Friday, March 06, 2009

Dissecting Ed's Brain
  1. Spiritual Fodder
  2. Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?
  3. Role of Women in Ministry
  4. Then What's a Good Church?
  5. Why So Quiet?
  6. Becky's UBF Roots
  7. The Letter
  8. Dissecting Ed's Brain
  9. Shepherding/Discipleship Movement
  10. Exit Strategy
  11. Moving On
http://podcast.berkmedia.org/TruthHaters-07.17.09.mp3

...fine for one dollar per person who walks in from now on from their MYT instructor. [congregation murmurs] So, alright. Sophia, what class were you in? [congregation laughs] Alright, no she was...there is nothing wrong with her instructor. She was fine--okay um--because it was me. We ended at eight twenty.

Okay, so let's look at the passages. Well before we look at the passages let's review a little bit what we covered last week. We covered "Seeking Truth About Ourselves", right, and we had that little technical problem where I didn't have this nifty tablet and we had the chalkboard and so I just wanted to do that diagram again. I remember the Truth Project...it's about truth or reality...you know, that pernicious lie verses God's Truth, that we've been covering in the Truth Project and then it's either lies or illusion, right, and so here we are and there's this pull towards truth or there's a pull towards the lies and the truth is that I'm a sinner, that I'm broken, that I'm not all that, whatever that means, just trying to connect with the youth here. And then this is different versions of "I'm okay," "I'm not bad," "I'm pretty cool," "I'm pretty smart," "I'm pretty good," and it's pride that leads us down this path and it's humility that leads us toward embracing the truth about ourselves and there is a tremendous pull towards pride and towards lies because of course we like to feel good about ourselves and if that desire, that feeling, that NEED almost, to have a positive self regard, to feel good about ourselves, starts to take over then we will resist evidence because you know from our world and from our experience, if we're fair and if we adopt the evidence that comes it will lead us to this conclusion, but in order to get to this conclusion we need to close off our access to this evidence. People could be telling us things, setbacks can happen, and when we don't get a good grade, it's not our problem; it's the professor's fault or because I've procrastinated or it's because I had a bad week; it's when we've treated someone, when we look back at our life and there's just a string of stormy and broken relationships, or we feel hurt, or anger, or bitter about a bunch of people. We don't say that it's my problem it's because it's that person that person that person and so we need to go this way through all the things we've talked about in this message series: blame, victim posturing, rationalization, all ways to deflect reality, all ways to not seek the truth about ourselves, but to deflect and resist and reject truth from reality and when we do this we miss a lot of reality, we grow disconnected with reality, and we keep living in this cloudy, illusory world and increasingly people are not going to be able to relate to us, we're not going to be able to relate to people, we're going to float in isolation.

Well, if you...through the wonderful grace of humility, if you say, "Forget the need to feel special about myself, who am I really?" and you seek truth, you're going to have to get humble. And you move toward the truth about yourself through honesty. Because if you reject the prideful notions, if you reject the ideas to feel prideful about yourselves, no matter what the cost, then you will become honest and you will engage in this wonderful thing that the Bible calls "confession" and then you will be open to reality and you will be open to feedback and you won't run away from life, you won't run away from the world b/c it gives you valuable feedback. And you start to look at what all of this testifies about you and it's not a pretty picture--what is a true picture--which then drives us to the Cross and God gives us the Grace and a whole new way of thinking about ourselves b/c if we cannot think about ourselves in this way then that's Death. But no, through the Cross of Jesus, we can think about ourselves, we can embrace the truth about ourselves, and yet it's not devastating b/c we have the Good News that God loves us, that we are His child[ren], that the blood of Jesus covers us from all of our sinsb and further that He commissions us to a wonderful work of spreading His love and embodying the beautiful Gospel in our lives, so that we can be a blessing to other people. and it's a really thrilling way to live and think about ourselves.

So that was last week when we're thinking about seeking the truth about ourselves. Now I want to talk about seeking truth ABOUT others and seeking truth FROM others. Big part of our source, huge source of truth, is through other people. The truth about your weight--you don't need other people--you just need a scale. The other day I weighed in at 190. [murmur congregation laughs] And that was not far from my response. I should have been horrified but I wasn't at all. I thought, "Wow, that's a lot more of me than I thought." [congregation laughs] So if we are to be a people who seek truth about really the profound or the more interesting things about ourselves, not things about our weight or our height or things like that, you can just look at that on your own, but what sort of person am I, am I a kind person, am I a patient person, am I a compassion person, am I a loyal person, what sort of person am I? A big part of that is through other people. Big part of that is by bouncing off of other people through series of relationships that are reliable relationships. In other words, they're not fake relationships. Remember the movie "Truman"...was that the name of the movie, "Truman?"..."The Truman Show," I felt that wasn't quite right, "The Truman Show," now that makes sense. If you guys seen "The Truman Show" the whole thing I mean he's got a lot of relationships right and his wife is supposed to be like this loving wife and she constantly holds up these cans of soup and saying "I'm serving you this soup today!" and it's product placement and the whole thing strikes him as a little bit odd. Well, Truman cannot gain reliable information about himself through people like that. He can gain reliable information about himself through FAITHFUL relationships. If people are hired actors to act like your wife, to act like your college buddy, to act like your frat friend, whatever, then of course the kind of picture you get becomes grotesquely distorted. So we need to seek those kinds of relationships.

So now let's look at our text. 2 Timothy 4: 1-5. This will be the DT text for next week. So let's read this together in unison. The brothers and sisters will take turns, and next time let's kind of try to mix it up. This is kind of odd that 80% of the brothers are here and 80% of the sisters are here so, I think it will really be pronounced when we start reading this, like a stereo effect. [congregation lightly laughs] The brothers start. Ready, begin:

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

Okay, Apostle Paul, with a sudden seriousness, he says "In the presence of God..I give you this charge: preach the Word...in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction." Now these are the words that describe how these "others" are to relate to you in your quest to seek truth about yourself. It's the truth about yourself...I put "tooth" *chuckle*...how do they deliver this truth? Is it through compliments and cheering you on? Is it through telling you how cute and special and wonderful you are? Is it going to be through that kind of speech, that kind of relating with you? [addressing back door] I'm sorry, can we close that door? Because you don't see it but I keep seeing people pass by, people violating traffic laws out there...it's really distracting. The side doors can remain open, because I can't see out through those doors. [returning to sermon] It's not gonna be except on rare occasions. On rare occasions you are something really special. Most likely there's going to be a whole array of feedback that you're going to get that tells you about yourself.

Now we already know something, as Biblical people, that we are sinners. Are we sinners? Shall we sing "Amazing Grace" just to remind ourselves? "...saved a WRETCH like me?" Right, let's not have rhetoric at one level and then in our feelings feel something entirely differently. We are sinners. What do sinners do, everybody? Sinners...SIN! Well if you are a sinner and you sin and you seek reality about yourself through other people, often if those other people are gonna actually tell you the truth, it's gonna sound like this...it's gonna sound like correction, rebuking, encouraging. Two out of three is going to be negative stuff; unpleasant stuff: "You're not doing that right." "No no don't do it this way; do it this way." " Why do you treat people this way. That was rude. Did you know that you completely disregarded what that person said during that time?" "No, I didn't know I did that." "Yeah well you did; you acted like that person wasn't there; did you know you interrupted him and you just went on and on; did you know that?" "No I didn't know that." "Well you did and that was very embarrassing when someone tells you something like that." And then you might said, "Gosh well I'm sorry" and then the person may further say, "I want to say this as gently as I can, but you know, you do that..QUITE A LOT." "*gasp* What, I do?" "Yeah, you do." That's what a correction feels like.

Now what a rebuke feels like is, at this point you go, "I don't and so what if I do...what about you?!" And then the person you're talking to goes, "You have a bad attitude. Now listen because what I'm telling you truth. You need to change. Look at your wrecked relationships. How long are you going to go like this?" That's what a rebuke feels like, just in case you haven't been rebuked. [congregation laughs] And then you come to your senses and you say, *mumble*.

So okay: correct, rebuke, and encourage. "...with great patience and careful instruction, for the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but instead suit their own..." What? "...to suit their own DESIRES." "To suit their own desires." "They will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." Now what do I want to hear? You know I'm very clear what I want to hear. I want to hear "Pastor Ed, you're the best! You are the best pastor in the world! In fact, your teaching is so profound I think it should be published! In fact overall I think you're the swellest human being I've ever met." That's what I want to hear, it's just that it would grate on my ears because I know you would be lying to me and I would have to rebuke you for your lack of truthfulness. [congregation laughter] But what is our ultimate desire...our desire is just ??? our desires is just childish. Our desire is to be in that infantile position quite regardless of what the truth of the matter is we're constantly being told that we're cute and so smart and so much better than our siblings and our friends and that's just not reality. so they're not seeking reality. They are seeking what? They are seeking to fulfill their desires. their desires for what? Their desires for ego satisfaction. and so what will they do? Apostle Paul says a time will come when they're not gonna put up with instruction, they're not gonna put up with correction, they're not gonna put up with truth, they won't seek truth, they won't welcome truth, they'll reject reality, and they'll relativize reality, and they'll say, "Whose reality?" and it'll all become an issue of power, your reality versus my reality, and everybody will be in their privatized reality and they will seek co-conspirators, they will seek people who will agree with them about their reality, and those would be their friends, and they will gather around themselves people who will basically tell them what they want to hear, and that will be utterly tragic for that to happen to any of us. And yet inside of our hearts, in our desire structures, and in the subtle way in which we open our ears to certain voices, we fall prey to this all the time. We need to cultivate a hunger for truth. We need to cultivate a hatred for fakeness, toward things that will make me feel good but are not true because ultimately if they are not true, they are going to harm you. You're swallowing poison that's going to be time-release poison. And it will get you five years, ten years later. And your life will be demolished. You want truth. You want to seek truth.

Lot of truth about you, it's going to come from other people. What kind of other people? Prophetic people. People like Timothy that Apostle Paul is encouraging him to be. Do you seek people like that? Do you welcome people like that? Do you seek feedback about yourself, or do you just want to be told what you want to hear? Why bother, just tell yourself that. Well yeah that doesn't feel as good, so you want to manipulate other people. And you feel so bad because "Somebody told me I was dumb," just so you can hear your roommate say, "You're not dumb...you're stupid--" No... [congregation laughs] "You're not dumb--who says you're dumb? You're smart." "Oh gee, you really think so?" I just did a really tacky version of that, but you're all much better than that of getting people to say what you want to hear. What do you do when you're in trouble? You go seek counsel from people who are hand selected to verify and affirm what you want to hear. So many of you...how many of you, you're one of these people, you would agree with this statement, either somewhat agree or strongly agree with this statement: I am one of the people my friends come to when they want counsel, when they want advice? How many of you would agree that you're that person? Just be honest. None of you? You have no influence among your friends? Oh my gosh, I'm aghast. I used to be that guy. People would always come to me. How many of you, you're one of these people who, you just don't feel safe enough to answer this question you feel I'm going to pounce on you okay fair enough b/c I WAS going to pounce on you. You need to think about, "Is what I'm telling them true or am I telling them what they want to hear b/c I have high EQ I can sense what they want me to say so that I can provide them soothing?" What motivates you? Think about it.

Jesus talked about how the blind leading the blind; they both fall into a ditch. It is a thing that you should take much care if you are going to advice somebody and let me just be very straight with you, if somebody comes straight to you b/c their spiritual leader scolded them about something, challenged them about something, and you go, "Nah, you're not like that, they don't know you," or you don't say he doesn't know you b/c that might be a directly confrontational so you say "Oh really? I don't know why he said that, b/c you're not like that," and deep down inside you kind of feel like, "He IS like that." You have just classically acted the part of the false prophet. Don't do that. Have moral fiber to say, "Well, I don't know, you should just think about it," *chuckle* AT LEAST say that. Do not undermine the work of God in someone's life. Do not undermine the truth causing someone a little bit of beneficial hurt. Don't be a bleeding heart person who simply cares about emotional comfort. God's Word is eloquent about that. Go to Jeremiah 6. All of you counselors, let's read this together, verse 13 and 14:

13 "From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit.

14 They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace.

They dress the wound of my, they put a Band-Aid on a wound and say, "Peace peace, it's okay." when there is no peace, and God is really frustrated by that. Do not, please, I know how easy it is. I know how tempting it is, I know how instinctive it is to do that. But as Christian brothers and as Christian sisters, this kind of false comfort and false peace is something we must not offer to our friends. Teenagers! Listen carefully because this is what teens do. You undermine people who try to shape your friends. Don't do that. Don't do that. If you can't be the source of truth, don't come in there and try to undermine the truth from landing on a heart that's gonna have a hard time receiving truth anyways, b/c we resist truth. So we need all the help we can get from our friends. 'kay, be very careful about that.

Now, going back to, "...number of teachers say what their itching ears want to hear." This next story is really funny so I wanted to just read it together. It's going to come up this Sunday too in our worship service time. I just excerpted it in order to get the passages all fit on one page but you can read the whole chapter if you'd like (1 Kings 22):

1 For three years there was no war between Aram and Israel. 2 But in the third year Jehoshaphat king of Judah went down to see the king of Israel. 3 The king of Israel had said to his officials, "Don't you know that Ramoth Gilead belongs to us and yet we are doing nothing to retake it from the king of Aram?" 4 So he asked Jehoshaphat, "Will you go with me to fight against Ramoth Gilead?" Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses." 5 But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, "First seek the counsel of the LORD." 6 So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, "Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?" "Go," they answered, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand." 7 But Jehoshaphat asked, "Is there not a prophet of the LORD here whom we can inquire of?"

In other words, Ahab had 400 prophets, 400 non-genuine prophets. Jehoshaphat recognized they were not, and so he's saying, "Okay come on is there a real prophet?" And the King of Israel's response is so funny:

8 The king of Israel answered Jehoshaphat, "There is still one man through whom we can inquire of the LORD, but I hate him because he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad. He is Micaiah son of Imlah." "The king should not say that," Jehoshaphat replied. 9 So the king of Israel called one of his officials and said, "Bring Micaiah son of Imlah at once." 10 Dressed in their royal robes, the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah were sitting on their thrones at the threshing floor by the entrance of the gate of Samaria, with all the prophets prophesying before them. 11 Now Zedekiah son of Kenaanah had made iron horns and he declared, "This is what the LORD says: 'With these you will gore the Arameans until they are destroyed.' " 12 All the other prophets were prophesying the same thing. "Attack Ramoth Gilead and be victorious," they said, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."

And then we skip five verses.

17 Then Micaiah answered, "I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, 'These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.' " 18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?"

And if you read the whole chapter, Ahab now has Micaiah imprisoned and says, "I'll deal with you when I come back," but he never comes back because he dies in battle. This picture of Ahab the King of Israel surrounding himself with 400 prophets and he makes them prophesy, "Shall I go, fellas?" And these guys know, they have high EQ, these guys know that he wants to go and take back Ramoth Gilead. So they go, "Go, you go king!" And then he listens to them and goes, "That's right, God is predicting success." It's like madness, right? It's folly. Isn't that foolish? You choose people because you know what they're going to say to go for what you already want to go for and then you pretend that you're actually listening to them at the edge of your seat, and they say, "You go do it, what's wrong with it? There's nothing wrong with it--go for it." And then you say, "Really? You really think so?" And they go, "Yeah." And you say, "Alright then if you say so." Like that's crazy, right? We're all crazy, aren't we? Haven't we done stuff like that?

Are we not truth haters? Are we truth seekers? And then when somebody says something, and says, "No, don't do that; you can't have that. You can't do that." God has given you boundaries, and you say, "Arrest that man. Put him in prison. False prophet." What's governing? Not the truth. It's not truth, it's desires. It's your desires. And every prophet needs to go through the filter of your desires before you'll accept what they say.

I want to show you a very powerful video that I saw today and then we'll resume the message. Let's play that video.

[video plays]

That's a powerful song, powerful video, about which much can be said, but b/c I saw it today I thought maybe we should save this for another time then I thought "No, because one thing I was thinking about this guy is, how alone he is dealing with all of this. And you know...how many steps it takes, how many days it takes...it's a slow fade. People don't crumble in a day. So be careful what you say, be careful what you hear. Thoughts become choices, which becomes actions. People don't crumble in a day. It's a slow fade; and in that slow fade, if they're people that can shake him up, who he's talking to, who he's sharing with, who he's confessing to, if they're people, when the Word of God, when you're reading it on your own, you're so clouded by your desires and your lusts that nothing comes through and then somebody looks at you in the eye and rebukes you. Then he could be arrested.

I was talking to somebody last Sunday, who was telling me about a very very gifted, very very accomplished, scholarly pastor who was working for a mega-church and started his own church and he's frustrated that people don't seem to change. He said, "Good preaching doesn't seem to change people." This guy has two Ph.D's...one in clinical psychology and one in theology. "People don't seem to change." And so how will your church be different? And his idea was...it was an odd idea, that he was going to have people meditate deeply on passages of Scripture, boil it down to one word and share that one word with other people in a prayerful, meditative kind of way. It's part of medieval monastic spirituality called "Lexio Divina" and it's a tool for reflection and maybe it works for some people, and my friend told him, "That seems very elitist because for you to read a bunch of Scripture and to be able to sense your way toward one word and to be able to share that one word that doesn't seem practical," and then he said, "No no no it transforms people's lives." And I thought, "You know what, what transforms people's lives is the Word of God applied in relationships and community in a context of authority and fellowship. In a context of authority and fellowship." Ahab had that chance, he had fellowship with Jehosephat. "Hey man, let's listen to a prophet." You know two buddies, two fellow kings about to go to war. And then Micaiah comes and gives an authoritative and prophetic word.

To have people speaking the truth in your life is the greatest blessing to have people, unafraid to shake you up, unafraid to lose the relationship, to put everything on the line, people who have built credibility with you because of the exemplary nature of their Christian commitment and who will come at you, not with a personal whim, not with personal grievance against you, but who'll come at you with the authority of God's Word and say, "As far as I know God's Word, here's where you're going wrong. Here's where you need to repent. Here's what you're like and I want you to grow up." To have people like that in your life is a HUGE blessing. Pity the man who needs to go through all of that all by himself, who's only got a really good song and a music video to help him.

So I want to talk about these "others." Who are these "others" for you? Who are these people who are able to speak truth in your life, and give you honest feedback, proper doctrine, patient instruction, and if the need arises, correction and rebuke? Who are these people; do you have them in your life? And if you have them and God has placed these kinds of people in your life, do you regard them as such? Do you regard them as such? Because nobody has authority over you unless you grant them that authority. Nobody has authority over you. You are totally free. You GRANT that authority to that person. Do you have people in your life to whom you've given that authority. Sometimes that authority could be your peers. You say, "You guys, if I ever act in a way that's unspiritual, that's not God honoring, you confront me." That's how I define a good friend. To me a good friend is not somebody who affirms me in my sin. So you confront me so you can confer that authority on your friends. And in so doing elevate your friendship. And of course you could confer that kind of authority on your leaders instead of playing "us versus them" kind of games, and if you do so you can be a blessed person.

I thought about who these "others" are, whether we have them or not, and these others are the many many sources of truth that, whether we recognize them as reliable sources or not, they're shouting into our ears and they're flooding our minds. I'm talking about TV, movies, Internet, your friends' faces, Facebooks, AND their faces, friends, you know the real profound things they say on their Facebooks, professors, your extended family, who all say, "We all live like this, what's the matter with you, what's the matter w/ the people at your church you guys are strange." All of these people together, and you might not grant authority to many of them but BOY do they outnumber the voices that lead you to holiness and to God honoring truthful doctrine and instruction. I mean we're grossly outnumbered. So you need to be very intentional, very focused.

On granting the word of God authority and granting prophetic people in your life authoritative position to speak into your life so that the pull towards illusion, pull towards the lies, can be arrested.

[omission of reference to Sandra Tsing Loh's article, "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off," found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce]

I don't necessarily recommend that you get the whole article and read it. The substance of it is here actually, in case you're curious about the entire article, it's much longer. I don't recommend it but just in case you think I recommend the article.

I just wanted to show you the operation of what our verse about "...to suit their own desires they'll gather around themselves any number of teachers who'll tell them what their itching ears want to hear." She's doing this to herself obviously. But what kind of teacher is she? Whether you would read something like this, to pick up a magazine called "The Week," which is a very very well known magazine; it's an excellent excellent publication, whether or not you do so, you better believe it, she is one of the culture makers and opinion shapers of our society. And her tone and her thinking process and her use of rhetoric it really is quite typical of people who do this sort of thing. And I just want to point out if these "others" that speak truth to you, these are people like...or other non-Christians, you're in serious trouble. You are not going to get valid truth from these people. Non-Christians start on a HUGE fallacy, that there is no God. And as far as the Bible is concerned, they are simply wrong. It's like adding up all these numbers there's like this gigantic number and they say "It's not there" and then they draw the line they give you the answer, well that's wrong. That's not going to be the right answer. If you consult non-Christian sources about important decisions about right and wrong, about values and choices, you're King Ahab. You're described in 2 Timothy 4. I mean if you are a Christian, at least let's have enough respect to seek Christian advice.

And I say this because I heard something disturbing this week about somebody who is talking to their non-Christian GSI about stuff, about our church, and then we ended up meeting that GSI and said, "Hey I have an undergrad who told me this and this and that about your church," and I thought, "Oh my." Anyway, we're reaching out that GSI so...So [Loh] she's really clever, right? Good writer, yes? Ability to talk to you as a writer with a voice of intimacy so you feel like you're kind of getting into her confidence; you almost feel like you're chummy chummy with her? This is the artistry of a good writer. She gives you just enough self deprecating things so you feel like she's an old friend confiding what's going on and yet there's a serpent's hiss in this piece of writing.

She said, "Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing." So now we feel sympathetic. "This was a 20-year partnership my husband is a good man but he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47 year old woman whose commitment to monogamy at the very end came unglued." "It came unglued." You read later she dissolved it. She had an affair, and at her counselor's office she decided she wasn't going to try to mend the relationship. Her husband was good enough, it seems like, to try it, to try counseling; she said no, she said she couldn't.

And yet in the first paragraph she speaks of it in an entirely passive voice: "My commitment to monogamy came unglued." It's sort of like saying, "You know my commitment to capitalism became disoriented as I saw the ravages of environmental damage that our corporations are doing." It's almost like that kind of sentence. "My commitment to monogamy..." it's like this institution. You know she should have said, "My promise to my husband and my children became unglued." No, "I broke my promise, I trashed my covenant, I chose to act utterly selfishly...for my flesh." No it's a very understandable, "My commitment to monogamy at the very end became unglued." It's sort of like, "Boy let's see how long in the end you know what there's this thing called monogamy and there's this thing called 'my commitment' to it, and in the end, oh my commitment to it became unglued. It's such a sinisterly false way to characterize this but if you just swallow this then you're like "Oh dear, how did your commitment become unglued? Tell me more." Well she says she's "cataclysmically changed" by her affair and disclosed everything. "We cried and rent our hair, bewailed the fate of our children." So it seems like, something happened. Something happened to me. and so we cry. Suddenly she's not the perpetrator. She and her husband together bemoaning the fate of our children, it almost seems like some third party did something to them, something happened, an earthquake happened, the house burnt down. Something happened so we together cried and bemoaned the fate of our children. The whole time she is not confronting the fact that she's doing this. that she has done it. That she's the one dissolving the marriage. Do you see that? Do you see how subtly she's doing this, through the use of passive voice and talking about "we"?

And then after gaining our sympathy like that she slips in the fact that "5 o'clock counseling appointment as the golden late-afternoon sunlight spilled over the wall of Balinese masks--when given the final choice by our long time family therapist who stands in as our shaman, mother, or priest, I realized...no. Heart-shattering as this moment was--a gravestone sunk down on two decades of history--I would not be able to replace the romantic memory of my fellow transgessor with a more suitable image of my husband, which is what it would take in modern therapy terms to knit our domestic family construct back together. In woman's magazine parlance, I did not have the strength to "work on" falling in love again in my marriage."

I underline the expression "I realized...no." It's a realization, she says, that in the counseling office at 5 o'clock w/ the afternoon sun, she realized something. Well realization is a great thing when you realize something. Oh gosh I didn't realize well now I realize. She realized, "No." It's like she doesn't have a choice in the matter. She didn't choose no, she just needed to understand what the answer was. And as she's trying to understand it through her shaman, her mother and priest--this counselor--she REALIZED what the answer was. She realized the answer was no. Do you see how she's shirking responsibility something that is squarely her choice. She didn't "realize" no, she "decided" no. But, I "realized" no. And then she says, "Heart shattering this moment was"--yeah right, to convince us--"a gravestone sunk down on two decades of history, I would not be able to replace the romantic memory of my fellow transgessor with a more suitable image of..." well she's putting "romantic" versus "suitable" it would be a more suitable thing, my husband's a good man and it's a more suitable image to him being my target of romance but I just couldn't do it. "The romantic image of my fellow transgressor"-- that means the person she had the affair with. My counselor told me I needed to replace that my feelings for my fellow transgressor with a more suitable image, so it's an image trick. If i could just get the face to change in my fantasies, to the face of my suitable husband but I would not be able to do it. HOW DOES SHE KNOW she would not be able to do it? It just happens that she spilled the beans and told all, they're in counseling, and she says I would not be able to do it. It's not an issue of ability, is it? it's an issue of her choice. She's unwilling to do it. How do you know you're not willing to. But she just says it like that, I would not be able to. No, you chose not to and ultimately you got the divorce. And now she's reporting from her U-Haul trailer, which is another publicity stunt of hers, so that she could...anyways...so she moved out and she's reporting from her old trailer so she can kind of...this exhibitionist, voyeuristic world in which we live in, she's reporting every little thing about her conversations with her friends and everything about her divorce. Anyway...

And so and then she says, "I'm not against work because during that counseling session what else came up is that I'm willing to do all the work, I'm willing to do everything I'm doing right now as a mother. I can do all of that. "What I cannot AUTHENTICALLY," she says, in that paragraph which is to say "work" at a career, child care, and joint home ownership, "however in this cluttered forest of my forties"--whatever that's supposed to mean but it's supposed to justify what she's going to say next is--"what I cannot authentically reconjure is the ancient dreams of brides." You know all she needs to do is be not so selfish and commit to her marriage. She puts it as I could not authentically. so now it's a quest for authenticity. Since I care about authenticity I could not authentically rekindle--what did she say--"reconjure the ancient dream of brides." Well I mean she calls this basic marital covenant that brides do "until death do us part," she dismissively calls it "the ancient dream of brides" and those are silly people, idealistic people. And in my cluttered forties, eh, I know I couldn't do that b/c I'm an authentic person. What's going on here? Let's look at this diagram again.

She's committed to this: "I'm not bad," "I'm okay," "I'm smart," "I'm good." Because she's proud. So she rationalizes, she victim postures, in "the cluttered forest of my forties." She does all of these mental gymnastics to justify that she's pretty good, she's normal. Hey, just couldn't do it, b/c all that stuff is the "ancient dream of brides."

And then she says, "Given my staggering working mother's to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home and self improvement project that are rekindling of our romance." So again, blame. "Given my STAGGERING working mother's to-do list you can't expect me to take on ANOTHER self improvement project that are rekindling of our romance," blaming her busy schedule and so forth. And then she says, "Sobered by this failure as a mother--which is to say my failure as a wife--I've since began a journey of reading thinking and listening of what's going on in other 21st century families. And along the way I began to wonder with all the abject and swallowed misery: Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure it made sense in agrarian families before 1900 in order to farm the land you needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white collar work and washing machines and our life expectancy shot up from 47 to 77, isn't the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?" Now this is astounding. When a people have lost the ability to feel ashamed, they have lost the last shreds of human dignity. This woman should be ashamed. Her children attend school in San Francisco. Her very unique name is known. Shouldn't she ought to just shut up? Shouldn't she just write about the Dalai Lama? Why is she writing about this? And she says "sobered by my failure," Well if you're sobered by your failure then try to undo the consequences of that failure. Try to reflect on that failure, try to repent for that failure. But no. For exhibitionistic people like this, the failure itself is to be shared w/ everybody, except on HER terms. Now she's sobered by her failure instead of learning where she went wrong, what don't I understand about lifelong covenant? What don't I understand about lifelong promises? What is wrong w/ my waywardliness that I commited an affair in secret obviously and finally I had to spill the beans and break the hearts of my children? She says "sobered by my affair," she started to read and look at how miserable other people were. And then she says, based on her experience, the whole world needs to morph based on HER experience she rejects all of this and everyone needs to believe this lie. "B/c I failed in my marriage, marriage must be obsolete. Why do we hold on to it?" She's like a person addicted to drugs who wants everyone else addicted so she can feel less shameful. And yet she doesn't come across that way. she comes across as smart and funny, sophisticated. And then she goes, "I sense you picking up the first stone to hurl," which is a very very shrewd rhetorical move b/c the people who would say "What?" are people just like me who would know the Bible. And suddenly she has casted me in the role of the Pharisees ready to cast the stone and she's the innocent one. And then she looks at this reaction in a mocking way, "...you know western Europeans aren't like this. Americans are the only weirdos who still believe in monogamy like we do."

And then I skipped a whole bunch of things where she talks about her friends, and Rachel since her own home fires seem to roar so warmly Rachel now wants to get a divorce as Rachel's husband Ian is this shelf builder and a cook and everything, always complaining how she's doing everything wrong. And then she closes with this book, "Why Him? Why Her?" This marriage researcher [Helen] Fisher gets an unsubstantiated idea of certain hormonal things and through that characterizes personality traits: Explorer, Builder, Director, and Negotiator. And after reading the book and discussing it, Ellen, one of her friends, slapping the book last paragraph saying, "This is why my marriage has been dead for 15 years. I'm an 'explorer' married to a 'builder'!" Ron, Ellen's husband, literally is a builder, like Ian, crafts wonderful shelves and also of course cooks. But what can Ellen do? Explorer/explorer tends to become the most unstable combinations whereas Fisher suspects most of the world's 50 year marriages are made by builders who marry other builders. so the problem is that she's an "explorer" and her friend Ellen the problem that their marriage has been "dead" for 15 years is not b/c they're immature people or any of these characters she goes "No, it's a personality type don't you know it traces back to when you are a fetus when you're in your mother's womb where you're bathed with either dopamine or serotonin whatever hormone it was or neurotransmitter it was." And so THAT'S the problem. and then most insulting of all, all the 50 year marriages in the world, it's not their virtue, it's not their patience, it's not the maturity of the parties involved, it's not the Grace of God, it's none of those things. It's just that boring builders marry other boring builders.

This is how the world beautifies sin, justifies transgression, and paints virtuous people as bores. And I can go on and on critiquing this piece w/ you, but if you've got someone this clever talking to you about your life, there is a serious problem. A serious problem.

Notice the warning about false teachers. In today's DT's, it says "weak willed women" yesterday's "control over weak willed women who are loaded down with sin and swayed by all kinds of evil desires always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth." These false teachers they say they kind of worm their way into people's homes and "gain control over weak willed women who are loaded down with sin and swayed by all kinds of evil desires," and I thought, "Man, weak willed, loaded down with sin, swayed by all kinds of evil desires, why is Apostle Paul picking on women?" I mean, guys are just like this too: "Weak willed, loaded down with all sorts of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth, loaded down with sins, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth." The truth, the truth. B/c to acknowlege the truth means to take ownership, it would mean she couldn't write something like that. It would mean a lot of hard work which she says quite frankly in "the cluttered forest of my forties I'm just not able to do it." Not able to acknowledge the truth.

So Apostle Paul goes on these men who oppose the truth these men of depraved mind and then against all that his exhortation to Timothy is, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and become convinced of, b/c you know those from whom you learned it." "Continue in what you have learned and become convinced of, b/c you know those from whom you have learned it." Spiritual truths are not disembodied truths like chemistry, it doesn't matter from whom you've learned it as long as you learn good chemistry, you can use it in the lab. Christian truth, it always comes through people. REMEMBER those people. Remember my chains, Apostle Paul says. And then continue in. And he talks about scripture verse 16: "God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so that the Man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." So what kind of voices are you listening to, what kind of people are you listening to? Do you read cheap novels, do you watch romantic comedies, and giggle away and think how funny and nice it would be if you ran into some dashing guy b/c your luggage got mixed up at Heathrow Airport and he's nice enough to bring it to your hotel and you have significant glances exchanging and you end up at the same conference don't you know and you just...stop it. [congregation laughs] Get a hold of yourself. Don't feed yourself that kind of stuff.

Truth is precious. We need to hunger for it. We need to seek it. And we need to guard our minds and hearts against these types of subtle lies that come at us. Well, we're supposed to do it through God's word, as we just read in 2 Timothy 3. We're supposed to do it with fellowship w/ one another. Hebrews 3: this is the beauty and power of the church. "See to it brothers..." This is the second to the last in the handout. "See to it brothers that none of you have a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God, but encourage one another daily as long as it is called today so that none of you will be hardened by sin's deceitfulness." Sin lies. Sin is deceitful. It says, "Do it daily." But encourage one another DAILY. Encourage one another daily...for what? So that none of you have a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. This is the standard for Christian fellowship. Keep watch over one another.

James 5: "My brothers, if one of you wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: whoever turns a sinner from the errors of his ways will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins." What a wonderful ministry this is. This is what we're supposed to be about. For one another. B/c we're sinners, living in a sinful world, full of high class, sophisticated, clever deceit like this. but w/ the Word of God, and when we watch over one another, we can break through the illusion, we can break through the lies, affirm God's truth, cling to the Cross, and experience genuine authenticity, and genuine strength that comes from an authentic, humble life.

Okay, let's pray:

why don't you think about the message a little bit. Consider what kind of counselor you've been, what kind of friend you've been, what kind of source of truth to others you've been. Consider also your habitual sources that you seek out when you want some truth in your life. Consider the issue of authority in whom you've given authority to speak it to your life. Consider the role of God's word in your life. And as you think about these things, let's just pray that we become people who HUNGER for the truth, people who know how to speak truth to other people's lives, and people who know HOW to find the right voices to speak truth into our lives. Let's pray along those lines.

Father, in this whole cosmic battle between truth and lies, a battle which goes through our own hearts, oh Lord help us to treasure the truth, seek reality, to have a keen discernment, toward lies above all the subtle ways in which we lie to ourselves, and Lord help us to be people who treasure your Word and treasure the prophets in our lives. Oh Lord help us to watch over one another, so that we would be equipped as a group of Christian brothers and sisters that we would be equipped to be a community of authenticity that the world so longs for. In Jesus's name we pray, Amen.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

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

I know this post is one of the older ones, but I feel obligated to post some facts I've experienced or gathered, specifically about Kelly Kang that I believe were an abuse of her power and authority, and have harmed people. And I believe this is the post appropriate of the posts that hamcycle has written.

I post this with the genuine hope that there would be change in the leadership's attitude, starting with Kelly and to a good extent, Pastor Ed. I haven't been there in a long time, but I would not be suprised if all remained essentially the same.

I write the following with the intent of trying to adhere to the facts, and not exaggerate. I believe the following events are familiar with most gracepointers/berklanders.
  1. As posted in the Toxic Faith blog, Kelly Kang once was upset that no one called her and took care of her while she was sick. As a result, small groups were convened by their leaders, and each was asked why he or she did not call or email or stop by. Also, people were asked, as described in the post, who Kelly Kang was to them. This was a double-edged question, as if we answered that we cared about her, and that she was our spiritual leader and mother, we would be accused of not living it out. If we stated that we didn't know exactly how sick she was (I mean, we've all been sick in our lives!), we would have been called apathetic and unloving. She has never apologized for calling such a meeting of small groups, although it is clearly wrong. In "the letter" to Becky Kim, Pastor Ed accused Becky of being nacissistic. I think there was clear narcissism here in the incident with his wife, at the cost of spiritually damaging the church members. I believe that she should have applied what she has said to others before "If you need help, then ask". She didn't. I've heard that even recently, she still asserted, "Well, I was really really sick!". The implication there is that if she's really really sick, then people should really really magically read her mind and know, and be right there to take care of her.

  2. Once it was Kelly's birthday, and many people went out of their way to bake many goodies for her. Of course, the idea originated from one of the older leaders, and of course, by means of hierarchy, practically all of the staff baked something. After service, the goodies were all laid out on tables. People were busy eating, fellowshipping, and such. However, apparently, not many people tried to make personal conversation with Kelly herself, at least from her perspective. The reality could be that many were afraid of her. The end result was that she made it known during her staff meetings afterwards that people were not personally making effort to talk with her. Instead of being thankful that so many went out of their way to bake the goods, she complained. Again, this is narcissism.

  3. I do not recall if it was in the same year, but people once again were convened - this time to ask, "why didn't you give a card or send email to Kelly for her birthday?" Apparently, a significant amount of people had not. They framed it as the need to root out awkwardness in relationships. Each individual in the small group setting was asked. Kelly should have questioned if there was something about her own personality and character that cause others to be awkward around her. But the blame instead was cast upon the church members. Again, narcissism.

  4. Up to a certain year, people were expected to send her a Mothers Day card. Why? Because she was the spiritual mother of the church. Is that even biblical? But if one did not, of course, that person was noticed as not being grateful.

  5. Kelly believes that she has a simple solution for everyone's spiritual problem. It's either because they have not consistently written out the mandated daily devotional worksheets, or because they have not read their bible enough, or prayed enough. Surely, if one does that, they would not struggle with sin. She is not a good listener, but rather questions the motives of the individual sharer, often placing the blame back upon the person. This kind of "counseling" is horrible and detrimental. Jesus, on the other hand, was a person who listened to individuals such as Zacchaeus, and the bleeding woman. But maybe to Kelly, everyone under her in church, is like the Pharisees and deserves rebuking.

  6. Kelly gives unwarranted advice to anyone and everyone under her. And because people relate to her in a sychophantic manner, they take her advice. Kelly believes she has the best advice. If you were to not take her advice, you would be an ungrateful and proud person. I believe this applies even to the "directors" under her. Narcissism.

  7. Kelly has yelled at, and rebuked people in public for very petty things. The list is too numerous. If you research the basis of rebuking in the bible, it's saved for grave sins for unrepentant Christians. In doing what she has, she has publically humiliated people unnecessarily, and have also fed fear into others who have seen such events, further propagating sychophantic, fear-driven relationships toward her. This links back to numbers 1, 2 and 3.
The reason I point out these specifics is because to my knowledge she has not repented of them. Furthermore,the irony of Gracepoint breaking off from Becky and Berkland, citing narcissism when Kelly herself is guilty of the same confounds me.

I pray that these facts being stated will lead to her repentance and change. At the very least, I hope that people see that such behavior is unacceptable. She has harmed too many people under her. Compare her against Jesus, who washed his disciples' feet and was the servant of all.

12/24/2008 1:45 AM

A general treatment to the topic can be found here: Role of Women in the Church

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Exit Strategy
  1. Spiritual Fodder
  2. Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?
  3. Role of Women in Ministry
  4. Then What's a Good Church?
  5. Why So Quiet?
  6. Becky's UBF Roots
  7. The Letter
  8. Dissecting Ed's Brain
  9. Shepherding/Discipleship Movement
  10. Exit Strategy
  11. Moving On
I am often asked what church is a good alternative to Berkland. I don't know enough to answer this question, but finding the alternative is the first important step. To those who have successfully made a transition to another church, please help your younger alumni by posting your recommendations here. For those who are still on the fence, consider this anonymous post:

I wasn't sure where to put this... I've come to think that there are people who are in GFC who do have thoughts of something not being right, and not being able to feel as though they are growing spiritually there. But maybe the thought of leaving never enters their hearts as an option because they try to justify the wrongs away. I've tried to compile of list of these false justifications. I don't believe that these are the right reasons to stay at any church. It's not to place the full blame on GFC, stating that they are 100% wrong in how they do church (since we're all sinners), but I think anyone in any church should ask his/herself, "Am I growing in this church? Am I experiencing grace and freedom along with truth, and do I feel like I do have a growing relationship with God? (vs. just ministry work?)" If you do, stay. If not, I think it's obvious that you have to find another church where you can grow. My comments are in parentheses:
  • I've been here a long time, can't imagine life outside of GFC (Too fearful of such a big change, do not be afraid)

  • All my friends are here (Never had time to develop any friends outside of GFC? But isn't the health of your relationship with God more important?)

  • I'm afraid of being forgotten and lonely once I leave here (But I thought they were close friends?)

  • Other people who left did so because they were worldly, I don't want to be categorized as such. (I don't think everyone that left did so to be more secular, it's an extreme generalization)

  • But I would be seeking comfort if I left! (Why make this assumption? Christianity is about personal conviction, so it's up to you to live it out.)

  • I've been given so much, I owe back to the leaders here and to God. (Grace is a gift, meaning here should be no sense of 'owing'. If your leader loved you so that you'd be expected to give back, is that really Godly unconditional love? It's more of an investment.)

  • Maybe there's just something wrong with me, not the church. (Can't it be both? Also, too often, blame is solely passed back to the individual at GFC)

  • Many people who criticize GFC just don't understand... (Maybe the other way around? Perhaps 'insiders' don't understand and blinded to truth by loyalty?)

  • I'm afraid of the leaders here, but maybe it's just me, and I don't know them well enough (As stated here before, judge a tree by its fruit)

  • But we do a lot of good work here (So does the Peace Corp, and even atheists who work for charity. Also, God works in spite of us. God working somewhere does not validate all their wrongs as right)

  • But I see people get saved here. (There are people getting saved at other churches too - again, God works in spite of us)

  • But the leaders above me work so hard for Christ Physical work for God is not the main point of being a Christian - it's about personal growth in our relationship with Jesus, shown in our character and faith. Through such transformation, we become witnesses, not primarily through program-driven work. To be a witness is an identity, not an activity (although identity does drive activity). If Jesus wanted to us to do ministry like GFC, he would have modeled as such to the disciples by having them put on different programs, presentations and shows. Look at your own leaders character, and stop making excuses for them like, "well, they're really stressed". Ask yourself simple questions, forgetting for a moment about how much work they've done. "Do I want to be like them in character? Do they model Jesus and show the fruit of the Spirit? Do I want my marriage to be like theirs?" When I was there, I certainly didn't want to be like many of them - I didn't see Jesus in them. Many were defensive, bossy, and controlling, showing their "friendly face" in public and to newcomers. There were some that were not like this, but in one major aspect they were all the same. They all seemed to merely echo what they knew Pastor Ed and Kelly wanted them to say. Puppets.

  • But I've been here awhile, and was hoping for a marriage propect here None of you probably say this outright, but I'm sure it's in the back of your minds, and weighs heavily on your decisions. I don't think I need to comment on this at all. It's just not a good primary reason to stay at a church.

  • But I got married here So... does this mean that you have to live the rest of your life there too? Again, it's this false sense of owing. I guess I can understand if you thought if it were not for the leaders "matching you up" there, that you would have not gotten married. But even still, an odd reason to stay at a church, especially if you know it's not helping your spiritual growth.
If you're a member of GFC that senses something not right, and you're going through such thoughts, you should feel freedom in knowing that God does not live only in GFC. God is a personal God, and if you have him as your Lord and Savior, he will be with you always. I'm not a proponent of church-hopping, or the Sunday Christian living. But I believe if you are sincere, God will guide you to a church where you can grow under more grace and freedom. God bless.


2/04/2009 3:07 PM

Sunday, November 25, 2007

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

What I mean by "moving on" is how to continue being Christian outside of Berkland. If you feel you've lost your faith owing to Berkland, I don't know if anything I have to say here will be helpful to you. Each person accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is nothing short of a miracle; as one LA Times reporter put it, "You've either got it [faith] or you don't." Once you have a hold on faith, or rather that God has a hold on you, the grip holds fast through the most devastating of times. Maybe there exists a breaking point for all of us, but the Bible suggests otherwise; who would know whether anyone's faith could weather the trials of Job until it happens. However I am confident stating that genuine faith should not break owing to any falling out with Berkland (although it certainly takes a bruising).

Perhaps you've accepted Christ at Berkland. Berkland teaches the Gospel squarely; it doesn't mess this part up. However, rejecting Berkland does not mean rejecting the Gospel, because it is only the messenger: I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16). The Gospel comes from the Holy Bible, and Berkland doesn't have a monopoly on the Gospel, nor God's favor in the form of competence. Yes, there are a lot of mediocre churches out there, with mediocre people, with mediocre pastors. You've removed yourself from what your conscience clearly had been telling you is the most competent ministry you've ever experienced, even as that same conscience has been signaling red flags about its leadership model. Acclimating to a lesser church may be extremely discouraging, and just butting heads with people with such different mindsets will surely be lonesome. After all, you have been trained with certain expectations of what constitutes a Christian, and many churches are still striving to be where Berkland is at. At any rate, look for a balance of these factors: 1) a pastor with a backbone, on whom you can depend on for saying what needs to be said 2) mature officers and laypersons who can humbly keep the pastor accountable and be able to defend the pastor against any bullying by the congregation 3) a form of governance that keeps leaders accountable locally and across a network of other autonomous churches.

You will find that on the outside, other Christians do not care about Berkland's problems, because they are too busy leading Christian lives themselves. Open your eyes through research, and you will see that God is working mightily outside the confines of what you thought to be an all-important ministry, when it is in fact just one among a spectrum of Christian ministries. I was pleasantly surprised by the offerings of this book, Christianity For Dummies, which I recommend for its tidy overview of Christian denominations. There is a section on the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest umbrella denomination for Protestants, where membership by no means provides sufficient accountability. Research what makes baptists baptists (the anabaptist section is also illuminating), and consider the reasons why Ed and Becky considered this denomination most suitable for their particular vision of church: not so much the fruitless Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate, nor the importance of baptism by immersion, but the value of autonomy of the local church, and no creeds or catechisms (which means "Biblical" becomes what the local church deems "Biblical"). Study church history, in particular the Protestant Reformation, which provides much needed perspective. Study also UBF history, which will reveal how Berkland, and subsequently Gracepoint, are spin-offs of the same problematic model.

Realize that Berkland is of the mold of earthly institutions; their random, inconsistent interpretations/exegesis of Scripture across the leadership should signal to you that a consistent and proper doctrine is of a lesser importance than the expediencies of leadership. It might take time to disassociate Berkland from the Bible itself. It's okay, just give your brain some time, but each person probably needs his own prescription to achieve this end, e.g. pick up a safe hobby to distract yourself away from harmful reflections. This gradual disassociation may take 3-4 years. Learn to confidently use the Word like a sword (Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God Eph 6:17) and you will realize how undisciplined Berkland staff were in deeming what was "Biblical," who often themselves merely parroted what was handed down to them instead of convincing themselves of the truth they were handling. You need to take back the Word and make it yours, which the Berkland leadership had monopolized when you were their sheep. By no means am I advocating a relativistic, individualistic approach, but that your understanding and choices be your own and consistent with conservative, mainstream doctrine (watch out: there are false teachers aplenty, e.g. Joel Osteen).

Ed and Kelly's assessment of your spiritual maturity will reveal itself as one of many opinions, not authorative opinions. Yes, they have devoted their life to their ministry, but the degree of devotion is not a criteria for correctness. We all need to honestly gauge our spiritual maturity with the help of others (although for a time you may find other people are at a different wavelength or maturity level; if they are more mature than you are, all the better). If we are not leading the Christian lives we ought to be living, we should acknowledge that we do so at our own peril. Knowing what you know, grow to become the Christian that you believe to be sound, at your own pace and without pressure: serve at your church selflessly and without expectations of reward, build strong relationships with your congregation members, learn to wield the Word responsibly, etc. Start slowly and grow steadily, without forgetting the things which you've personally deemed to be right about Berkland.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

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

Wiki: Shepherding Movement

While the idea of discipleship is central to New Testament teachings (e.g., in the Great Commission), the "discipleship movement," as it has come to be known, has been characterized by important deviations and abuses.

The so-called "Discipleship movement," sometimes associated with groups like Boston Church of Christ and University Bible Fellowship, became popular because the culture had become permissive and Christians wanted to distance themselves from such ungodliness. Many were looking to dedicate their lives in God in a closer way. Leaders of the discipleship movement offered to help Christians grow fully through the ill-conceived concept of being held more accountable.

It was not necessarily because of evil men, who are generally blamed, that this corruption grew but mainly due to the non-Biblical teaching of what "being more accountable" supposedly meant. In practice, this teaching of "more accountability" frequently meant suppressing freedom of expression and action, and pressure to give up one's own convictions when these differed from those of the leaders. This, in turn, created mental anguish and moral dilemmas for many disciples. A Christian magazine reported in 1990 that:

...the [discipleship] movement quickly became elitist, exclusive. Operating on the basis that everyone needs to be accountable to a pastor, "sheep" were assigned to various "shepherds"--many of whom were young, immature, sometimes arrogant and often proud of their new authority...Havoc followed and horror stories abounded. Familes were sometimes forced to relocate from one city to another at the whim of a shepherd. Churches split...Mumford and Simpson in particular took the heat from the critics, who charged they dominated those under them...Critics cited numerous examples of "shepherds" who required their "sheep" to ask their permission before they dated, changed jobs or made major decisions.[1]

The shepherding leaders claimed that they were teaching a renewed Biblical understanding of God's government, delegated authority, and convenant loyalty. But soon other national leaders opposed them. During a 700 Club broadcast, Pat Robertson called Mumford, Simpson, and Prince "false teachers" and banned the shepherding leaders from appearing on any of his radio or television outlets.[2]

The conflict over the shepherding movement seemed to reach a turning point in 1990 when a Christian magazine quoted a prominent leader in the shepherding movement as saying:

Discipleship [movement] is wrong. I repent. I ask forgiveness...discipleship resulted in unhealthy submission resulting in perverse and un-Biblical obedience to human leaders...for the injury and shame, I repent with sorrow and ask for your forgiveness.[3]

This admission of unhealthy submission and non-Biblical obedience to human leaders shook the foundation of discipleship in America. Many leaders in this movement followed and repented of the abuses. Since that time, discipleship programs have been dropped by literally hundres of thousands of people. The movement has continued to shrink as the abuses of the non-Scriptural base of some of the teachings are exposed. It spawned eggs, however, that continue to hatch even today.

After many years, the fruits of broken hearts, damaged psyches, and disillusioned spirits are becoming more and more evident. Several former members echo these same complaints and observations:

Pastors like myself have spent large amounts of time over the last fifteen years picking up the pieces of broken lives that resulted from distortion of truth by extreme teachings and destructive applications on discipleship, authority, and shepherding.[4]

Victims of this movement are usually born-again Christians and are fundamentalist and evangelical in their orientation. The errors are covered in many different terms like delegated authority, covering, unquestioned submission, covenant, commitment to a fellowship, etc...Terms change from time to time. Submission may be called "commitment," "covenant relationship" or "divine order" in church government. Many times terms aren't used at all; it is the actions that tell you what is going on.[5]

Since many leaders in the shepherding movement admitted doing wrong, various people who continue to use the same methods have begun to give different labels for the same actions. But once the wool is pulled from over your eyes, you can see that "labels" are misleading. It's the same game. Many call it discipleship, but some new groups (which are promoting similar errors) emphasize an excessive degree of "accountability." These groups insist that members become totally accountable to one or more leaders (or to the entire group) for nearly every action in their daily lives...

Even though some large churches have abusive discipleship, excessive accountability, or abusive pastors within the community, the whole church might not be indoctrinated into the errors.

Like weeds, however, these abusive concepts keep popping up. Thought the shepherding and discipling movement of the 1970s and 1980s seemed to be dying out in one area of the church, it now appears to be springing up in other areas. In March 1994, I attended a large Baptist church connected to the Southern Baptist Convention. To my surprise, inside this church they were teaching this same extreme obedience. The teacher said that people she counseled had to be willing to do whatever she requested. She labeled people as "not really wanting help" if they weren't willing to follow all of her requests.

Then I found this program was not isolated but was networking with many other mainline churches. After this experience, I knew it was time to warn others by clearly defining the problems of abusive discipleship. We must address the problem and expose these heretical and damaging teachings. Even though this book will be controversial for those of you who have this problem in your church, I would like to remind you what the late Dr. Walter Martin once said: Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command[6].

Excerpted from Twisted Scriptures by Mary Alice Chrnalogar, assisted by Timothy Brouns, M.S., who is a Baptist minister in Roslindale, Massachusetts, with the American Baptist Church, and a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Brauns, himself, was once trapped in an abusive discipleship group (University Bible Fellowship) while attending college.

[1] Buckingham, Jamie. "The End of the Discipleship Era," Ministries Today. (Jan-Feb 1990) p.46
[2] Ibid. pp.46, 48.
[3] Ibid. p.46
[4] Ibid. pp. 46-48.
[5] Trusty, Gilbert. Recovering from Abusive Authority. (Conference Evangelical Ministries to New Religions in Philadelphia, PA, Sept. 14, 1994).
[6] Hanegraaff, Hank. Christianity in Crisis (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993) back cover.

Friday, March 23, 2007

The Letter
  1. Spiritual Fodder
  2. Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?
  3. Role of Women in Ministry
  4. Then What's a Good Church?
  5. Why So Quiet?
  6. Becky's UBF Roots
  7. The Letter
  8. Dissecting Ed's Brain
  9. Shepherding/Discipleship Movement
  10. Exit Strategy
  11. Moving On
August 22, 2005

Dear Becky JDSN:

It grieves me to write this, but after much anguished prayer, I decided that to do this in writing would be the best.

In Daegu, I challenged you on what I believe to be evidence of how much you have changed for the worse over the years, and your unhealthy leadership. The issues I addressed in Daegu has to do with your dangerous self-understanding; lack of commitment to truth telling; your cynicism toward the Word, and ministry; your excessive, nearly-addictive playing of Bbong (뻥) see note, personally, and with your staff and at the pastors meetings, and what this reveals about your leadership; your self-understanding as a person of special status (e.g. prophetess, apostle, etc); your secularized lifestyle; your family idolatry, and nepotism; the queen-like, high-maintenance person you have become; and your defining many of these negative changes as the new spirituality which all BBCs should follow.

The main issue is the last one. If I am free to criticize you, and disassociate myself with what you are doing, and refuse to follow, then it’s less of a problem. If you were honest that these are negative changes in you, and you appropriately downgrade your self-understanding, and your role in BBC, then, again, it would not be a problem. But you want all of us to justify all you do, all the ways in which you have changed; whatever you do must be baptized in spiritualized rhetoric. You expect all of us to not only swallow the absurd justifications, but also impose the same on our sheep. It is too much “moo-li.” (무리) excessive, unreasonable I can no longer do the former, and refuse—as I should—to do the latter. In other words, my problem is not with just your character problems. I do not demand perfection from you as my leader. I can accept you with all your faults. But I cannot deny your faults, or rationalize or spiritualize them for you. This is unhealthy for me, for you, and for our church.

Somewhere along the line, I stopped trying to convince myself with rationalizations for your behavior. I began to call (inwardly, to myself) your behavior and character whatever it would be called by neutral objective observers: self-fascinated; selfish; hot-tempered and verbally abusive; princess-like; unable to take criticism; never repenting for anything; bragging; elitist; secular; self contradictory (as when you say that you are the busiest woman immediately after having played Bbong for days); chaotic; dishonest; manipulative; political. But the problem is that no one can ever call it what it is when it comes to you. With anyone else, we would be roundly critical; with you, we have to beautify it, spiritualize it. This causes people’s inner faculties to be broken. No pastor should demand this of his flock.

Again, at the risk of being redundant, the main problem is your insistence on your nearly-inerrant role as a Pope-like figure. Since you can do no wrong, when you DO (and you do, indeed!), we must justify it. Often, you provide your own rationalizations, and we must accept them (and suffer inner damage), and pass them on to others, and crush any who don’t accept it. This is morally wrong. Anyone else who do what you do, say what you say, and have the kind of character flaws you have will be rejected as a spiritual leader. Yet, in the strange and warped BBC pastoral world, the reverse must happen. You become exempt from all normal criteria of evaluating persons; you become above the law. Up becomes down, right becomes left, wrong becomes right.

The irony of our situation is that a few years ago, the Korean dept. leaders were severely rebuked for not challenging P. Andy Lee, since even before the adultery was discovered there was so much that was troubling about his leadership in the final 2 years or so.

I had been praying for some time now for God to do something by the 25th anniversary. I had no intention of initiating anything in our Boston meetings or in Daegu. But I resolved to be honest. I told one of the other pastors in an email: “I just want to survive the Daegu meeting.” But you began by calling Chris “satan.” I had to step in and tell you that most of my reservations about your leadership and character have nothing to do with what Chris told me, but based on things I directly observed. And so it all came out.

I meant everything I said in Daegu. I know it must have been traumatizing for you to hear all of it like that, but I had hoped that you would recognize the truth in what I was saying.

I went to Irvine with this hope. The first night, you spoke for about 7 hours straight. Your entire speech, containing many details revealed for the first time, basically was “My Life with Pastor Paul.” It started with your honeymoon, how awful it was, how cheap he was to get second-rate places, “inns,” rather than “hotels.” You went on and on about how frustrating it is to daily deal with such a person as P. Paul, and that Chris, and me, two people with happy marriages would not understand. You also went on to attack Kelly as a child raised by a widow, that most families would not have welcomed such a person as a daughter-in-law. You wondered if we would be in this place if I had married someone else. So odd that you should try to interpret the serious issues I brought up by wondering if the issues would not have been brought up if I had married a more frustrating spouse. And you said things similar toward Chris, mentioning some unsavory thing about his father. (You like the word “noble.” I think this was quite ignoble of you.) You went on and on about how the rich do not understand the poor, and how, similarly, the happily-wed do not understand those with bad marriages. Oddly, you seemed to be saying that to be unhappily married qualifies people for greater spiritual leadership. You punctuated your speech with a refrain, repeated throughout your monologue: “Could you not have a bit more mercy on me?” But this was said in a tone of bitter and mocking sarcasm.

I felt so disappointed by such a display of unwarranted self-pity. First it was not relevant, since my concerns had to do with your very real, official, public, and dominant role throughout BBC as something like our Pope; Second, it was a display of the kind of self-pity quite at odds with our message and values. At no point during our Irvine meeting did you ever acknowledge any wrongdoing, or any truth in anything Chris and I said in Daegu. You continued to defend and justify, and occasionally, sarcastically admitted some small character flaw of yours here and there—“yes, I have a bad temper, but it’s because I deal with people’s sin.”

I proposed at the end of our meeting that we talk one on one, since these large group meetings are not all that fruitful. You rejected this, saying that it will most likely result in mutual hurts. Then Soomi came up on Monday to talk to Kelly. It was a very frustrating conversation. She evaded direct questions regarding what she thought of specific things you did, which we thought were very very clear examples of wrong. She was lawyer-like in her ability to evade, saying, for example, that all the movie watching, Bbong playing was just a “phase” we are going through, which would soon end, but she refused to say if it was a negative phase or a positive phase. She brought word from you that you are now ready to talk with me, because many things became organized (“jung-li”) (정리) arrange in order in your mind during your flight back to Boston.

Again, with some hope, I called. After our telephone conversation later that night, I was once again very disappointed.

You began by saying that on your plane ride back from Irvine, you kept thinking about one thing I said: “you disapprove of my ministry.” You said that the word disapprove kept coming back, and that through this one word, you were able to enter into my mind/heart, and understand me and Kelly. You said that we must feel so very “ug-ool-hae,” (억울해) frustration owing to injustice and that I am right to feel this way. You said that we did “nothing wrong,” that all we did was work hard at our ministry, and that now, we are being criticized for some minute differences. You said that of all the pastors, Kelly and I are the ones you are the most thankful toward. (It was disorienting to hear such words of flattery after all the terrible expressions you used to criticize Kelly in Daegu, and then again in Irvine, just a few days prior.) You said that none of the other pastors know what is actually going on because you consulted me exclusively on many sensitive incidents, and I was the one who handled them with you.

I am sorry to say, but JDSN, I felt that much of the conversation was inauthentic on your part. You were speaking words designed for impact—to melt my heart—without a strong commitment to truth. This became clear when you said that on your plane ride back, you had to ask yourself the question: “Do I indeed (“Gwa-yun”) (과연) do indeed disapprove of Eddie’s ministry?” But the fact is you have been disapproving of me, and Berkeley ministry openly to many others (never directly to me!), including Boston campus staff, for many years now. So you were lying to me when you said that you had to ask yourself this question--unless you are genuinely out of touch with yourself, and all the things you have done for years to make me feel “ug-ool-hae.”

You said that your own answer to this question was that you might have slightly disapproved of my ministry with respect to the course 101 vs. John 1-1 issue (John 1-1: Becky's own introduction to Christianity course based on UBF material), a very recent development. The fact is, however, your disapproval of me and my ministry has been a long-standing practice. And as I told you during our conversation, I have gotten used to it. I think it is your right as my leader to do this. Of course, it violates covenant faithfulness toward me to do this before the younger ones, behind my back, even to those currently under me, and at the mission field, but this kind of disregard for proper boundaries has been characteristic of you in all sorts of ways. It really drove P. Andy Lee crazy, as I recall, when you undermined the legitimacy of all that he was doing, criticizing him and his ministry to many people under him, and to us (YB, me, and the rest of the English dept. staff.)

You then went on to brutally criticize Andy with harsh words. You said that when Andy called to ask you about the Irvine meeting, you yelled at him, saying, “What do you know? etc” and refused to talk to him. (I actually doubt that this is exactly how it went.) Again, this is something you have done many times. Criticize Andy, or YB, or Peter in front of me, with harsh words--especially Andy. You usually couple this with statements that flatter me. This is one of the reasons that I once told you that you are the “most divisive person at BBC.” It insults me that your view of me is such that you think it would delight me to hear you harshly criticize Andy for no apparent reason.

Finally, you told me in a soft, confiding tone, that there is something you had not shared with anyone. You went on to say that you are very worried about Chris, that you think he is emotionally unstable, that this is due to the fact that SV ministry has been hard, with Cha Joona dying, divorces, etc. (Chris said in response to this that being at SV has been much much better than being in Boston. I think he said “thousand times.”) Your solution was to have him leave for Th.M at somewhere like Southwestern. He can leave immediately, before the fall semester. But, you said, this means that I have to take on SV ministry. I could not believe what you were saying to me. You were actually offering me greater territory! You made sure that I understood what you were offering me by adding that Chris would not return to SV, but to Pasadena, to begin a new ministry at Cal Tech, since he did well at MIT, and he is an engineer.

All of this was insulting to me, that you would think that by flattering me, and by offering me greater territory--all of SV--that I would be happy and appeased. I am sure you would protest your innocence, but I just cannot interpret it in any other way. And I realized that you just don’t get it. I felt hopeless. It’s as if a son told his dad, “Dad, please stop drinking, because when you come home drunk, you are violent and you frequently beat mom.” And the dad’s thinking process is: humm… why is he saying this? What does he want? And he responds to his son by saying: “Hey, do you want me to buy you a new car?”

The sad conclusion I reached after the Irvine meeting was confirmed by this phone conversation. I lost all hope of genuine dialogue. After I refused your offer of SV, I sat there bewildered, disappointed once again, but much more resolved and clear as to what I need to do.

Our church has become sick. The sickness of your character has infected our entire BBC organism with a deep sickness. You have diminished many who were loyal to you, who trusted you, who gave you so much faithfulness. You have been unfaithful to your own messages; you have betrayed many people; you have corrupted them; you have weakened their sense of judgment; you turned all of them into “hwa-toe-koon-dul” (화토꾼들) "pro" hwa-toe players, a disparaging term as it is a disreputable occupation (as most Korean people will, in all fairness, call all of us); you drink up all of their loyalty (in contrast to King David, who poured it out before the Lord) to self-aggrandize; you manipulate others into expressing adoration toward you, and you quote them to further your own spiritual mystique. While your life has become less and less admirable, your own self-concept had become greater and greater. Now, the gap between the reality of who you are and the rhetoric surrounding you is so huge that those of us who try to fill that gap with our “trust” have been done so only by having our inner faculties damaged, or our ethics compromised.

One of the things that surprised me in the aftermath of the Pastor Andy Lee incident is your blindness to your own sinful contribution to his downfall. You had your long list of villains. I heard you say more than a hundred times that the 2 who were most responsible were P. Paul and Hyekyung SMN. You had your dramatic way of saying this. “Yi-nam-ha lul mahng-ha-gae-han jang-bon-in-dul.” (이남하 를 망하게한 장본인들) "You the culprits responsible for ruining Andy Lee" You never included yourself. But I was there from 1993. I saw you undermining P. Andy, and using all sorts other lowly tactics, talking to people under him, for e.g., to delegitimize and aggravate him. I also saw the extreme frustration he felt toward this entire process; his sense of injustice; his anger; but him feeling stuck, unable to openly speak against you. Clearly, you belong high up on the list of those who contributed to his downfall. But you never repented. You tried to make restitution by helping him, but you never repented for what you did—all the inappropriate and maddening things you did to drive him absolutely up the wall! If you had repented back then, instead of taking solace in Bbong addiction, we would not be in this place today.

Instead of repenting for your wrongs, and the deep character defects from which they arose, you used the entire P. Andy Lee incident to paint a picture of vindication by God, and personal victimization. You emerged from that incident as a victorious warrior—full of wounds for which we should all admire you, and full of pride that you were the victor. I realized then that I was serving a blind leader who does not know how to repent.

Since 1999, it has been slow torture for me. Increasingly, I knew you had gone awry. But I kept trying to see good in you. Your love for people; the fruit in your ministry. But even here, I saw that your love for people was often inconsistent and elitist. And the fruit of your ministry often produced people who were emotionally dependent on your approval. Still, I struggled. I reminded myself of the past; my spiritual indebtedness to you; the times when I felt genuine fondness toward you. And I prayed and hoped that I would be wrong, or that you would repent. But you kept getting worse and my inner conflict grew.

At times I felt I was perpetrating a hoax upon the world; I felt that we were all conspirators engaged in a huge fraud upon our congregation; if they knew what went on, if they were familiar with the true dynamics of the pastoral staff meetings, the ancient-royal-court-like politics of Berkland life, if only they had a camera to see and hear our meetings, what would they think?

Taking care of the Korean Dept, and fighting the San Leandro rebels, getting the building back, all of this was a welcome break from all of this. I could talk to you again over the phone, and we had something to talk about, and we were united against the common enemy. But the issues I had about your leadership, character, and the unhealthy dynamics of our pastoral politics were only put on hold temporarily.

Because you often quote me inaccurately, I want to reiterate in writing some of my problems with your leadership, and the strange, warped world you have created. I do so in the earnest hope that you will take it to heart.

Narcissism. - I remember those days in Berkeley, and the early days of Boston, when you were genuinely humble. You were our teacher, our leader, but you did not hold yourself as such a special spiritual specimen (“prophetess” or “apostle”), and the distance between us was realistic. Now, this distance has become very very unrealistic. You are the inerrant pope, and we are just peons. We (the other pastors), for our part, play dumb and dull, but the whole thing smacks of the unreality and false ritual of ancient king-to-advisor relationships.

- Another evidence of your narcissism is your pattern of having long monologues—uninterrupted, unchallenged, the theme of much of which is: “How great, special, bold, insightful, artistic, interesting, unique I am.” It is actually quite “min-mahng-hae” (민망해) pitiable for me to see you talk on and on while all of us sit and listen without saying a word, just providing an audience for your self-fascination. (In fact, many are dozing off, and many others are surfing the net, reading news, checking email, swapping music, etc.) You would think that we would have active discussions among us, sharing our observations from the frontlines of ministry, discussing different approaches, spritual or biblical insights etc. Instead, there is just your monologues.

- You interpret all events egocentrically. Your birthday, the years of significant events in your life, how they correspond to world events, etc. You even interpret other people’s lives according to yourself, even people whose lives intersected with yours briefly, so that the ups and downs of their lives are, at some deep level, due to how they treated you, for example. And you sincerely seem to believe this, and you narrate examples of such things to further your—and our—sense of what a specially anointed person you are. This is a serious imbalance in self-concept.

- You over-encourage people to give you adoration. You quote with great approval people who have complimented you a long time ago. It’s a wonder you don’t blush when you do this. You get so upset when credit is not given to you by name. Berkland pastoral practitioners know this very well, so that we scrutinize each testimony to be given at events where you are present to be sure there is sufficient mention of your name.

- You are selfish. Your insistence that others live according to your very strange schedule of staying up all night, and sleeping until the afternoon (although for many, they need to work the next day) is very selfish and inconsiderate. You talk about detailed love, but seem unconcerned about the extreme stress you are causing, and the chaos you are bringing in the life of others around you who need to twist and bend to your strange schedule, tastes, preferences and whims. If there were a great need to live like this, it would be understandable. But there is really no valid reason for this other than the personal preference of one person. Many suffer. A loving person, according to your own teaching, is sensitive to the pain of others. You are blissfully oblivious, or unconcerned. But maybe you think since it is a privilege to be merely in your presence, all of the strain is worth it for them. Again, this demonstrates a very egocentric person.

- Your victim complex regarding your marriage is, again, reflective of your narcissism. Most people could not possibly have given the speech you gave in Irvine—a 7-hour, uninterrupted tale of what a victim you are because of P. Paul. There were a lot of details about your honeymoon, and the cheapness of the accommodations you stayed in (pointing out that it was some kind of “inn” not a “hotel.”). As I mentioned above, most people in the Korean immigrant community who got married back then did not even go to a honeymoon, let alone go to Hawaii. I think your expectations regarding your life, which the marriage to P. Paul has crushed, was way overblown to start with. I think you did OK with P. Paul. There are many women in the world (and many younger people in our own congregation) who can tell stories of much greater victimization—yet, without feeling half the self-pity you displayed. Our own mothers had to put up with much more terrible marriages. In fact, you used to say that this is a huge spiritual barrier to Korean women’s spiritul growh—that they see themselves as victims of their husbands, and instead of seeing the cross as something caused by their sins, they identify with Christ as a fellow victim and sufferer. But this was exactly the theme of your speech. You said that you live a daily cross-bearing life. I think P. Paul does as well. In fact, the humiliating way you treat P. Paul often borders on the inhumane, and I have sometimes wondered how he manages to tolerate your treatment of him.

I simply could not agree with your tears when you found out that P. Paul knew about the microwave ovens at the rest stops. I think among men, it would be a funny story to tell. Not wanting to be bothered with microwaving the rice, refusing to indulge your princess-like wife, pretending to not notice them: definitely not heroic, or loving, but certainly not something you should have told us with that kind of drama and sense of victimization. Please take a few steps back and listen to your own story. Who can sympathize? But, incredibly, one or two SMNs started crying. Pauline and Philip being embarrassed by their dad’s sermon, too: most of us grew up under painfully embarrassing parents. Their lives, and your life, turned out good enough. But good enough is not good enough for you, it seems. Again, I must say: narcissism.

- You queen-like behavior, expectations regarding how you should be served are also reflective of your narcissistic character. Why should someone else get rebuked for forgetting to bring your “han-yak”? (한약) oriental medicine Why must so many be nervous about serving you right? Why so picky, and easily annoyed by small inconveniences, like not having cold water readily available for you? How can any right-thinking pastor hold you up as an example of mature christian character?

Dishonesty. - Playing Bbong is a prime example. This is done in secret. We hide the fact that this is the major activity of all our pastoral gatherings. But what is also revealing is your constant shifting of excuses for this practice. It started with the strange rationalization that it is because there is nothing else to do with P. Andy. Then, it was “hyo-bbong.” Then, now, it is “leadership training.” You also once declared you are banning it. But, you, in fact, never carried out this “ban” yourself. This kind of lack of seriousness regarding the truth of what you are saying has been characteristic of you in many ways for many years.

- Rationalization. The false rhetoric surrounding Bbong is an example of something else you do that represents dishonesty. You are a master at rationalization. But, your rationalizations are very thin, and many of us see through them. For example, when Sally expressed her hurt at our Irvine meeting that you called her “byung shin” (병신) a deformed person (a pejorative "bomb", severe in all contexts) again and again, you began to acknowledge the fact that you have a “rough mouth.” But then, you said that the OT prophets also had “rough mouths.” You said that you were not as bad as the OT prophets. At least you don’t tell people that they will eat their own children. As I told you in Irvine, that kind of rationalization offends me. You are no OT prophet, and your rough language is your sinful lack of emotional self-control and your contempt and disregard toward the feelings of others. You need to repent of this, rather than rationalizing your behavior by a comparison to the OT prophets. Please acknowledge your responsibility for the trauma, wound, and damage to self worth you have caused in many. (And please understand why I cannot tell others, without compromising my conscience and damaging their judgment faculties, that your hot temper and abusive language is because you are like one of the OT prophets.)

Again, in Irvine, when Chris mentioned that he felt like he was going crazy in Boston next to you, instead of thinking about your negative leadership which led him to experience this, you said that your main problem was overestimating Chris, thinking he was a higher caliber person, and training him more rigorously. By saying this, you turned a situation where you should have apologized into one in which you emerged as someone who lovingly thought more highly of Chris’ potential than he actually had. I mention these two incidents, but of course, this is very characteristic of your after-the-fact rationalizations. Thus, your bad, explosive temper is translated into “intensity of love” or “hard training.” When people get damaged by your outbursts of temper, this is translated (dishonestly) into “they were not ready” or that you “trusted them too much.” This kind of warping of speech, this kind of reversal in the meaning of language, is characteristic of many cultic or other controlling groups (communists, for e.g.).

When I challenged you about your messages, the fact that you are often unprepared, speaking on random topics in a stream-of-consciousness mode, sometimes for an hour, sometimes for the entire message, your response was that Apostle Paul’s epistles are also characterized by him discussing this and that without clear organization (“ee-mal, juh-mal”) (이말, 저말) this topic, that topic; literally this word, that word. Then, when I objected to this, you tried another rationalization. You said that you are on a mission to demolish today’s christians’ common view of a model sermon as a tidy, well-organized presentation. I find it hard to believe that you are doing this out of some prior sense of mission regarding current views on homiletics.

- Misquoting. You often misquote people, and often in order to divide people from one another—even spouses.

Divisive. - You have denigrated Grace, Andy, YB, Peter, etc. in front of me unnecessarily. I am sure you have said similar things about me and Kelly to them. Even in your handling of this incident, although you say you regard us as sons, you had different people call Chris and me (mostly Chris). We ended up arguing. Then you receive reports of our current state of mind through them. Why not just talk to us directly, if you regard us as sons? On the other hand, there are many mothers of dysfunctional families who behave just like this, telling one son to call another son, then report back; criticizing the eldest before the youngest, criticizing the youngest to the middle child, and telling each of them that they are the most special. So to hear that this grieves you most baffles me. Could it really be that you were not aware of your active divisive role among us?

Unhealthy BBC Culture. - Flattery, dishonesty, and fear. Many of the people you surround yourself with will not tell you the whole truth. You can do 9 things wrong, and no one will challenge you or offer criticism. But if you do one thing right, they will lavish you with praise. If they will not offer you criticism, they should not give you flattery either. You have become the emperor with no clothes. (But you have fostered this atmosphere yourself.) For example, you have heard many say something like: “Oh, why don’t we close down our churches, and all of us move to Boston?” I know for a fact that people do not want to move to Boston. Yet they say this. And you seem to believe it.

Chris and I have, over the years, received many requests by our peers to communicate something to you, or ask for something, that they were afraid to do directly. When, in the middle of some other discussion, I am able to bring it up casually, and get your permission or agreement, I then bring this happy news to whoever asked me, much to their relief. This is how people relate to you.

After Daegu, one of the pastors was quick to try to take back some things he said, lest what he said be quoted to you. He had told Chris that his wife had been depressed for a week after the recent SMN retreat in Boston, but he denied any knowledge of this. One of the other pastors admitted to me that he thinks that at times our church is like a “personality cult.” But he also said that he would never be able to say it to you in public. He told me that he thinks he can tell you this in private. (I seriously doubt it). There has been remarkable silence from all my friends after Daegu, and, even a greater silence after Irvine. If I am wrong, you would think they would call to challenge me, or convince me, or rebuke me. If I am right, or even partially so, you would think they would say I agree with you on some points, and disagree on others. I am baffled, and disappointed at my friends. Certainly, our rhetoric about our famous friendships is far off the mark.

- There is very little real relationship-forming going on among the pastors and, certainly, hardly any among the SMNs at our church. People rarely talk to one another. Like once-close friends becoming distant and suspicious after the onset of communism in their land, our friendships have stood still, or regressed. We have become mutually wary in the environment of fear and taboo created by your leadership. Yet, our rhetoric about it continues unabated, in disregard of reality.

- Defensive ministry. For many BBC pastors, your approval means everything. But since it is often not clear what will displease you, given your moodiness, spontaneity, and unpredictability, playing it safe is at a premium. No one wants to hear you say: “Is this a Berkland church?” But what is the core of our ministry? This is ill defined. But it is, in fact, the person of JDSN; i.e., it is whatever you say it is depending on your latest thoughts. But this is often changing according to your latest trip, or your latest conversation with someone. There is no fixed set of principles that we have defined as our core values. So people practice defensive ministry. They do things that they see you doing, or they do things that were approved in the past. This is a very stifling experience for most.

- Cynicism toward ministry. One of the alarming things about you in the past few years has been your growing cynicism toward ministry. “People don’t change.” “Why devote out time to people who don’t change, when we should spend time with our kids?” You seemed to have lost confidence in the power of the word. We never crack open the Bible when we meet for days. Because of this cynicism toward ministry, you seemed resolved to just fellowship and “build relationships”—mostly by hanging out and engaging in fun, secular activities. Therefore, our ministry has been stagnant and in maintenance-mode for quite some time now.

- Unhealthy view of marriage. As yet another example of up being down, and right being left in your world, happily married couples are made to feel apologetic for it. Their happy marriage is not, of course, a result of anything like emotional maturity, but a lack of commitment to truth, or a lack of spirituality by which the spouses are satisfied with each other. This is very unhealthy indeed, and has caused actual damage to many marriages throughout BBC.

- Lack of real leadership. You have not provided real leadership for years now. You have not dealt with XYZ and many other needy and troubled staff. Your solution seems to be to just keep moving them around, each time necessitating a fresh round of deceitful announcements to our congregations. Clearly, you have reached the limit of your own leadership abilities a long time ago. Like the majority of ancient royalty, you exercise total power, demand homage, but provide very little actual guidance, mentoring or inspiration.

- Increasing secularity, and secrecy. We have betrayed our message regarding many things. I still remember how a few of our sophomores—I think it was Warren and some of his friends—were severely rebuked by Andy and Grace for going to Noraebang (노래방) karaoke. Now, we, the pastors, do. And the obsessive and secretive playing of a game associated with the lowest of activities among Koreans--the game itself, and the extent of playing are utterly scandalous. We have also betrayed our messages, and former stance regarding movies and regarding Korean videos. Oh, how we used to revile people who would watch hours and hours of these videos, many of them running 30 hours or more. And you rationalize all of this—fellowship, understanding our congregation, education, etc.

I can go on and on in this vein, but I think this letter is long enough.

Given all of the above, and more, I cannot, in good conscience, lead others who follow me into the strange and warped world in which you must be adored, followed, feared, and set up as a super-spiritual christian model, where common sense must be abandoned in order to believe all of your rationalizations, and your practices be imitated, and your moods and hot temper suffered. I think this breaks people. It is a wrong I cannot continue to perpetuate. By my mere presence, people assume a lot. They are entitled to this assumption—the assumption that I am not a fool, that I would hold up the truth, that I would apply the same standards toward myself and my leaders as I would to them, that I am an ethical pastor of integrity. Therefore, any reservations they have toward you become supressed by my (and the others’) mere presence as a BBC pastor in full support of you and all that goes on in BBC. I refuse to continue to play part in the deceit, the fraud we are perpetuating upon the public, and upon our congregation. Personally, me and Kelly felt at times that we were going insane dealing with all of this over the years. No one else should ever be asked to go through this.

I plan on vacating the Alcatraz building as soon as we find suitable office space to lease, and taking other steps to finalize my break with your leadership. After that telephone conversation with you, I decided that there would be no point in holding off until January. I don’t think the September 7th meeting you suggested to Chris is really necessary, since many things depend on you and you alone. After much thinking and prayer, I realized that for me and Kelly to simply leave, or a subset of our leadership to move to another city, would be an unconscionable abandonment of our sheep. I don’t think I could live with such a decision. Therefore, I decided that I must stay in this area, and minister to those who will follow my leadership apart from BBC. I know I will have to offer them some explanation. I cannot lie and say that I am resigning because of stress, or for personal reasons, or any other such made up reasons. Nor can I tell them that BBC leadership is healthy, and all of them should follow you. That would be wrong. I will try to keep it as general as possible, for the sake of the sheep as well as to protect your legacy as much as possible. I have very little to gain, and much to lose practically by doing this—the hurt and shock this will bring to so many, including my own children, being reviled as worse than P. Andy Lee, the painful loss of all my friendships. It may be the hardest thing I will ever do.

I still miss how you used to be. I miss the old Berkland that I fell in love with. The old Berkland that I committed my life to. Our old values of radical discipleship, counter-cultural community, covenantal relationships, focus on the Word, missional mindset, the faith we once had that we would change the world, that we would raise disciples to become our co-workers, co-builders of the kingdom. I miss the spirit of freedom we had in relating to one another, sharpening each other, arguing, debating, and loving each other. We were unselfconscious, and had nothing to lose during those days, when we did not care so much about the Berkland name, when we all still had our distinct personalities and strengths, when all things seemed possible. I still have huge nostalgia for those days, and long for their return. I know that all the best of what God has done among us has not been entirely destroyed; just overshadowed. I have been praying for the shadow to lift, and for the good things to return, and will continue to do so.

I regret the tone of this letter. I went over it to tone it down several times. English sounds so cold, and my criticisms were not softened with roundabout expressions. But the letter was not written without prayer—often with tears—toward you. I believe it to be an act of love toward you. I will continue to hope and pray for that day when we can enjoy one another’s company, when all the Berkland pastors can be friends again. I am sure it will take time, but still, I want to hold out the hope that we will grow old together. In heaven, in the light of fuller truth, I may owe you an apology. But this side of heaven, I believe I’ve done my best.

With prayers,

Ed Kang

Note #1: (Nylon) bbong (뻥) is a variant of the hwa-tu (화투) card game. Hwa-toe (화토) is a dialectal variation (사투리) of the word, and the one Ed uses here. The word itself is an onomatopoeia of the loud sound of popping rice, barley, or corn--alarming, but not amounting to much. The phrase "sounding 'bbong', are you" (뻥 치네) is commonly used to scoff at someone's attempt to lie. While hwa-tu is generally accepted as part of mainstream culture, to understand the underlying stigma associated with the game, one needs to understand its history (Japanese soldiers brought the game, called hanafuda, over to Korea during the Annexation, intended to introduce idleness to aid in subjugating the commoners), the type of people who play it (from idle middle-aged housewives to Yakuza), and the context in which it is played (in illegal gambling halls, where the gambling point-systems have brought many to catastrophic ruin). Pastors and deacons generally refrain from owning a deck of hwa-tu cards in their homes.