do you not care "one iota" for other leaders but your own?
You sound like someone who went through a tough experience (certainly not an ideal one with all the avoiding and the not caring) only to speak about the hardships as some rite of passage. Since you have gone through it, what are you now become?
You have things to say about "Good Ole Berkland" yourself, it seems. And by your use of "Good Ole Berkland" it also seems you have made your departure from that church. Yet, by your criticism of the author of the blog, it appears that you feel your particular sentiments toward that church to be more noble. Feel free to expound on that position.
You are to be commended for forging a selective path through Berkland. Not many were willing or able. At least, not honestly and openly.
Hamcycle, I don't know who you are nor the reasons that you left nor the reasons you are complaining. You write to justify yourself in ways that destroy the correctness of your actions. Don't skirt the issue and be coy about what you want to say. Answer the question clearly, is Gracepoint a Christian church or not? Is their theology correct or incorrect? Are they a cult or not?
If they are a church and their theology is correct, then they can not be a cult. If they are a cult then the other 2 questions become pointless. Having become a Christian there and being baptized there, I can honestly say that they are not a cult. They preach the bible powerfully and eloquently. They actually put effort into their messages which is far different from most Korean American churches.
However, they also put their zealous efforts in other areas that people find to be too intrusive and 'different.' They are trying to be passionate Christians and it can be a little too much or even too dramatic. Sometimes people fake it to keep up pretenses but sooner or later, it becomes evident where their state and heart lies. If you don't share their vision or the time commitment is too much, then the best solution is to find a different church that is more for you. This though a lot of the times is viewed as a failure. A sign that maybe for the first time a person had to reevaluate their spiritual walk honestly.
I've read your older entries before I commented and again what becomes evident is this. You undermine their efforts, label them as spiritual bullies, and portray yourself as the spokesperson for the countless victims. You chose to use words like rape and so forth. Yet you still fear reprisal as if they're going to send some goon squad after you. How pathetic is that? If you are correct then what's the need to hide?
You should understand that the leaders that you have as underclassmen are recent graduates and they are far from perfect. They have their own issues and far more pressures than you could imagine or think you are going through. Some are not gentle at all and give it you straight without much thought or tact, maybe that's their weakness. Couple people easily come to mind. But expecting perfection from them would be asking a little too much. Having said that though I as a former staff member am insulted that you think its just a numbers game. I worked with the Youth dept. and treated each and every single one like as if they were my younger sister and brother. I mentored, taught and played with them and even drove one to his cancer treatments a couple times. I drove 40k miles each year for 2 years shuttling kids to and from church. For all that work the only payback was maybe a thank you card at Christmas. Most of the kids grew up and left and did their own thing. Some stayed and are now staff members themselves. They are the fruit of all that work. And fruits are not so easily harvested but well worth the effort. My list is pretty long but its not worth bragging about in terms of what I did. Other staff member contributed just as much if not more, there was a classmate that gave away a car for someone who just started working as she didn't have a car. So for each bad staff member you can name, I can name 3 that poured out their hearts for their younger brothers and sisters.
I'll be blunt and turn the focus on you now? Would you really have been picked on if you were really spiritual? Its obvious you quote scripture pretty well but also there is a certain inexperienced naivete in your assumptions on how a church works. People have always wanted to serve and it was for various reasons. I am not saying yours is not genuine but having seen a pastor commit adultery, a former KBSU president almost rape somebody at Davis, and a closet gay person finally coming out. I am skeptical even now of people who want leadership positions in my current church wouldn't you be as well?
So it looks like you didn't like the mandatory prayer meetings and I'm sure half of the other stuff that a Berkland lifestyle entailed. I think that's fine so again go to another church that fits your needs. I guess it is a hit to our pride when we are deemed not passionate enough from a Berklander's point of view but the fact of the matter is it looks like you weren't. But also who cares? Some have 5 talents others have 2 and still others have 1. Not to say Berklanders have 5 either.
Find a church and commit to it with as much passion if not more. Let your spiritual fruit vindicate or comdemn you. Going on these spiritual attacks won't slow down the Gracepoint lifestyle, it'll slow down your spiritual growth. Like I said earlier, I don't see many that do better spiritually after they leave. So the odds are against you from a statistical point of view.
I had my run-ins with many if not all of the leaders at one point or another. But though they were wrong sometimes and right on others, oveall I grew stronger from it. Now I'm at Great Exchange Covenant and work hard at being again one of the core staff members. People get from me the gentleness that sometimes I wish I was shown previously. Can you say that you can be such a person of maturity as well to God? Ultimately for better or worse, we're all gonna be in the same room together in heaven.
Jonathan Kang
Class of '93
To the anonymous poster of 7/13/2008 11:28 PM:
Let me clarify on the anonymous posters, I think decency and respect as being important. When people attack but yet stay hidden that shows cowardice. If you were wronged then speak up. Silence doesn't help clear up anything. You are also correct about id'ing myself as making my comments any less indecent. But I at least have the character to stand by my words.
My Berkland experience really isn't that much different from what others go through. I've had my highs and lows. And it seems you always get the good and the bad together. I had bad leaders. I had bad followers. But I also had really good leaders and from each I learned what to take away and what to avoid. I saw prejudice. I saw great blessings. I saw favoritism. I saw many mistakes and blunders. I had great experiences. I learned a lot about myself, God and others. I learned to be spiritually stronger.
To answer your questions, I avoided the leaders I didn't like by just not seeing them, not really giving them any mind. I wasn't being disrespectful but most of the time just this whatever for them. A good one would be Andy Pak, a great intellectual mind, but all the tact of a goat. You never knew if he was going to head butt you or something so I just stayed away and let him do his thing while I did mine.
I do have good feelings for the church. They do so many things well. But they also do so many things badly. The question is how to be in a church that can do so much while also not do others as bad. You have to understand I became a Christian there. It was where God really spoke to me for the first time and also where a lot of ideas became planted in what a church should and shouldn't be. I'll say that I am very much ambivalent. The church I am going to now would be considered to open and accepting but I love it far more. Of course there are downsides to that, but even here I can still see God working in me. I play a major role and without the things I was taught, I would be far more useless.
I left and came back like 3 times in over a 9 year period at Berkland, each time because of an overbearing leader. But when I left for the last time at the beginning of 2000, I knew it was for the best and I've been doing very well. In my heart even though we had our differences, I know that when I see those guys in heaven, I will still be able to smile with them.
Jonathan Kang
Class of '93
Is Gracepoint a Christian church or not? Is their theology correct or incorrect? Are they a cult or not?
Berkland Baptist, as I knew it, was an aberrant and abusive Christian church. Their theology is correct. What I learned later was that theology is not the basis for correct church leadership and governance. For emphasis, I repeat: correctness of theology does not translate to correct and proper leadership and governance.
If they are a church and their theology is correct, then they can not be a cult.
That's arbitary logic you're using. "If A and B, then not C." Labels like "cult" are useless, and I hope you recognized that from what I wrote. Instead the blog consists of identifying patterns and basic characteristics from different sources. A Bible-based church, in spite of its adhering to correct theology, can still psychologically, spiritually, and emotionally damage people--not through a few bad apples, but systematically as a group, consistently demonstrated through accounts spanning years.
This though a lot of the times is viewed as a failure.
I never felt that I was a spiritual dropout; I really felt that Berkland really dropped the ball on what constituted legitimate leadership practices. I wasn't introduced to Christianity through Berkland. There is a Christian heritage in my family that spans back several generations (for whatever that's worth). Ed and Becky are both the first Christians in their respective families, and when they pointed to a Bible verse and yelled at me that it was supposed to be interpreted this way in this particular context, the Bible had been swimming in around my head long and thoroughly enough since my earliest memories for me to immediately see that they were taking ownership of something that wasn't exclusively theirs to dictate. It's God's, and they are not his exclusive spokepersons. I understand that students who were introduced to Christianity at Berkland wouldn't be able to take such a stance against Ed and Becky, and therefore had little recourse but to submit to their authority. As for me, I genuinely disagreed with their arbitrary directives, their emotional leveraging, their suffocating accountability. I immediately recognized that they brought in alien elements, primarily ambition.
You undermine their efforts, label them as spiritual bullies, and portray yourself as the spokesperson for the countless victims.
I had a relative that I was trying to protect. My stern warnings weren't working, so I took this extreme, especially after reading evidence that nothing really changed at BBC. It had been selfish to act only on the behalf of a relative; it turns out that others needed counseling and a fair warning of a history of misguided damage this church has wrought. The stooges are protected by their own blindness, and the superficial people are protected by their lukewarmness. The people who get hurt the most are those who are genuinely interested in seeking after God. Lastly, I don't see myself as representing anyone except myself. This blog is my own account.
Yet you still fear reprisal as if they're going to send some goon squad after you. How pathetic is that? If you are correct then what's the need to hide?
You said yourself that there are good and bad staff. I'm fearful of reprisal from the bad ones, not the good ones, and "being right" isn't going to protect me. I know that the good staff won't and can't protect me from them either, I can attest firsthand. They can readily dispense with some explanation afterwards, but these are useful only to reassure bystanders.
But expecting perfection from them would be asking a little too much.
Their imperfections aren't small, but profoundly wrong and need to be identified as such. I'm not expecting perfection from a car crash; I'm waving my arms and saying, "Hey, there's something wrong here!"
Having said that though I as a former staff member am insulted that you think its just a numbers game.
My "numbers game" comment wasn't describing genuine and selfless service, which may describe a lot of the service at Berkland. You took it out of context, which was of Becky's "small church" philosophy, i.e. tossing out dissenting voices.
So for each bad staff member you can name, I can name 3 that poured out their hearts for their younger brothers and sisters.
Name three that continued to pour their hearts out to them once they left Berkland.
I'll be blunt and turn the focus on you now? Would you really have been picked on if you were really spiritual?
I got picked on because I questioned Becky's judgment, years before Ed's conscience decided to assert itself. I wrote this elsewhere, but I'll repeat it: if you've been a Berklander of any standing for any length of time without your conscience being disturbed, your judgment-making capacity is downright suspect.
Its obvious you quote scripture pretty well but also there is a certain inexperienced naivete in your assumptions on how a church works. People have always wanted to serve and it was for various reasons. I am not saying yours is not genuine but having seen a pastor commit adultery, a former KBSU president almost rape somebody at Davis, and a closet gay person finally coming out. I am skeptical even now of people who want leadership positions in my current church wouldn't you be as well?
This paragraph isn't clear. I think you are saying that in spite of my scripture spouting, I may not really know what I'm talking about. If so, that is absolutely true!
So it looks like you didn't like the mandatory prayer meetings.
That's not the point. It shouldn't be mandatory, and not the Berklandese "it's your choice to attend" non-mandatory.
Going on these spiritual attacks won't slow down the Gracepoint lifestyle, it'll slow down your spiritual growth.
Yes, writing these blogs have hurt me spiritually. I know they don't glorify God. But you're wrong to call them attacks. The target audience is for the dispossessed ex-Berklanders. I remember hurting so badly for such a long time after I left Berkland. It made me angry to know that people are still being affected this way. It it unconscionable for me to sit idly by while people are trying to find answers by themselves.
Like I said earlier, I don't see many that do better spiritually after they leave.
I guess you didn't agree with my response to that sentiment, because you're repeating it here. If you don't mind, let me repeat my response in turn: what is "spiritually better?" Does it mean doing things you wouldn't have normally done without the Berkland community? If you depend on Berkland that much to sustain your faith, don't you see that this dependence gnaws at the legtimacy of your faith altogether? It is better to be at Berkland just because.
Can you say that you can be such a person of maturity as well to God?
I refuse to believe God's grace can only be bestowed, or most easily or effectively bestowed, through Berkland. Resisting this belief is enough justification to leave Berkland!
Ultimately for better or worse, we're all gonna be in the same room together in heaven.
I look forward to seeing again my brothers and sisters that I've left behind. You too Jon.
Perhaps, you're just an altar call away from returning to Berkland a 4th time. Have you thought about that? Seriously. Maybe this most recent departure is only a sabbatical from Berkland. Now that Berkland has a new name, you can drop the running count to "0".
hamcycle,
please keep this blog running.
as a recent leaver of bbc, i find your posts actually edifying. it's either read your thoughtful analysis or stew in my emotions and bitterness.
i hope to one day be able to reason everything out in such a mature way.
thank you.
To Anonymous of 7/29/2008 2:26 PM
Be nice and no I won't be going back.
To Jonathan:
This may be a good opportunity for you to consider your sentiments toward Berkland. Am I wrong when I say that I detect some need in you to be embraced by Berkland again? For what other reason would you list all your good acts and each sacrifice you made while serving Berkland.
You speak of anonymous posters as being indecent and cowardly. I truly wish you had posted anonymously. If you had, your boasts of good works would have seemed to be much less self-promoting.
Your fellow leaders at Great Exchange must find comfort in knowing that you would still be at Berkland had it not been for "overbearing" leaders. And if you truly believed that you were made better from the experience, why not just stay at Berkland.
Really, that you returned 3 times is a bit unusual. You confirm the experience of many of the posters here about the "overbearing" qualities of those in Berkland leadership. And while most commenters have avoided disparaging pastors by name, you do not hesitate to mention Pastor Andy Pak's "goat"-like tact. Is this what you call courage?
While many have left and some have discussed honestly their experiences for the benefit of others, you went back for more. A few times over. Perhaps, you should try to be more humble and discuss your failure to stick to your convictions rather than listing those ancient details of your youth group service.
That you would somehow consider yourself in such a position to make flippant remarks about hamcycle and the commenters, here, is hardly evidence of spiritual maturity. In fact, it smacks of spiritual pride.
Please, don't be so sensitive. If you can dish it out, surely you can take a little criticism. I, likewise, open up my arguments, here, for you to criticize to your heart's content.
Okay I never meant to defend my ex-church but as you're adamant about your correct view while not giving any credit to different ones that may or may not support Gracepoint. I will show holes in your argument.
We've established that Berkland/gracepoint is Christian and a legitimate evangelical church. We also established that their theological interpretation is correct. I agree with you that it doesn't translate over to good leadership and governance. Yet you would call them an abusive and aberrant church. What does that really mean? If you go to a church that is apathetic and boring and whatever other negative adjective comes to mind so that a "newcomer" does not feel welcome or accepted. Would that church also be guilty of being abusive through negligence? Of course it would so then most other churches fail at meeting needs yet they are not given the title aberrant nor abusive. That is being unfair. It is a known fact that most other churches fall on the other end of the spectrum where the church doesn't do enough. But again people then complain that this church isn't getting it right either. You hear complaints about how weak the pastor is or the elders have too much power etc etc. So the only constant whether the church cares too much or too little are complaints from the congregations and that all bible-based church damages in one way or another. You are not saying anything new but just stating a well-known fact. So what makes one more 'damaging' than the other? It becomes moot and you're just picking sides.
I will solidly define a Christian cult as being their way as being the ONLY way to God... I have also heard of a 2nd minor point on having an exclusive group tendency. Last I heard, they would not submit to the major point and slightly guilty of the 2nd. But the 2nd point needs to follow the first so again not a cult.
The Berkland I remember has a more strict hierarchical structure than others but that is the choice of the leadership and the members. Each church is given that latitude. So again nothing wrong there just a difference of opinions, theory and practice.
You fall back on tradition in terms of biblical interpretation and point out the yelling leaders as being 1st generation with the allusion that they were wrong as a cause. If I recall the Apostle Paul was also 1st generation as well as many others. The good and bad spiritual leaders you have in life are placed there by God for one reason or another. Though they are not 'exclusive' and I am not saying that they were right and you were wrong or vice versa because I don't know the issue, you do need to submit to a spiritual someone that keeps you accountable. But again you don't need to play the I am right they are wrong card. Nothing wrong with saying my style is not their style and move forward. It would be interesting to hear about your genuine disagreements being more than just a difference of opinions.
You now state that this was for a specific relative but then turned it into a crusade of sorts as it seemed selfish. Obviously it has gone far beyond the intended target. Do you believe that maybe for your relative or others it was the best thing for he/her to ignore you? Doesn't he/she have that right to weigh upon with her own head what is best for him/her? You talk of having more clarity but what is that based on? Familial tradition spanning several generations. You talk of people getting hurt as being the ones showing genuine God interest. That can not be true. You don't know that. It's almost hubris to take that position on something statistically impossible to gauge. If anything Christianity course 101, teaches a solid basic understanding of scripture. Again though putting that into practice becomes the point of contention.
If you see a bad apple that perpetuates wrongs, they should be pointed out. All bad apples need to be corrected not for just themselves, nor their church, but for God. They continue to do their wrongs and yet instead of getting to the core of the problem. The safer thing is to talk about the wrongs. This can then wrongly lead to accusing the leaders above them in being complicit of the wrongs unaware. If a ship has holes, talking about the water leaking in and complaining how everyone is getting wet etc etc. Won't get the hole fixed. You have to plug it where it needs plugging.
Now you are saying I am taking your numbers game comment out of context. Please explain further on what you mean by each class being reduced by such and such numbers and that loss was/is inevitable and that people were expendable means? A small church doesn't mean an exclusive church of nodding yes men nor that that is the intended goal. A church in general is a group of people coming together for the same vision and theology. It again isn't a we are right you are wrong argument. A lot of the times, she was just wrong. She was wrong about her younger brother. She was wrong about many other things. One year she was raving about magnetic bracelets. I was like what the heck is she talking about these about? But that doesn't mean she wasn't right either. She was right on many things. It also isn't Berkland that remains stubborn or doesn't like dissenting voices. This is prevalent in any church. If you go to any elders meeting and see how they're open to change. Be prepared to sit for a long time. Again you are stating a prevalent problem that exists in other churches while picking one out to focus on.
Name 3? That's it? Let's see there's Bob Oh, pastor of Oikas, David Kim who also served at Oikas, and me.
Could you have been picked on maybe because you really were wrong? There is a pervasive sense of justification in your blogs. That what you did was right and even worse that you were victimized because of it? Again I don't know the issue but I have always known that being right needs no justification. In the end, you will get your justification at least from God. Maybe you were wrongly accused and wrongly picked on. Have you then asked God to heal and forgive? I don't think you've forgiven anybody. Becky in my honest opinion in spite of her knowledge has many deep personal demons herself. So does Pastor Ed and so do you and I. But one of the saddest things to see is a Christian grinding his axe for years after the fact.
I would say you would fall into the category of not doing spiritually better. To heal properly you need to use the right medicine and time. Doing this isn't one of them. I speak from experience to say that when I left for the last time. I had peace. I wasn't angry or bitter like the previous times. I didn't feel victimized nor ostracized. I came back from a year of Missions out in Uzbekistan and knew that I wasn't going to go back. I knew I was going to miss some good friends. I know I did my best out there and after that left it to God to lead me elsewhere. I hear God's voice much louder now and am much more at peace. You're right that God's grace can be found elsewhere and maybe even in more powerful doses. I don't even try to outperform or compare with Berkland. I myself do a lot better when I let my inspiration come from God than from a yelling staff leader. I pray you can be there to and affirm others likewise.
Soli deo Gloria,
Jonathan Kang Class of 93
To anonymous in response to a direct response to me.
Honestly I am open to criticism. But when it comes anonymously its hard to take seriously. Like someone just yelling from the grandstands, faceless, spineless, mostly meaningless except for your personal enjoyment. You throw your shots but then are you really interested in my answers and dialogue? I won't be sensitive and I hope you won't be with my response.
Regardless, I'll still play your game.
To clarify, I LEFT 3 times. Once in my sophomore year because of an overbearing leader. A new leader and his efforts plus living at the Dana House made me return. The 2nd time, it was at the beginning of my 2nd year after graduation. Went to Youth staff, got into arguments with John Suh and the new staff members. They wanted me to go to Young Adult. I said I was out. Went back due to Pastor Jonathan saying give it another try. I roomed with him for a summer and held him in high respect. So on that I went back. 3rd time, came back from a year in Uzbekistan. Then it became clear as day that I needed to go elsewhere. I was at Peace. Told Pastor Ed and Kelly. They wished me well. Haven't gone back since.
I have been at Great Exchange. I hold leadership positions here. The main pastor knows of my commitment to it and that's all that matters.
You sound disappointed that I did not post anonymously. I am disappointed that you would. If you know me, you would know that I don't like self promtion of any kind. But talking about standing behind what you say isn't self-promotion but having character and showing responsibility and respect for the blog. All commendable last I checked.
For you to pick on me picking out Andy for who he is. Now that is pretty funny as you don't mention nor decry all of the other name-bashing that was going on. Either way, I did not question his faith or theology as others have. He was an example of one of my not favorite leader experiences. I could have given others but it was just an example. To expound, I stated a personality fact that can be for good and bad. If you know him, I don't think you would disagree. If you do, I would say this was who he was when I knew him.
You point out another example I used which was to counter the initial point of Hamcycle saying that the people are viewed as just numbers by the staff. Then you argue that I am again self promoting myself through my bragging. You have taken the example out of context to support your view. The example was used to show that people cared and sacrificed. Yet you decide to look at it as me showing off.
Then you move to a failure of convictions. My convictions on what? On God never changed. On people, I am guilty of giving the benefit of doubt. If you read what I wrote in more than just picking out your argument points, you would see that I wrote of leaders that really were good. For them and only them, I let myself become vulnerable. My failure then would be that I trust too much. But I don't think that is a bad thing. As right now, I think I trust God a little too much.
My remarks were not meant to be flippant but direct. Honestly, if you were my older staff leader, I have a feeling we would be having a typical rebuking about how proud I was. You know, I've grown to see that most people see 'problems' in others that they themselves are infected with. I don't like quote scripture to back me up so I'll just say, "Hello pot,... am I kettle?" I'm actually laughing right now as you try to point out the difference between pride and maturity
Again, I cannot address you appropriately as you are somewhere in the grandstands. Where do you stand? Could you be a lurking Berkland staffer or someone who has left? Again have the decency to declare yourself so that I can think of your comments as more than a rant or a brain fart.
Jonathan Kang class of '93fzlqss
Jonathan. Your arguments leave me wanting. You sound a bit like a blabbermouth. Perhaps that is what it takes to be a leader at some churches.
I'm glad you're not the sensitive type and that you find amusement, here. Here's another rule to add to your pop psychology knowledge: sometimes people laugh to deflect the truth. Just a thought. Try re-reading your posts and see if you're not making the same kind of statements made throughout the blogs. You say some very negative things. But, here's where you diverge from many of the commenters, here: you say that these negative aspects are not uncommon with the practices of other churches.
Please. Let's not talk of Berkland as any other church out there. You hear these arguments all the time along with comparisons of Berkland leadership and the first century Christians. I beg to differ. Although I do believe there are genuine, God-fearing Christians in Berkland leadership, we do have that smoking letter from Pastor Ed, don't we? That letter is a condemnation of the corruption and twisted motives that permeated Berkland. Those who have read that letter know that the previous statement is no exaggeration.
To Pastor Ed, it certainly wasn't a matter of degrees or how Becky's Berkland may have been at one point of the spectrum or another. And, yes, there are many churches that suffer the fate of being guided by stubborn human will, but Berkland is unique in how Becky leads it, a fact underscored by its perception of itself as an uncompromising church.
Yes, take my comments with a grain of salt or whatever. I expect no less. You will need to determine by your own assessment if there is any truth to them. Frankly, I'm in the same position with your posts. Because you identify yourself as "Jonathan Kang," should I take your posts more seriously?
Or less?
If I asked one of the leaders at Gracepoint about Jonathan Kang, what would they say? In the end, I suppose, I really wouldn't care.
If there are good arguments to make for Berkland, you certainly haven't made them. In fact, in defending Berkland, you seem to slip out more negative remarks about Berkland. It is as if there is a deep reservoir of resentment that you are trying to keep from bursting through while you persuade yourself that you left on good terms.
It all seems like an effort by you to justify your particular decisions with regard to your membership at Berkland. And to comfort yourself in the perception that you are better than the ex-Berkland bloggers.
Yet you would call them an abusive and aberrant church.
Please read the post called "Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?" The terms "aberrant" and "abusive" are defined there. I want to point out that this isn't the first time you've commented on something that already has a clear answer elsewhere on the blog.
You fall back on tradition in terms of biblical interpretation and point out the yelling leaders as being 1st generation with the allusion that they were wrong as a cause.
My commenting about their first generation faith was, in a moment of weakness, an expression of contempt for their hijacking of Biblical authority and dictating the consequence of its truths, i.e. "because the Bible says X, as a Berklander you must Y." It was an unnecessary point for me to make.
Again though putting that into practice becomes the point of contention.
To elaborate upon this point, what I meant earlier by "hijacking of Biblical authority" is critical of the action/consequence of a Biblical truth rather than the truth itself, e.g. as a result of verse X, behavior Y constitutes as sinning and requires Z discipline.
It's almost hubris to take that position on something statistically impossible to gauge.
"The stooges are protected by their own blindness, and the superficial people are protected by their lukewarmness. The people who get hurt the most are those who are genuinely interested in seeking after God." I've written many statements that are statistically impossible to gauge. These are generalizations made from collective observation. Accept or reject them for what they are worth (with a grain of salt).
Please explain further on what you mean by each class being reduced by such and such numbers and that loss was/is inevitable and that people were expendable means?
The "numbers game" comment is regarding Berkland's disregard for the byproduct of their process, the many damaged resulting from getting the few that "expand the tent." The abusive characteristic, "painful exit process," is addressed in post #2. The big question is: Does God "will" through Berkland, or is it just another consequence of the Fall?
Name 3? That's it? Let's see there's Bob Oh, pastor of Oikas, David Kim who also served at Oikas, and me.
My question was, "Name three that continued to pour their hearts out to them once they left Berkland." To clean up the sentence, I meant, "Name 3 staff members who had once poured out their hearts to their sheep, that continued to have a positive and sustained relationship after these sheep left Berkland?"
Have you then asked God to heal and forgive? I don't think you've forgiven anybody.
In the Bible, the context of forgiveness often consists of the offender actually asking for forgiveness, which is not the situation here. I'm still struggling to understand "unilateral forgiveness," like "turning the other cheek," and "why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that." It would help if you can explain to me how to justify "unilateral forgiveness" to child molesting priests; is "why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that" applicable in that situation?
But one of the saddest things to see is a Christian grinding his axe for years after the fact. I would say you would fall into the category of not doing spiritually better. To heal properly you need to use the right medicine and time. Doing this isn't one of them.
I hope you can see the possibility of another motivation. I get continued feedback from others that they appreciate the affirmation of their painful experiences through these blogs (there was one this morning 7/30/2008 7:59 AM). Perhaps it is sad and pathetic, but this alone won't dissuade me.
Thanks Jonathan. I appreciate your feedback and I understand that ultimately we're both trying to do what is right. I respect what you've written, and perhaps we'll find further common ground in the future. The hope is that eventually these blogs would become dated.
To the anonymous with a direct statement to me,
I'd guess you would be the same person. So I'll respond as so. My arguments leave you wanting... for more or less? I've been accused of many things so whatever floats your boat. But then expanding youf focus and taking a swipe at church leadership being likewise, that's pretty funny too. I've met a couple of them in leadership and in the pews as well.
Truth is truth. When it's humorous, its a bonus. You didn't say anything I haven't heard before if you're referring to me laughing at the picture of you telling me that my maturity is in fact pride. How Berklandish! I am proud of my maturity so I'm always perplexed when that offends other people. It's not like I'm bragging I'm better than others. Why does that bother you? I don't even know who you are. Or do I?
My so called "leadership" position as blabbermouth at GRX is setting up the Sunday snacks and then cleaning up afterwards. So I'm a glorified janitor. This was open nobody took it so I stepped up and said I'll do it. You can take the job if you want. Other things I "lead" are taking people to Yosemite and teaching outdoor skills like camping and hiking. Wow sorry for trying to show off.
My point is that people are damaged just as much through indifference and apathy as well as through bad leadership and spiritual bullying. That is a known fact. But let's take a person coming to church. Is this person sinless or prefect? Are they without issues and hurts? What are they looking for? We (actually I don't know if you still go to church) so the people in church try to be as welcoming as possible. Make the environment as peaceful as possible. But also ultimately that is not the goal or vision of a church. Read any church's statement and you'll see that it is to turn people into Godly men/women and then send them out, usually a different take on the Great Commission.
Everybody has their own motives and reasons for going to church. Now then placing the onus on the church, any church, to meet that need is unrealistic. You're setting up yourself for a major disappointment.
I have never read this infamous letter but I am not surprised. I should add that a major split was just waiting to happen. So what else is this different from all the other churches splitting up? I don't know of any church that is innocent of not making questionable choices and motives, adding Ed's eloquence to it I'm sure amplified it. Again I didn't read the letter to know how 'bad' it was so it wouldn't do me any good to counter or agree with anything you say. I don't know if you were a staff member but during staff meetings it was very much in your face type of thing. Ed mentioned once that his ministry style was different from Becky's. That the Becky's in your face type wouldn't work if he used it.
The mistake though is to hold the leader to an ideal. A church is only as good as its best but also its reputation is usually made by the worst. I think Berkland has been humbled tremendously in the past 10 years. But instead of people being saddened, more are gloating and reveling at their failure. This doesn't mean that the gloaters and revelers did the 'right' thing and are thus justified. I would argue that those that are happy to see the church, any church, go through that type of suffering really check where their heart is.
I take your comments as being from someone who got steamrollered by Berkland. I can read anger among many other emotions from hurts inflicted intentionally or unintentionally. I don't doubt that. If you need someone to talk with about it, you're more than welcome to contact me. Or you can find "Jonathan Kang" at church an hour or so before and after worship. You can make up your mind about it then to see if I am being serious or not.
That would be interesting, I don't know who's still there. I've known Manny, Moon, Ben and Will. My leaders were Ed, June Suh, Joong... I wonder what they would say.
I am not trying to convince you with good arguments. My response was specifically for Hamcycle. And there are more than enough negative examples to nail on Berkland that it doesn't need my help. But from me I wish them well. I ran into Manny down south during Christmas time. His parents live close to where my parents live. We had a good talk catching up on things.
I guess you're doubting my state when I left. Then because I was at peace while others are still venting years later, you take that as me being "superior" to others. How can I convince you differently? Who is the skeptic? Who is the insecure one? If anything, I'm probably better than you in riding a motorcycle and playing volleyball. Other than that I could care less about 'competing.' But after reading your entries as well as others. I'm actually saddened by the amount of venting that's taking place especially on the pretext of Spiritual Correctness. If what I have said or bragged about or brought up from ancient history about makes you feel that I'm taking a "better than you" stance, then that's your problem not mine. Since I am a flippant blabbermouth, what should I call you anonymous _______?
Jonathan Kang
Class of '93
Jonathan, that was actually a very good response. Written with greater consideration and care than most posts who offer a contrarian viewpoint. This is, of course, the anonymous poster you have been responding to lately.
I am certainly no saint. And where you have noticed passion or annoyance is in those moments I react to what I see are callous statements that dismiss the experience of wounded ex-Berklanders. Where you see outrage is where I respond to those who argue that Berkland's wrongs hardly justify the blogs and the comments.
I will be honest and say that although I consider what I have had to post as part of an intelligent dialogue about Berkland, there may have been entries at other blogs in response to Berklanders that may have been characterized by greater passion than tact or grace.
Surely, you must realize that there is discussion and dialogue about Berkland that can truly lead to Christian development. What if someone would have sat down with you during your early troubles with Berkland leadership and told you what you know now. You must cerainly know of individuals who left Berkland so wounded as to not seek any sort of Christian fellowship after leaving.
Still, you do cling a bit to the notion, even now, that Berkland is just at one point in a spectrum. I don't want to suggest that everyone follows the same path as I did when I left, but I, too, felt a need to defend Berkland and its "tough love" ministry after I parted ways.
But you also make some severe accusations against Berkland leaders, yourself. In fact you say some unflattering remarks that never came across my lips or mind. For instance, you say that Pastor Ed has "personal demons." Are you sure you don't want to qualify or clarify that statement. I know you meant it in the colloquial figurative, but to associate a pastor with simply the word "demon" seems transgressive. I would argue that even in the colloquial figurative sense, that statement is incorrect unless we say that any personal struggle is a personal demon.
You did mention that you were "ambivalent" about Berkland.
I do think we should hold our leaders to an ideal. A Biblical one, no more, no less. In all these personal accounts (and even yours) there are stories of how certain leaders failed to meet the standard. And there is a certain sense of outrage as we become adults and realize that these far-from-perfect leaders were making demands of us when we were just out of high school. Demands, in some instances, the leaders may or may not have complied with themselves.
I go back to the word "resignation." Your stance seems to be that churches are imperfect things and we just have to make due. From this, you argue that our expectations are too high and too naive. I will have to give some consideration to the possibility that I have to muster up this "oh well" attitude and shrug off Christian leaders behaving badly.
I appreciate that you kept the name-calling out of your last post. I take it that you find the anonymity offensive. Now that you've articulated your offense, try to move on from it, if you are going to post, here. The anonymity is accepted and, apparently, the preferred method of posting. If you choose to post further, here, let us not hear of what spineless cowards we are to post without our names attached. Really, what benefit is there to anyone if our names appear with our statements. But, we've had this discussion before, so let's leave it at that.
Same anonymous poster, again. Jonathan, reading your first post, again, I can't help wonder if you should be applying the same standard that you apply with your statements consistently to others.
We can have certain perceptions of a person based on what he has written which may be correct or incorrect. You state that I have misperceived who you are and that my misperception is my problem. You certainly have misperceptions of who I am and my history with Berkland.
So, could it be, that as inaccurately we can perceive things, that you, too, misperceived hamcycle as a person, as a Christian, and as the author of this blog? And that your misperception is your problem and not his? You draw upon your experience to state things with such certainty. It's peculiar and perhaps reason that Berkland leaders spoke to the issue of pride in meetings with you. But, of course, to you, this is all misperception on our parts.
Are you willing, then, to believe that your perceptions are spot-on accurate while others misperceive left and right?
Hello, new to this thread, but thought I found something worth contributing.
This is part of an article written by JC Ryle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Charles_Ryle), a reputable bible teacher who passed away in 1900. I saw this on another blog and I couldn't help but thinking about Berkland while reading this, Becky JDSN in particular.
From The Fallibility of Ministers by JC Ryle:
I do not doubt that the one volume known as The Pilgrim's Progress, written by a man who knew hardly any book but his Bible, and was ignorant of Greek and Latin, will prove in the last day to have done more for the benefit of the world, than all the works of the schoolmen put together. Learning is a gift that ought not to be despised. It is an evil day when books are not valued by the Church. But it is amazing to observe how vast a man's intellectual attainments may be, and yet how little he may know of the grace of God. I have no doubt the Authorities of Oxford in the [18th] century, knew more of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, than Wesley or Whitefield. But they knew little of the Gospel of Christ. Infallibility is not to be found among learned men, but in the Bible. For another thing, let us take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own minister's opinion, however godly he may be.
Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err. Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his preaching and example; but do not make a pope of him. Do not place his word side-by-side with the Word of God. Do not spoil him by flattery. Do not let him suppose he can make no mistakes. Do not lean your whole weight on his opinion, or you may find to your cost that he can err.
It is written of Joash, King of Judah, that he "did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years of Jehoiada the priest" (2 Chronicles 24:2). Jehoiada died, and then died the religion of Joash. Just so your minister may die, and then your religion may die too. He may change, and your religion may change. He may go away, and your religion may go. [note: I remember Pastor Ed saying in his letter to Becky JDSN that she had changed... she was no longer the person that she was when he started serving under her. I wonder how many people's faith, their Christian growth rely on Becky JDSN and not on Jesus, when Becky stumbles, how many people does it effect?]
Oh, do not be satisfied with a religion built on man! Do not be content with saying, "I have hope, because my own minister has told me such and such things." Seek to be able to say, "I have hope, because I find it thus and thus written in the Word of God." If your peace is to be solid, you must go yourself to the fountain of all truth. If your comforts are to be lasting, you must visit the well of life yourself, and draw fresh water for your own soul. Ministers may depart from the faith. The visible Church may be broken up. But he who has the Word of God written in his heart, has a foundation beneath his feet which will never fail him. Honor your minister as a faithful ambassador of Christ. Esteem him very highly in love for his work's sake. But never forget that infallibility is not to be found in godly ministers, but in the Bible.
To the commenter above:
Yes, what you quote is correct. It is a message that Berkland leaders and pastors should heed. You will find similar warnings throughout these blogs and placed in closer context by way of specific examples. If you are new to the blogs, you will benefit from reading what hamcycle and certain commenters have written.
To Hamcycle
Yes I did read it and at your request read it again. I would say that those parameters outlined to a lesser or greater degree every church is guilty of. I think we're not disagreeing as I agree with your bold points in green that bad actions are not legitimatized by good intentions or a sound doctrine point. Bad actions are bad in general. Knuckleheads will be knuckleheads. You give examples of knucklehead behavior from Becky, Peter and the staff member that challenged your salvation. All 3 showed a lack of tact. Instead of using water and 2 aspirin pills, they decided instead to use a hammer. Obviously those blows did more harm than good. Did they think they were doing good and were thus justified? Unfortunately probably so. Would I use that tactic, probably not. I think a kind word can go a lot longer.
My conclusion is that you got the evidence necessary to try and convict the church. Shoot I can give you more juicier ammo if you want. Even better scandalous behavior by staff now pastor or directors. What does it ultimately prove? The obvious, that we're depraved sinners needing forgiveness.
I used to joke once that Berkland at heart was re-attempting communism but with God. You can see the parallels: notion of equality, generic titles of brother and sister vs. comrade, communal living, exclusivity, etc etc. Even then we see that for most it wasn't their cup of tea. For the few let them enjoy their "heaven on earth."
I agree with you that some zealous staff can get too focused on something being black and white. Then the response can be also just as predictable and then their insecurity makes it unquestionable. One time we were in Cheju on the summer mission trip. We went down to the water's edge and were playing in the water hitting against the rocks. This was about a year after William had drowned. But Peter was yelling at people to come back up and stay away. When one of the locals asked him, "Why?" in a like what's wrong with you kinda way. He said, "Because I said so!" I couldn't stop snickering and thinking, "Oh Boy." Again a lack of tact. Was he wrong yes. Was he good-intentioned, yes. Did he get a good result, no. The key point though is, is that systemic? I don't agree with your conclusion that it is. I would say yes and sometimes no. The leaders are just people too.
The people you mention have their faults and my take is that they weren't Christian enough. I think many staff lack people skills and in am intellectual environment they are pulled from isn't that probably going to happen? I'm old enough where some kids that were in the eighth grade when I was a staff member are now college staff members. I'd see some of them give me that cold "you're not part of us anymore" berkland greeting. But I still see them as that pubescent boy we had overnights with at church. I don't even correct them. I ask them how their parents are doing and wish them well. That is a lack of maturity that I hope and pray they will grow beyond someday. But that is also because I know their story. I know what kind of environments they grew up in. The pressure and abuse they had to endure, so that lets me give them some slack at least in their awkward interactions with me.
As you can tell by now, I'm a pretty mellow guy. So its pretty inevitable that my time at Gracepoint was going to be limited. They push a hard "pace" if you know what I mean. It just doesn't jive with me but I would hardly say that my passion for God is any less. I just direct my energy differently.
When you defend your view of the numbers game, you are saying that the "damage" done isn't worth the fruit of the tent "expansion." I would say that you are saying you know God's Will better than others which then puts you into a dilemma as saying your interpretation is "more" correct. You are using your eyes to gauge something and arriving at a conclusion that is not yours to render. If God is not for them then they will not succeed. That's biblical. For you to say that they will not succeed, places you as God's mouthpiece and that is the same dangerous position you are railing against. So I'd be very careful.
You move to then reclarifying what you meant by staffers giving you the cold shoulder after leaving. I think giving you that cold shoulder is just wrong to do. I haven't done it nor do it now but that's just me. Should others wish you well when you leave, I think so. But I can't force them to do that. Ed used to rail on staff members that did that if he heard about it. But stuff like meeting so and so never gets relayed up much. Unfortunately it is all too human of being out of sight out of mind.
It's obvious that you were hurt. I think you were more sensitive to it and ironically you were placed with those that I'd label as on the insensitive, suck it up type staff. Horrible combination as it can lead to much hurt and misunderstanding. I got my share of long rebukings. I thought I was misunderstood and even Ed would finally admit now that I wasn't easy to read. But also they were right on other things too. What did I do to move on and be able to forgive? I did it by finding a church that is more for me and focus on that ministry. I kept myself busy and got involved. I had fun again. Church and God became a wonderful place again. Prayer wasn't asking for justice or vengeance anymore but for growth and forgiveness then later on became one for wisdom, patience, kindness and tact to be shown. Most of the time I'm too busy at GRX to really think on them. Over time I get a good laugh out of both the good and the bad memories. I pray for you guys to get there. It's nice.
All the best,
Jonathan Kang
Class of '93
I would say that those parameters outlined to a lesser or greater degree every church is guilty of.
This is where we disagree; it boils down to this point.
If God is not for them then they will not succeed. That's biblical.
If you are paraphrasing Gamaliel (Acts 5), those are Gamaliel's words, not God's. Hebrews 11 (the Hall of Faith) is where we should look to define "success." Do we restrict success to Joseph's story? Or is being sawed in half successful as well? I would define "success" as doing what God desires, being on His side as He deems correct. Determining what He deems correct, this is where we fail to agree.
For you to say that they will not succeed, places you as God's mouthpiece and that is the same dangerous position you are railing against.
I didn't say that. According to Hebrews 11, "success" or "good result" is not the criteria for correctness. The Mormons are thriving, but I don't think they are "successful." While I am saying that Berkland practices are not in accordance to God's will, I can only speak for myself. The Bible is the only "mouthpiece" remaining; the age of prophets is over.
Response back to the Anonymous Poster:
I've been thinking about how to respond to your 2 posts. As I said before I was responding to Hamcycle's arguments of Berkland being an aberrant and abusive church directly. Hamcycle's assertions are if anything unbiased and if not an attempt at undermining a church that has caused her much harm. My arguments are that she is deliberately finding the parts to make the evidence fit the argument. The verdict has already been a foregone conclusion in her mind. The material became just a tool. I see what she is trying to do and am pointing out holes in her argument so if that comes away as dismissive. Then what room is there to debate? Everything becomes moot. She took a stand and I don't think that it is being done fairly.
As again with my 2nd point to all of the anonymous posters who would snipe away at Berkland staffers by name yet remain anonymous. If you are a Christian, please point out where such behavior is warranted let alone blessed? I think a blog is a great method of getting out your thoughts, but revenge on the pretext of Christian righteousness, come on. I'm calling it as I see it. What you call passion in defending their words, I would call venom if not hate. At that point the usefulness disappears. If people are actually feeling edified or God beomes glorified through all that, I'll be damned.
So do I think this blog can lead to Christian development? Yes but its like telling someone how good marriage can be from a divorced angry ex-wife/husband's perspective. All the negatives poured out while the listener can't help but wonder what made the speaker think about getting married in the first place. I guess anything is possible but the odds don't look appealing. Ultimately had I read this while I was going through my difficult times, it would have gave me more of a reason to split than hang around. But that is a bunch of what-if speculations. More information does not mean the choices we make will be better. It can cause more confusion.
My accusations are from a time when most of the leaders were my housemates at Dana House. Ed had just graduated from law school. What I mean by 'demons' are individual struggles we all have. And we all have them so yes I meant personal struggles. And yes I knew what he struggled with back then. Does he have some new ones now, probably.
Regarding my view on spiritual leadership, I would say that I believed spiritual leaders should be held to a higher standard but not anymore. Their failings became epic because of people holding them too high in that regard. Look at Andy Lee that man at his peak was the inspiration of the small group movement in Korea. Where did all that get him? It got to his head. He justified adultery with his 2nd in command's wife. Then look at all the cover up because he was the younger brother of Becky. I didn't know if I should be angry or laugh or cry when it happened. To make it even more emphatic, I learned it out in Tashkent doing Missions under his 'leadership.' Here I am working like a slave, 10-15 hr days, while this man has enough time to hide an affair. The bubble burst. I always had my doubts but this sealed it. They're (the leadership) just as human as everybody else. I know a couple more stories but don't think they're worth mentioning. The funny thing is the Berkland train of thought was to believe and have loyalty to your leaders, don't doubt it, instead doubt yourself and your intuition. But time and time again, it was my intuition that was more correct. So I learned to trust what I should never have doubted in the first place.
Were our expectations too high and too naive? History teaches us we were. Not by words but by his actions. Ultimately he made the choice to cheat and he then compounds it by somehow making a justification out of it.
It was a good lesson to learn. I would say that I don't go towards viewing all leadership with pessimistic resignation. It is what it is. You get the good ones and you get the bad ones just like everybody else you meet. I'm just keeping it real. Now if I see bad leadership, I'll call it out. I'm tired of bad leaders ruining peoples' experience. I'm one of the leaders at GRX now and make sure to keep it that. So I think I've learned something important.
I don't find the anonymity offensive. I find it offensive when it is a directed name-calling attack. I also find it offensive when it's also done under the pretext of Christian justification. I guess you are right, everyone prefers anonymity but that doesn't make the method correct or even remotely Christian. I'm arguing not against you or for Berkland/Gracepoint on that point. I'm arguing for those who would say that they're Christian to start acting like one. There is a lack of obvious maturity and pointing that out for what it is will of course become offensive. Maybe it's too much Berkland rebuking causing this knee-jerk reaction, but irregardless call it what it is. Now who should be the offended one. The one committing the crime or the one reporting it?
Regarding your 2nd post, you are correct that obviously I don't have all your or Hamcycle's facts. But then to place my problem as being my ability or lack of ability to perceive what the author's intent is really doesn't make sense. Think about what you are saying. You are postulating that my view because I don't have my full facts on your and Hamcycle's Berkland history plus my own personal experience and conclusions as being in some way similar but vastly different on the conclusion makes it dubious if not incorrect. Of course I am not saying that you and Hamcycle also had the same experience either. I state things with certainty on what matters? On what I think of Andy, Andy Lee, Becky and Ed? I knew them personally at one point in time, so I draw certainty from that. Do I question myself? All the time but with the hope that I'm getting to the right conclusions. But there's a difference when I think pointing at holes in a person's argument doesn't mean I am seeking his downfall. I probably have more in common with Hamcycle than you might you think. And no pride was not the no. 1 issue with me. I have specific likes and dislikes. This included a lot of the leaders. Hey and guess what the ones I liked became pastors and the ones I didn't either burned out or ended up in scandal. I must be doing something right?
You have this constant need to try and knock me down from this supposed high horse position I've taken on this blog. Why is that? What is it that I am writing that bothers you? You defend people who are supposedly Christian acting very un-christian-like. You call personal attacks and hate, passion and a lack of tact. What is your position other than being anti-Jonathan? You state that I don't know you and yet give very little information about who you are and what you went through? You have this immediate defensive reaction to what I write when it was never intended for you in the first place? So tell me are you doing far better spiritually after leaving or do you fall into my statistical generalization of those that leave and got worse? I'm beginning to think of the latter.
Let me get this clear. You call yourself a "leader" at GRX, but in a moment of modesty you say that you are only the chips-and-soda guy and that your other duty is to drive some of the kids to Yosemite. Good for you for serving the need of your community. And yet I can't help wonder that, calculating from the year you graduated (1993), you are almost 40-years old, and that as old as you are, it is odd that GRX, as liberal as it is in granting actual teaching positions, it has not found you fit to teach. And yet you feel qualified to teach and condemn others, here. Odd. You also mentioned that you were booted from Berkland youth group staff. That's practically unheard of.
Your experience at Berkland is certainly unique. Again, I've never known anyone to make the mistake of coming back for seconds and thirds after leaving Berkland. We all experience Berkland in our own ways. And it certainly does appear you have some strong objections to Berkland/Gracepoint leadership, and your objections seem more passionate than many who post at the blogs.
Regarding Pastor Ed's "demons," really, if Pastor Ed had personal struggles, there may have been 5 different and more appropriate ways to say it than to make reference to the demonic. And, really, were you even that close to Pastor Ed to know of his personal conflicts? Upper tier leaders rarley shared such personal details outside of their own tight circle of pastoral staff.
Hey, you do have a lot to say. I probably didn't address all your points, here. This isn't a high school debate class. After a while I just sort of see "blah, blah, blah" in what you write. I hope you're not offended.
Debate is great. Feel free to discuss Berkland to your heart's content, here. But I do think it's presumptuous of you to suggest that you are in a position to teach us.
In the spirt of debate, I should address a couple of observations you make. You will find personal attacks and hatred in some of these blogs. And there are many blogs, now. I don't think I've made such comments, except for perhaps some statements directed at the author of your comments. But I've said some positive things, too, if memory serves. You do unleash upon others, as perhaps your leaders may have observed, an annoying character.
As to your observation that those who leave Berkland doing worse than when they were at Berkland, I haven't observed this, really. Of course, there is an adjustment period. And that adjustment period, often marked by sadness and bitterness, is longer for some than others. But if some do tend to falter after leaving Berkland, perhaps it is because Berkland does such a skillful job of controlling the behavior of its members and that these members are not acting out of grace and love, but rather out of compelled submission and a desire to avoid the pain of rebuke. So, I can easily see people resorting to acting out in a rush of personal desire after being released from such pressure.
Those who have built a foundation will find a way to follow, serve and love, again. Those whose faith was propped up by Berkland's discipleship/control system, will not fare so well.
My arguments are that she is deliberately finding the parts to make the evidence fit the argument.
Let me to rephrase this thought: "Hamcycle does not present Berkland objectively. My own experience tells me that Berkland cannot be summed up by the characteristics she's listed."
I agree. Berkland is more than the bullet points listed in "Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive." This blog is more like the opinion section in the newspaper than a Wikipedia article. I am making a case against the correctness of Berkland, and naturally need to supply supporting evidence. However I do not believe I am spinning, twisting, equivocating, or obfuscating merely to make my case, to get Berkland on a technicality. That is why I present original reference sources, which includes several websites, including UBF links, and several books. Readers can assess for themselves these materials w/o my intereference. One weakness are quotes taken from memory, which are unavoidably isolated from the original context, not to mention paraprased.
When I left Berkland, it felt that it was me versus all the people I had left behind, including loved ones. For several years thereafter, I thought it over and over whether I was on the wrong side of fence. This is a really crappy way to spend your early twenties. Having taken that path alone, I hope you can see why I find it worthwhile telling others who are going through that same lonely path, that they are not alone with their thoughts, and given the evidence, their objections to Berkland are justified.
To Anonymous:
How dismissive you are, but I will not go to your level. You sit there anonymously observing, snickering, judging, undermining, condescending. How wicked is that? I am asking for maturity out of those personally attacking people by name. You call me a blabber mouth for it. I point to holes in an argument and you call me proud. I ask people to show forgiveness and you think it preachy. I tell you a certain bit of Berkland history from my perspective and you either correct my observation or think I'm showing off.
And yes I was close enough to Ed to know some of the things he was struggling with at the time. Though it was not said directly, it was easy to figure out. There were no such things as tiers back then.
What you have been saying to me has been interesting as I knew what you were trying to do. How could I then get offended? Obviously I must have offended you about something but really it wasn't meant to be personal even though you may have taken it as such as again, it was for the "Anonymous" crowd. And if you did say something positive, I can only say that what was directed towards me might be but I don't take it as such as again I'm doubting your sincerity. Come on slapping someone around and then giving them a hand to slap them some more can't really be scene as being a positive gesture, can it?
My annoying character trait is that I have a hard time swallowing something that doesn't sound right. You really haven't said much of anything good but just a bunch of negative reactions to what I point out. Again that's not my problem is it? I think I've never got into any Berkland discussion with you. How about a general Christian discussion? How about talking of Grace that can cover pain and hurt? Oh wait you're probably getting offended again. Have a good life Anonymous, hopefully I'll see you in heaven someday.
Jonathan Kang
Class of 93
Again, "blah, blah, blah."
Jonathan, reading in your comment your inability to see where you can be corrected made me pity you. Actual pity. Had you been kinder and more specific in your comments (we are not all the same, us exberkland posters and bloggers), I would have had compassion for you. But your disposition is one that truly annoys. It will be my task as a Christian to seek compassion even for you.
To Hamcycle,
Actually I understand what you went through after you left. The weird disconnect from a super busy Berkland schedule, to this sheer silence and abundance of time. Then there's the awkward meetings and the sense of failure.
Like many things you can learn from it and move on or stay stuck in it and stew. I think it does take a good amount of time to get back on your feet and get re-settled.
I don't like censoring, but I deleted a couple of posts. Keep the personal attacks out.
Write w/ the perspective that your posts are being read by students struggling w/ their Berkland experience.
Thanks, hamcycle. Whether he realizes it or not, you did Mr. Kang a favor.
I don't want to start another spat on this thread and, therefore, the interests of peace and harmony may require this post to be deleted.
Just reading the post at 8/27/2008 8:17 PM, I am stupefied. It is as if all of hamcycle's careful point-by-point response recently in this thread never happened or was erased from that poster's mind.
It saddens me more than it should.
So I am new to this thread -- couldn't help chiming in because I used to know Jonathan Kang '93 (it's good to see he's still a straight-shooter), and he knows who I am -- I choose, however, to remain anonymous because it is rather sensitive. I wouldn't mind letting Jonathan know who I am, but it's the other silent ones I worry about -- I just don't know you--or maybe I do. It suffices to say for now I used to attend the Berkeley church while it was still Berkland, and while Jonathan was there -- all three times :), until about 1997.
Throughout its history, Berkeley Berkland has had its critics -- the comments on this blog and others like it are nothing new. I am not particularly fond of the leadership style of the church, and in my experience there, as with any relationship, there have been ups and downs in how I related with my leaders and vice versa. But I must say, my life has changed for the better because of the people I met there (note I didn't say "because of Berkland"). Not all were helpful, but there were plenty that were. I cannot speak for what goes on now -- if anything, GP is trying its best to dissociate itself and erase any link that has to do with Berkland, to reinvent itself (Ed Kang seems to have decided the best way to do this is by smearing his shepherd, which is quite, quite unfortunate) -- but a lot of what I read in this blog and others like it about what goes on at GP sound awfully familiar.
I can vouch for everything Jonathan has said in this thread -- he's had his issues with the church, too, but I am glad to see that hasn't jaded his view, nor does he use the past to fuel his bitterness. It has been my experience that in any intimate/intense relationship, there's bound to be hurtful things said and done -- sometimes unintentionally, sometimes out of lack of foresight and wisdom. And yes, there have been gross failures on the part of its leadership, but the ones I do know of, including the few that Jonathan has brought up, tend to be "personal" failures and not "institutional." I'm not defending GP. It seems, however, people naively think (I used to) that the church should be "perfect," whatever that means.
Is GP a cult? No. Is it an atypical church? Sure. Is it the only church? Hardly. The people at GP take exceptional pride in their church, feeling like there's no other alternative out there for them. And that's understandable, but such sentiment has resulted in people being hurt. But then again, I have to ask, at how many other churches do its members feel strongly about their own church in a similar manner? Not many.
Anyway, my point is to not preach, but to say I agree with Jonathan on all points -- except the one about not being anonymous. My name may cause some additional hurt because I still know people at GP...
It's good to hear from you Jonathan -- perhaps our paths will cross. I hope they do.
Another Cal '93
Let me summarize our disagreements:
Berkland characteristics are within normative boundaries of a legitimate Christian church.
Its failures are not systematic and institutional, but personal and individual.
Berkland is not for everyone.
Note: Let us recognize the limitations of writing as a means of conveying thought. For example, take the phrase, "Berkland is not for everyone." This is a poorly expressed thought, an ambiguous thought. It means different things depending on who says it. It ignores the consequences and ramifications of such a thought, esp. in a church culture that regularly deems who is "fit" and "unfit." There are those who consciously exploit the weaknesses of language, and readily wield the tools of persuasion as a substitute for truth. There are also those who exploit this weakness subconciously. The motivations to uncover truth versus merely winning an argument is often blurred, exacerbated by lack of practice, ability, and/or laziness. I think it was Pascal who said that had he more time and energy, his writings would had been shorter. All writers need discipline and effort to overcome this weakness of language, and in this blog I think it is well worth exercising them.
I'm all tired now, after having expressed the paragraph above.
A legitimate church cannot expel members on grounds other than which is required by Biblical discipline. Berkland regularly sheds members that do not conform to its community rules, rules that are not derived from the Bible (point of debate A). By "shedding members," I mean leaders make it pleasant for those who conform to these rules, and unpleasant for those who do not, so much as to cause the latter to leave, even as they do not want to relinquish their relationships. This disparity in response is largely construed as a spiritual failing rather than an unwillingness to conform to human will (point of debate B).
Both points A and B are institutional failures.
Point A) All is well when the leaders pronounce Biblical directives, but there are times when what constitutes as "Biblical" is debatable. The institution gives too much power to the leader, such that the leader's will overrides debate, and substitutes as the direct will of God. Human will by committee assumes imperfection, but a pontiff's will does not. If Becky/Ed gives an unBiblical directive, you recognize it as failure of the individual, and dismiss its consequences as within the boundaries of permissible imperfection. False! The institution should have safeguards to protect the congregation from these lapses.
Point B) Do you not find it strange that Ed needs to keep reminding members year after year not to shun departing members? The same individual failures, year after year? Communal/tribal psychology is being seriously tapped by the leaders, and a lot of the members don't recognize it. The institution and its unspoken will communicated through sermon, directives, and culture engendered this behavior.
In spite of what I've written, I don't believe you are persuaded. You will rely on your gut feeling, and in it there is perhaps truth you are just not able to verbalize, substantiate with details, and share with others, and that's fine. Your gut feeling however can only satisfy yourself; as for me I would not be contented with that. I know that life can be very satisfying at Berkland, so I know what you mean by "better off." Alas, if I can only turn off my conscience like a switch, I too would be "better off."
Consider the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder in light of Becky JDSN's personality:
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
* Believing that you're better than others
* Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
* Exaggerating your achievements or talents
* Expecting constant praise and admiration
* Believing that you're special
* Failing to recognize other people's emotions and feelings
* Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
* Taking advantage of others
* Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
* Being jealous of others
* Believing that others are jealous of you
* Trouble keeping healthy relationships
* Setting unrealistic goals
* Being easily hurt and rejected
* Having a fragile self-esteem
* Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
Source: By Mayo Clinic on the following website:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms
David refused to lay a hand on Saul, even though the former would have been more than justified in vanquishing his foe. Why did he hesitate? Because David knew that Saul, no matter how evil, corrupt, and deranged he had become, was still God's anointed servant.
What I'm trying to say is that it is offensive for me to see Pastor Ed casually referred to as "Ed" or "Ed Kang," and Becky JDSN as "Becky" or "Becky Kim" in so many of these ex-Berklander blogs.
I have no affection for either Pastor Ed or Becky JDSN, and I fully acknowledge and testify that many of the horrific anecdotes posted on the various ex-Berklander blogs are sadly true. I lived through many rebuking sessions (either directed at me or my classmates, cell group mates, etc.) for eight years.
However, I don't have the audacity to refer to Pastor Ed or Becky JDSN as if they were my annoying little brother or my arrogant little niece.
They are God's anointed servants. As Christians, we should tremble before we refer to them with such blatant disrespect. Vengeance is the Lord's. He will deal with them in His time.
I pray that there will be healing once and for all for everyone who was harmed as a result of Berkland or Berklanders.
This is the core problem at hand, that Ed and Becky are regarded by their followers (and former followers) as God's surrogates, instead of people who merely serve a role along side their fellow Christians in the Body.
Are you asking that I salute the rank, not the man, or are you asking that I have a considered regard for these two, as being divinely blessed or assigned? One of Ed's main contentions against Becky was that she has a dangerous self-understanding of herself, as someone of special status. And yet the Apostles themselves in the book of Acts, with humility continually demonstrated themselves as ordinary men while spreading the Gospel.
Yes, Ed and Becky have a rare combination of gifts, and they have committed their lives to putting them to use in God's name. They've also made non-negligible mistakes in executing the Church, which made me believe that they weren't necessarily of God, acting of their own will, or at least deviating from their path.
Your offense at my not using the proper title aside their names is just a residual sensibility from your eight years.
"They are God's anointed servants. As Christians, we should tremble before we refer to them with such blatant disrespect. Vengeance is the Lord's. He will deal with them in His time."
Wow, I cannot disagree with this comment more. First of all, they are not God's "anointed." In the bible God's anointed refers either to the King of Israel, or the King of Kings. In the Old Testament it was understood to mean King Saul, David, Solomon etc. because they were anointed with oil by the High Priest (in the case of Saul and David, by Samuel the Prophet). But the anointing with oil was nothing without the inner anointing with the Holy Spirit.
Here's a JOYLand lesson for you folks... what are the fruits of the Spirit? "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23) By their fruits we will know them. Based on what I know from interpersonal contact with the Berkland leadership, I would say that they are NOT Spirit anointed. They depend on legalism and human effort to build up the church.
In fact in James 3:1 it says "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." A false teacher, or a teacher who teaches error, or a selfish, arrogant teacher is going to be judged more harshly by God than anyone who doesn't presume to take up the role of teacher.
The Apostle Paul didn't hesitate to mock whom he called the "super-apostles,' he knew that their teachings were not orthodox, and that they were only interested in ministry for self-promotion. I think there is a healthy discipline of discernment when it comes to calling out teachers when they are in error.
Wow, I haven't visited this blog in a long time. To see somebody post offense at not referring to Ed and Becky with their respective titles was a shock.
Are you kidding me?
Are you shocked everytime you hear a sermon or commentary and the speaker/writer refers to "Paul" and not "APOSTLE Paul"?
That we should be so consumed with honoring people with stupid, self-imposed titles --- now, THAT'S offensive.
Ed, Becky, Kelly, Paul. There, I said it.
These 4 people have ruined MANY lives because of the "Pastor" and (very Korean, mind you) SMN, JDSN titles.
HOW DO THESE NAMES WORK FOR YOU:
- IDIOT
- FOOL
- STUPID
- UNSAVED
- INGRATE
- STUMBLER
- PRINCESS
- EVIL
- SATAN
AMONG THE MANY NAMES ED, KELLY, BECKY, Y.B., ANDY, GRACE, SALLY, CHRIS, STEPHEN, ELLEN, PETER, EUNICE ET AL HAVE USED ON THEIR SHEEP.
Post a Comment