- Spiritual Fodder
- Cultic, Aberrant, or Abusive?
- Role of Women in Ministry
- Then What's a Good Church?
- Why So Quiet?
- Becky's UBF Roots
- The Letter
- Dissecting Ed's Brain
- Shepherding/Discipleship Movement
- Exit Strategy
- Moving On
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.
2/04/2009 3:07 PM
27 comments:
That's a tough one. I do remember when I "left" P.Ed suggested to me Eastbay Baptist and NCBC.
But really, if you have a lot of emotional scars or trauma, there will be no perfect fit. If you heal and take care of your self, everything else will fall into place.
I say this because no matter what church you try to go to after, if you are not well, it simply will not feel right.
Perhaps a church that is gentle and non-judgemental, and a church that allows a lot of differences in opinion. I would also suggest a church that is not high-commitment, because it's easy just to jump in headfirst into activities.
Absolutely not. A church that is "gentle," "non-judgmental," and "non high-commital" is also harmful, but in more subtle ways. Like yeast that works through a lump of dough, such a lukewarm church observed by bystanders lead them to conclude not the inefficacy of that particular congregation, but of Christianity.
A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion indicated that a majority of evangelicals surveyed (roughly 10,000 people of this segment) held the Oprah-esk view that there is more than one path to salvation. It is basic Christianity 101 to acknowledge that Jesus made an exclusive claim as to which path would permit us to approach God, namely through faith by grace in Christ Himself. These evangelicals likely come from churches of the "gentle," "non-judgmental," and "non-high commital" variety.
A church HAS to do its job of pointing out what is wrong and right, or it is no longer a church. This means it must exercise unpopular judgments and discipline when it has to.
There is room for discussion for what God is saying to us through the Bible however (there is no single person with Biblical authority).
Berkland's longevity is owed to the fact that there are little alternatives. Berkland almost cannot help but put down other churces because those other churches do not exhibit the same level of urgency. It is a difficult balancing act to have both that sincere urgency to carry out the Christian mission, yet not be, for lack of a better word, fanatical.
The plight of students is that they don't have among their choices the church that strikes that balance.
Since there're a good number of Chinese in Berkland (Boston, at least) now, there's Boston Chinese Evangelical Church in Chinatown with services in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. There're a number of ISM people who left BBC there now.
Also Park Street Church.
Go where you feel that you can grow closer to God and in your relationship with him.
Choose based on the following:
-Solid teaching of the bible (no health and wealth gospel for ex)
-A humble leadership that loves both truth AND grace
-Where how God made you as an individual is nurtured and guided for work in God's kingdom.
-Where you feel that as a whole, you can serve God and be his witness in all your relationships, meaning it's not all about ministry in the context of church.
-Where you can feel genuine in your faith and you are not giving out of compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
but of course, there is no perfect church. I believe Billy Graham said that even if there were, once you step into it, it would stop being so. So choose what is most important to you if you have to, but in line with what is biblical with regard to being a Christian.
some good references
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/abuse-ch.html
http://cohesivefaith.wordpress.com
http://batteredsheep.com/abusive_02.html
http://www.barnabasministry.com/ (mentioned here before)
For Boston Ex-Berklanders, I recommend Cornerstone Church of Boston, which consists of mostly Korean-Americans. They have two locations, one of which is right near BBC-Boston, on 44 Linnaean Street in Cambridge.
any suggestion on alternatives to Berkeley GPC ?
I have successfully AND HAPPILY exited Berkland/Gracepoint.
I couldn't be happier -- only that I wish I had made this decision earlier.
Don't be confused by BBC/GP propoganda. There are PLENTY of great churches around.
I feel free.
I feel free too. I do miss my friend but I am happier. It will be awkward and lonely at first, but take your time. Leaving does not mean that you are a bad person.
random.rainbow.w@gmail.com
I'd like to state also that when you look for a church, that you should look for a church leadership not by how competent they are, but by how humble they are, while still sharing the passion of the gospel.
I'm not sure if it's changed, but when I was there at GP, oddly, most of the leaders would never share with their sheep about their own struggles, and rather, they were mostly about giving advice (unsought advice many times at that) and telling people what tasks to do, and delegating and supervising.
They were also to promote the rah-rah mentality of doing something good for God/GFC.
I don't know if they are aware of it, but in creating leaders that lead mainly in tasks and telling others to do right, they've done 2 things imho:
1. Fostered leaders that have distanced themselves from their "sheep," creating a "holier than thou" aura around them, and feelings of heightened guilt in their sheep. Yes, leaders would listen to their sheep, but it was more from a perspective of pity "how can I help this sheep" rather than empathizing with them as fellow sinners. Oddly, they would only share with their "peers" and above, because I suppose they could not reveal the specifics of their sinfulness to younger people, since they might lose respect? With the younger ones, they only shared generic sins, such as struggling with temper, jealously, lust, and so forth (who doesn't?), without any details, which is ironic since details are what they expected from their sheep. Then of course, they would enjoy talking about their sheep's problems with their peers or leaders, all out of good intention, but I believe it subconsciously fed more to the idea of them being greater than their sheep, because they were so "caring and compassionate" about them. I strongly believe leaders should lead out of humility, meaning, leaders should likewise be as open as honest as they expect their sheep to be. After all, none of them or flawless, for all of have sinned (Romans 3:23). This in turn, had caused a weird relationship where the sheep was tied in submission to the leader from sharing all those vulnerable moments of sin/confession, while the leader did not have those same ties back to the sheep, other than pity. Also, this type of relationship also meant that leaders would hardly ever apologize to sheep, even when they clearly did wrong. It was often excused away, like they were so stressed because they had so many ministry duties, so the sheep should understand and be gracious.
2. Treated their "sheep" as perennial children, not as adults, fostering members that don't know how to really think independently (which I believe God does want, because he gave us a brain and free-will), but only know how to do as they are taught or told. I believe the point of leader should be to allow those under them to grow, and not merely be obedient. Any parent that raises a child strictly under the umbrella of unquestioned obedience would be a poor parent. Even a good parent should want their child to mature by building their character and fostering individual thinking and reasoning that leads to wisdom and maturity; which is what it means to become an adult. Adults should relate to adults as adults. Just because someone is say 26, versus 32, there is no reason to cow-tow due to the age difference. That's just cultural, borne from asian Confucianism. Adults should value each others free-will and not relate to each other in a way that's like an adult to child.
I'm sure there are people who are exceptions to this at GP, and I dearly hope I am wrong.
Also, I do not share out of spite, but list these things to point out that these aforementioned things must change. I hope they have already.
At the very least, I pray that they become aware of it, since awareness and confession is the first step toward changing.
Berkland/GP is like a bullet train on a circular track.
The train is filled with a bunch of ignorant but mostly happy riders, thinking they are going somewhere. They all hopped on willingly and stay on by choice. Many of them have to keep convincing themselves that they got on the right train. But since so many other on the train seem to be happy, it certainly seems the right train to be on.
Now, Becky Kim and Ed Kang might recognize they are not quite the church they want(ed) to be. But how do you stop that fast-moving train without a whole lot of damage -- damage to the train, the track, the riders, the conductors' reputations, etc.?
I'm sure somewhere in Ed and Becky's consciences there is a desire to change. But at the same time, the complete overhaul that is required is probably too much of a risk for either one to take. It means completely dismantling the whole thing -- from top down. They spent 25+ years building it.
One thing I realize about Berkland/GPC is that there is a really subtle distrust of God in the leadership. That's why there are so many stories of domineering control, forced participation, etc. Ultimately, the leadership doesn't trust that God is working in the congregation/church.
Anybody agree?
I've always thought Berkland was more of a hot air balloon. First you are sailing merrily along, until it lifts you ever higher off the ground. The longer you're on for the ride, the harder the fall should you decide to get off.
One thing we can all agree on, including Ed and Becky: given a choice, the congregation will choose poorly. Strong leadership is a must for any church, but even King David had a consiglieri in the form of Nathan.
Obama is supposedly gathering a "team of rivals" (taking Lincoln's example) for his cabinet, b/c he doesn't want a "groupthink" administration. By comparison, both Ed and Becky do not trust many other than themselves; afterall, they have only been molding followers/faux-leaders not true leaders, while voices of dissent are ousted one way or another.
Ed once said, "We do not want a bunch of yes-men." And with that, people confidently sign up to be yes-men, saying to themselves, "We're not yes-men." And Ed surrounds himself with yes-men, all the while saying with the straightest of countenances, "We do not want a bunch of yes-men." And the yes-men are reassured that they are not. Classic doublethink.
That's a good analogy hamcycle about the hot air balloon.
Yes, and I believe Ed and Kelly both have yes-men and yes-women who are told not to be yes-persons, but are in reality expected to behave with compliance for the sake of "church unity". Doublethink indeed.
I've heard that they've told their "directors" to openly tell them when they disagree, but I think it's quite a farce, as all of them were raised within Berkland-Gracepoint. I don't know if anyone has openly disagreed with them about anything significant, except maybe the color of the paint on the wall.
In the end, the leaders and staff below them are extensions of Ed and Kelly, serving as appendages to their own very closed, tightly-controlled idea of living out the gospel as Christians in the context of Gracepoint. They need control over every aspect of the church, and require ministry reports or weekly reports (whatever they call it now) of each staff members activities for ministry. In some ways, it's setup like a beehive with the queen bee directing all.
Some references I've found on abusive churches on churchabuse.com:
Being Told To "Get Over It And Move On!" - I've heard this kind of message myself during my stay there at Berkland/Gracepoint
Spiritual Abuse Survey
More articles
Thanks for those references; I've placed one on the menu list.
I appreciate your writing. It made me think though, of the age-old doubt, that Ed, having considered the alternatives, deemed that there simply wasn't another way. Any lesser attempt would make the church a farce, and his efforts disingenuous. Yet a genuine effort merely created a different kind of farce.
Lord help us!
A church's personality and culture is molded mostly by the pastor. In gracepoint's case, it's both Ed and his wife Kelly.
Their personalities are strong and controlling. For the most part, they are wise, and they are keen on how people 'function' and understand how to 'guide' people toward a desired result. They don't have any apparent personal vices of sin and they're disciplined and have strong self-control. As you can infer, thus is born Gracepoint's culture and their role in it.
I believe they usurp the role of God and the Holy Spirit by their domineering and heavy-handed, micromanaging methods. They also second guess people's motives quite often, and assume that people - their own sheep - are lying. Granted that people may lie, mostly likely out of fear, I think it's a leader's responsibility to be as gracious as possible and to grant the benefit of the doubt. Let the Holy Spirit do his role of convicting people of sin.
One of Kelly's most used phrases were "Isn't it really because you are like ____(insert bad sinful characteristic here)? You should repent." These things were often said in the midst of one of those rebuking sessions or 1 on 1 'talks' and the sheep is left to blame his or herself. She may show grace, but the oddity is that she shows grace after she herself has heaped accusations upon you.
There were some absurd times where someone might have a problem, but instead of trying to understand the root of the issue and hearing the person out, she would state that it's because the sheep was not faithfully doing his or her devotions everyday. She would share that at staff meetings.
It's such a horrible, superficial and blaming way to deal with someone. Could it be that maybe the person was not doing devotions BECAUSE of the problems, rather than it being the cause?
Such 'counseling' would limit people to blaming themselves - that if they were struggling, it was because of their failure to keep up daily with devotions, rather than perhaps something like the overly authoritarian structure of gracepoint church itself.
I believe in hierarchy in church, but only as God meant it. Leaders should be humble, and full of grace, while loving truth. Leaders should not be focused on legalism, (hence the writings of Paul in Galatians and Colossians to eliminate any legalism apart from the pure gospel of grace). While holiness is a must, it should be understood that perfect holiness via rules and legalism is not possible.
Colossians 1:22 states:
"But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation"
Only through Christ are we seen as holy, because his death as our redeeming sacrifice covers our sinfulness.
Unfortunately, Kelly and Ed have used methods of accusation to control their congregation, and the handprints of Becky Kim are there, although they themselves have refuted her as their own leader.
Here is some relevant text from Battered Sheep
Non-abusive leaders rebuke members only for grave public sins, as a last resort (Matthew 18:17). Abusive leaders often publicly rebuke or ostracize members who simply disagree with leaders' opinions. Usually vis-à-vis sermon illustrations or applications, etc.
Non-abusive leaders do not encourage people to leave the fellowships because of differences of opinion. Abusive leaders often assume the right -- unilaterally -- to tell or encourage members who do not agree with leaders' opinions to leave the fellowship.
Non-abusive leaders do not view members as "lacking spiritually" simply because they do not participate in numerous fellowship activities. Abusive leaders view as "spiritually lacking" those who fail to attend most all their fellowship activities. Some even mandate the number of meetings members MUST attend.
Non-abusive leaders do not discourage members from reading information critical about the group. Abusive leaders often control negative information about the group by either discrediting it or by dissuading members not to read it.
Non-abusive leaders do not judge your hearts, but they leave that to God. Abusive leaders constantly judge hearts, motives, and intents. They basically assume -- rather, usurp -- the place of God.
Berkland/GPFC Sheep:
There are much greener pastures out there, regardless of whatever contrary ideas your leaders have planted in your head for the past x years.
Don't waste your lives trying to squash that little voice in your head that's been saying "something isn't right here."
May this new year bring happiness & healing to the long list of damaged souls brought on by Berkland and Gracepoint.
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)
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.
Some more to the list:
-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.
To the comment immediately above me:
I am a recent graduate from Cal and I have interacted a lot with many of the staff members. To tell you the truth (and I think I have the right to give my 2 c ), I fail to experience any of what you mentioned above in terms of the character of the leaders. I respect most of them as brothers and sisters in Christ and as people who strive to love and serve God, with flaws that you and I have. I am not going to call you out and call you a liar but each person should be able to experience and his or her own conclusion. And since you have already left you really don't have the perspective to tell me (or my friends who have chosen to stick around) what to think, since you are not here.
To poster above - if you have good experiences there, then that's good for you. You should stay there. I think it's pretty simple.
I don't think any of us are stating that GFC is a unilaterally bad church - not every single leader is 100% wicked.
The posts refer only to those who cannot grow spiritually there, and/or have had obviously bad or unbiblical experiences, but feel compelled to have to stay.
Just because my own experiences, along with several others, have been bad, does not mean we're stating that everyone else's experiences must therefore be bad. We're not discounting your own experiences, nor dismissing them as false.
And of course, you're entitled to your 2 cents. But your experiences at the same time, does not discount mine, and please don't dismiss my experiences as false.
If you've read the blogs and their comments, you'll find that many here have found themselves being dismissed plainly as "unspiritual" "complainers" and "rebellious," among other things, when we were pointing out glaring unbiblical issues in the leadership. We made effort to get them addressed, and wrongs made right, but we were merely dismissed. Not only that, they accused my own personal character, rather than listening to the truth of what I was bringing up.
That, I thought, was quite ironic, since GFC, since its Berkland days have taught people to value truth regardless of how it's told, and that humble people could do as such.
3/04/2009 4:48 PM,
Consider this link: Open Guide to Boston. The defense of your position is along those lines. Your refusal to acknowledge what may have occurred in the history of this church outside of your experience, is defensive indeed.
Berklanders/Gracepointers have many things in common. One of the most obvious similarities are the sentiments brought forward by the poster above: a fierce and offensive insistence that they are 100% right.
This is the cause for the shunning of the people that leave and the root of the unapologetic nature of the leadership.
Any kind of dissenting opinion or experience is labeled as fiction, a twisted/ungrateful perspective, stubborness, weak faith, and/or (worst of all) "misunderstanding God" or not even being "truly" saved.
Truly saddening and dangerous, isn't it?
To the young Gracepointer:
You say: "I fail to experience any of what you mentioned above in terms of the character of the leaders. I respect most of them as brothers and sisters in Christ and as people who strive to love and serve God, with flaws that you and I have."
Not a failure on your part. Oh, I see…an attempt at understatement. Well, it certainly could be the case that Gracepoint has grown so big and has such a mixed lineage (Becky's ruthless casuistry side-by-side with Pastor Ed's insightfulness, rhetorical prowess, and overall good-naturedness) you may have had the good fortune of having the company of leaders who grew up spiritually under those good qualities of Pastor Ed. There certainly are good pastors at Gracepoint. I don't think even the most vociferous critic of Gracepoint will find fault with a gentle fellow like Pastor Manny.
So, you're lucky. Another thing to be grateful for.
Just my 2 coins. You are likely at a stage many of us who post here have been before: undoubting, ready to submit, taken in by the kindness extended to us, warmed by the fellowship, and challenged by the messages. Otherwise known as the freshman and sophomore years.
It is only when you start to exercise your free will in regard to the direction you believe you are being led that you begin to feel the hold of Berkland (and maybe Gracepoint). It is when you seek pause from the Berkland discipling program that you will feel the force of its gears pressing upon you.
It is in how Berkland (and maybe Gracepoint) responds to such independence that deserves discussion.
You may never have such a disparity in your will and Gracepoint's. It could very well be that you will be discipled and then become discipler and then perhaps become a pastor on day. And it may be that you will be as Ed was, when he could be silent no longer about his spiritual leader, and perhaps, in the future, you will lead your sheep out of Gracepoint.
There is discord and discontent at every church. Even while Pastor Ed suffered under Becky, he kept silent to all his many grievances.
Are you willing to believe that such human and secular influences detailed in Ed's letter to Becky did not trickle down to Gracepoint? Many of the older leaders at Gracepoint practically bowed at her feet.
You say: "And since you have already left you really don't have the perspective to tell me (or my friends who have chosen to stick around) what to think, since you are not here."
I do hope Gracepoint is something quite different than what Becky's hands have made it. If anyone could cause it to change, it is Pastor Ed. Not the old Pastor Ed who cast his lot with Becky even while he contemplated her flaws. But the new one. The Pastor Ed who clearly saw Becky's faults, realized his obedience to his leader and his loyalty to his friends were in opposition to where God was leading him. And, hopefully, the Pastor Ed who will be prayerful and watchful to keep Kelly SMN from becoming one of those shrill emoters that Berkland's women leaders oft become.
To poster above - I think Pastor Ed has many good qualities, but I thin you are too quick to lift him up as someone who's the diamond in the rough type of figure.
He's not very different when it comes to how he's defensive he is when a matter that was wrong is brought forth to him. He's just more coy and tactful about it.
It's been mentioned here before, but he usually essentially pleads the 5th, like he knew nothing of the matter. And sometimes, he would even say "you should have brought it up earlier, then I would have known and done otherwise". Or like the lawyer that he is, he demand a long list of evidence, and will try to invalidate and dismiss each of them. Granted not all grievances brought forward will be right, but at the same time, not all will be wrong.
One of his biggest faults is taking the sides of his "yes-men" in the past, even when it was clear that the older staff leader was in the wrong. There is more than one account of this that I'm aware of. Rather than having the older staff apologize, and even step down if necessary, he took their side, and didn't require for an apology by the older staff.
People have left church over this. Pastor Ed would then dismiss them as "not humble enough" or being too sensitive or even unforgiving. But how can they be unforgiving if they were never asked for forgiveness?
And naturally as the culture is there, people would end up assuming that the person was who left just not enduring or spiritual enough, and be too afraid to actually personally ask the person why he or she left - even if they were friends. why? Because they might find out something bad but true, which they don't want to hear. And if their leaders found out, my goodness, they may be corrected for believing such 'rubbish' from the person that left.
In the end, Pastor Ed is consumed with protecting GFC as his number one priority, since he and Kelly 'built it'. So GFC is never wrong on anything. If they are, it was always a misunderstanding, or your fault for not bringing it up. Or, you're just not humble or spiritual enough to understand.
...or you're a "princess" -- another favorite Ed Kang-ism used on sisters that don't acquiesce to Kelly's own nobility.
Ed wants to build a big, big, big church and the 5-10 members that leave every semester are but collateral damage for his bigger agenda. They are acceptable losses, and he probably applauds their departure since those that leave are the ones that have objections to very questionable practices, ideas and methods in Gracepoint. Better they leave than be those mustard seeds of doubt. Ed Kang and his team of yes-men easily dismiss them as yeast.
I would like to correct the poster above, in that Gracepoint/Berkland DOES offer apologies. Here's how they usually are delivered:
"I am sorry for _____. I just thought you were mature enough to take ______. And I thought that I could trust you because we had a relationship, which is why I did/said ______."
Wow, what a crafty way to put the wrong all on the other person, huh?
That's so true!
Here are some other names that you can be called for not "going along" with their abusive, heavy-handed, controlling ways.
-Overly sensitive
-Petty
-Not normal
-Individualistic
-Rebellious
-Unspiritual
-"Bruised Fruit" (borrowed from Becky)
I wonder how P Ed ad Kelly repent before God.
"God, I am sorry for sinning against you, but I thought you'd be gracious enough that you could take it without me having to apologize. After all, I thought we had a strong relationship, but I suppose that is not the case. I did not realize how overly sensitive You are."
Post a Comment