Kelly Kang and the Biblical Role of Women

Aug 5, 2009 10:52 AM
Kelly Kang and the Biblical Role of Women
by makestraight

Hamcycle took his blog down, but with his permission, I am posting the following from his blog, as it details how Kelly Kang at Gracepoint Fellowship Church has behaved in her top leader role next to Pastor Ed Kang.

I’m including the comments as it generated into an interesting discussion about the biblical role of women overall. In the comments, you’ll see that Kelly’s blog post is what prompted me to start my own blog in the first place.

Warning: this post is very long


—

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

hamcycle said…

Thanks for writing. I cannot verify anything that you’ve written from my own experience, but it is consistent with what I’ve read in Toxic.

12/28/2008 9:00 PM

1/27/2009 11:44 AM

Anonymous said…

…and the irony of all of it is that she herself is the one that insists upon everyone in her church to do a lot of “self-reflection”.

And Gracepoint is the wrong name for that church. You are shown grace up to the point of salvation in the church, and from thereon, you will experience more of Legalism-point, or Kang-point, since you were “given so much for your own salvation”. So you should submit exactly to their schedule for God’s work, since through that system you were saved.

And unfortunately many succumb to this, and the grace and freedom they experienced upon salvation is soon loaded up with burdens of schedule and duties with little wiggle room for voluntary things down out of the heart.

12/29/2008 3:42 PM

1/27/2009 11:44 AM

Anonymous said…

I was present at, and write to confirm, the testimony of the anonymous poster above. There was no exaggeraton or inflation of the facts in the poster’s account of “Kelly’s Sick Sunday,” “Birthday Bake-Off” and “Where’s Your Card?” And really, those are just a few of the many narcissistic examples of Kelly Kang’s “righteous” anger at her “ungrateful and immature” herd.

Yes, Pastor Ed’s letter certainly does confound. Could it be that he is genuinely blind to his wife (and his own) narcissism? In my experience with Pastor Ed, he often feigns ignorance of issues (”I would have done something had you told me,” “I was not aware this was going on”). So is Pastor Ed just some mindless puppethead of his wife? Pastor Ed is a very bright man, very bright. If he is ignorant to what’s right in front of his face, we should really pray that God opens his eyes.

It’s sad to hear that, to this day, Kelly insists she was justified in mandating the rebuke of every single small group because of her sick day.

I heard Gracepoint now does not “require” birthday cards and the awkward (forced and fake) Mother’s Day appreciation of spiritual leaders. Good! But I wonder if it truly has gone away. Do Kelly’s “directors” still “honor” her on Mother’s Day with gifts, cards, brunches, dinners? My guess is that a lot of things have changed for the sake of bringing new people into the fold — but for the old cogs in the wheel, all is status quo. After all, a narcissist doesn’t just one day stop being who s/he is.

One thing I always find interesting about Gracepoint is the overwhelming prevalance of “unexplained” illnesses. Staff will see doctors and specialists for all sorts of health issues — all without much explanation. Fibromyalgia, fatigue syndrome, digestive issues, headaches, carpal tunnel — not only is Gracepoint spiritually unhealthy, it seems as though it is physically an unhealthy environment. Mind, body and soul are, after all, integrally tied.

I hope this blog stays alive. It’s slightly more reasonable than Toxic, though I understand the need and purpose of Toxic’s blog, as well.

Thank you.

1/13/2009 8:56 AM

1/27/2009 11:45 AM

Anonymous said…

I also hope this blog stays alive.

I noticed a sudden explosion of gracepoint fellowship church related blogs, and I believe the method they are trying to take is to drown out these blogs by fighting fire with fire.

After Pastor Ed supposedly declared blogging narcissistic and self-centered, they probably switched their position on blogs, after this and the toxic faith blog was made known.

Now Pastor Ed has a blog, Kelly Kang has a blog, every ministry seems to have a blog, and of course, they all make sure to link to each other and so forth to try to make it up the search rankings.

The interesting and rather paradoxical thing about it all is that Kelly’s blog particularly reveals exactly the kind of subservient relationships talked about here.

It seems every comment on her blog entries are all to the tone of “I agree!” “Yes, that’s so true!”, etc etc.. There is really no discussion or questions about anything, every always agrees! Should you post a dissenting comment, your comment probably will be moderated and not posted.

I think this blog has to remain afloat for one main reason – as a call to repentance for both Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang for their sins of narcissism and spiritual abuse, and above all, denying any veracity in any of these claims. Their approach in the past is to place the blame all on misunderstanding, or some personal character faults of those that have left. Granted, some may have been, and further some probably did leave to “go after the world” as they would put it, but such explanations cannot obviously count for all those that have left.

As for the previous posters question about Ed regarding the blatant narcissism of his own wife, I believe that he essentially pleads the fifth, as a good lawyer would advise his own client. He was a lawyer after all.

I don’t think at all that he is clueless. Rather, he plays dumb, and remains quiet. They probably can’t afford to have any negative talk come out of their church, especially after having written that letter and splitting off from the Berklands. They probably want and need to save face in front of the Berklands.

They do have one major thing in common, and that’s their need for heavy-handed control over everything that goes on in Gracepoint Fellowship Church, and in this way, they are great partners.

If any Gracepointers are reading this, I ask you to read books on spiritual abuse. But of course, don’t tell your leaders. Try to be objective and see what a church should be like, and what the gospel is about, beyond how it is presented in GFC. The gospel of course talks about spiritual training and rebukes and so forth, but it also talks of freedom and grace. They all go together.

Lastly, compare your leaders against the fruit of the spirit. Do they show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control?

Or do they induce fear and guilt through their heavy-handed methods?

This basic test should apply to any church, Berkland, Gracepoint, or the church down the street.

1/13/2009 1:03 PM

1/27/2009 11:46 AM

Anonymous said…

One thing I always find interesting about Gracepoint is the overwhelming prevalance of “unexplained” illnesses. Staff will see doctors and specialists for all sorts of health issues — all without much explanation. Fibromyalgia, fatigue syndrome, digestive issues, headaches, carpal tunnel — not only is Gracepoint spiritually unhealthy, it seems as though it is physically an unhealthy environment. Mind, body and soul are, after all, integrally tied.

My opinion is that many are suffering as such due to not getting the sufficient rest that they need. Berkland/Gracepoint had a history of not observing the Sabbath and creating a culture of spirituality around despising sleep and depending on coffee and redbull and such to stay awake.

They believe in attending everything, doing everything, because such as the suffering of the cross. I agree that suffering is part of the gospel and Jesus himself said those who follow him would indeed suffer.

But as in any love relationship, suffering driven by love is common, good and honorable. People in such relationships should be acknowledged and honored.

But GFC seem put the carriage before the horse. They emphasize this suffering aspect of the gospel as the primary concern and therefore, many seem to do what they do out of compulsion. Could this constant work driven on compulsion be the basis of such illnesses?

The other twisted thing about this is that then Ed and Kelly would point to such illnesses in herself and their staff, and lift themselves up as the sacrificial ones who do so much for the Lord.

They do this so that the younger ones would feel the same kind of compulsion to do the same or more amount of work “since the older ones have sacrificed and suffered so much”

A long time ago, in the days of alcatraz, some of the “older leaders” shared their physical struggles and suffering in a so-called testimony in a meeting.

Afterwards, in some kind of follow-up message, Ed proceeded to rebuke the members, accusing them and stating that it was the members’ fault that the older staff were suffering as such.

1/13/2009 2:00 PM

1/27/2009 11:46 AM

hamcycle said…

In my experience with Pastor Ed, he often feigns ignorance of issues (”I would have done something had you told me,” “I was not aware this was going on”).

There were a number of times when I looked directly into Ed’s eyes as he made a statement I wasn’t sure he himself completely believed to be true, but was resolute to appear convinced of. In the past, I compared Ed to Bill Clinton when he boldly lied under oath; this was an incorrect comparison. While Bill’s statement was clearly false, Ed’s statement was a matter of faith, that Berkland will reach out and touch many lives. Matters of faith involve matters of uncertainty, and therefore while uncertain, one is permitted to make claims resolutely w/o imputing hypocrisy/insincerity unless proven otherwise.

One is often motivated to make such claims because there is something loved or needing of protection, deemed worthy to cast aside one’s doubts in the face of uncertainty. However, I believe a great faith not tempered by a love for truth allows one to eventually embrace even that which is clearly false. Becky was noted for having said that lying is permissible when protecting whom we love. I do not doubt that I will do this myself, but I believe I will commit this acknowledging that it is sin.

Ed ignoring the draining of the Fruits of the Spirit, from his former leader and his wife, would characterize a great faith that turned a blind eye to truth.

I wonder about the life of this blog myself. What prompted the two of you to drop by, anyways? Aside from your own posts, there hasn’t been anything new for more than a year. Yesterday I was re-reading “Why So Quiet,” and I took pause in reflecting. My opinion of it hasn’t changed. I would not characterize it as evil, but certainly not good.

1/13/2009 9:40 PM

1/27/2009 11:47 AM

Anonymous said…

I hope there isn’t another closure contemplated for this blog. As one of the more recent posts mentioned, there has been a sudden growth of ex-Berkland-Gracepoint blogs out there. The level of consideration and discourse, here, distinguishes it from the others, I believe. And, hamcycle, you take the time to address the historical roots of Gracepoint-Berkland and to address the many issues at Gracepoint-Berkland. The other promininent blogs take a few traumatic incidents and allow others to post their own experience without much discussion to the underlying issues. There was a newer blog that seemed on the road to putting down something a little more systematic, like yours, but it remains mostly undeveloped.

Consider this, too. On one of the blogs, there was a hopeful comment from a Gracepoint member about the “new” direction Gracepoint leadership was taking the church. Since that post, I have yet to hear about any transformation. If this “renewal” endeavor was undertaken with the participation of all Gracepoint members, I would have expected some mention of it in the expanding world of Gracepoint’s bloggers. Instead, silence. Instead, more ex-Gracepoint folks have come to the blogs to express the same things people have been mentioning even before the Becky-Ed schism. I can only hope that there is inner renewal in the leadership that we may not be seeing on the outside.

I am hoping that, one day, one of the leaders who is in a position to effect real change, reads through this blog and finally gets it.

1/15/2009 12:56 PM

1/27/2009 11:48 AM

Anonymous said…

Although I applaud any desire for Ed, Kelly and their leaders under them to change, one thing still remains very very disturbing for me.

If they see the need change, what are they changing from? They will never admit to that. They will never admit that they are trying to change from anything they had done wrong.

It is obvious from their own preaching and teaching that as a Christian, before you focus on change, there has to be confession and repentance to the TRUTH of the sins. Gracepointers, I’m sure you’re all familiar with this.

I challenge you ask your leaders the same thing – what is GFC trying to change FROM? If they want to change, have they confessed and repented clearly of the wrongs?

However, they are being hypocritical and dismissing their own biblical teaching. They want to pretend that NOTHING happened, that they did no one any wrong, and that everyone who left had left due to either misunderstanding or because of their individual faults and sins.

As Hamcycle has already mentioned from his personal experience, Ed especially “plays dumb” and states something to the effect that if he would have known, they would have changed it, and since you yourself never brought it up, the blame is shifted back to the person raising the issues.

When leaders cannot follow their own teaching, or at least be humble about not being able to live up to them, they should no longer be followed.

Paradoxically, this was the same reason why Ed wrote the letter defecting from Becky.

Ed and Kelly’s response to Becky’s recent “repentance” was that she seemed very ambiguous about what she did wrong, and did not clearly repent of them. Therefore, they doubted the sincerity of her repentance.

Matthew 7
3″Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

1/16/2009 3:19 PM

1/27/2009 11:48 AM

Anonymous said…

Um, how did Pastor Ed and Kelly SMN hear about Becky’s “repentance” if both parties aren’t even communicating? Something here purports a close source, one that is close both to Becky JDSN and to Ed/Kelly.

1/16/2009 9:46 PM

1/27/2009 11:49 AM

hamcycle said…

Details of Becky’s repentance are listed in a comment in Toxic’s third post.

1/17/2009 11:05 PM

1/27/2009 11:49 AM

Anonymous said…

Yes, isn’t it amazing how both sides of this split are actually more alike than different?

Neither side has chosen to admit anything really wrong. Both sides explain themselves as having only the best of intentions — that, though some were severely damaged by their churches, there really has been no wrongs committed solely based on their “good intentions.”

They, after all, intended only to love and build up. So, the jump-to-conclusion accusations, the overly-harsh & demeaning (often public) rebukes, the heavyhanded lifestyle monitoring, etc were all OK since it was all done FOR YOU.

For those waiting for an apology or even a glimmer of some repentance from Kelly/Ed and Becky, I urge you to try and forgive them. Then, move forward in your walk with God happily & blamelessly. Why? Because if you are waiting for apologies or admission, you will wait an eternity. Perhaps, in heaven, they will apologize. Seems countless testimonies of real damage aren’t enough to move them towards repentance. They’ve got to hear it straight from God. Pity them in that regard, because it’s not going to be a pleasant day. So let them all save face…

I know both sides read this blog from time to time. Even reading 10% of what’s posted here should have moved them to some kind of repentance, no? Instead, it’s pretty much status quo on both sides.

In the end, my peace comes from the fact that God is the final judge. Ed’s so-called ignorance to Kelly, Kelly & Becky’s narcissism, and all the yesmen that surround them… will be judged. And I will be judged on whether I can forgive them…even when they don’t ask for it.

1/17/2009 11:07 PM

1/27/2009 11:51 AM

Anonymous said…

Hamcycle,

I would love for you to give thoughts on the role of women in church.

I can’t help but attribute most of the failures and issues at Gracepoint/Berkland to the (unbiblical?) dominance of the pastors’ wives — Kelly Kang, Becky Kim, Susanna Lee, Grace Pak, Sue Im and others.

And before all you readers think I am male, please guess again.

1/19/2009 9:26 AM

1/27/2009 11:51 AM

Anonymous said…

Just my 2 cents. I think there are many more problems at Berkland than it’s stance on women in authority, and I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to say that the problems at Berkland are rooted in its women leaders.

My experience is that the issue of women in leadership positions in the church devolves into contentious bickering. For those who feel women should not lead within the church, they find a convenient example of how horribly things can go wrong in Becky’s Berkland. For those who feel women can and should lead churches, they will argue that the leadership of men is just as culpable in whatever Berkland has become.

I am sure there must be churches that fare well and prosper with a woman as pastor. It’s not even debated in many Presbyterian churches (non-Asian Presbyterian churches).

It is odd, though, when you think about the men who are married to the women leaders who get the most mention in these blogs.

I am convinced that Pastor Ed and Pastor Paul are good men who strive for godliness in their lives and have devoted themselves to the expansion of God’s kingdom. And, yet, they allow much of the administration and guidance of certain ministries (or in Pastor Paul’s case, the entire ministry) to be within the sole discretion of their wives.

One of the remarkable things about Pastor’s declaration of independence letter to Becky is who it is addressed to. Many, many pages going over misdeeds great and small, all to Becky. Not Pastor Paul. But to Becky. It is as if Pastor Paul was just another pastor of a Berkland church and inconsequential in the matter of wrenching the original Berkland church away from Becky’s hands.

And I’ve been hearing a lot about Kelly following in Becky’s footsteps. It shouldn’t surprise anybody. The women leaders parroted her down to her hair-do. I get the sense, reading Pastor Ed’s letter to Becky, that the Berkland pastors were content to live with Becky’s faults and to serve under her authority. What other reason is there for the meetings convened by Becky in which she criticized the pastors who were compelled to attend? It is only when Becky’s attacks became personal to the pastors’ wives that the burden of her disposition seemed to be bear any weight on their shoulders and hearts.

It makes me wonder where such compassion was when they lined up young college kids to bully them into submission in their own rebuking sessions.

1/19/2009 12:42 PM

1/27/2009 11:52 AM

hamcycle said…

We both know what the Bible literally says regarding women’s roles. We also know that the Bible is subject to parsing. Doctrine and catechisms are the results of parsing the Bible, and many abide by them. Sometimes parsing is done to fit the needs of people of a certain time, place, and composition. Among Protestants there is no single person that can authorize a single doctrine or interpretation.

My own interpretation of the Bible passages is that women shouldn’t lead over men in the church. I don’t know whether Paul wrote this as a matter of expediency or principle. Deeming what type of matter it is (expediency or principle) determines how strictly one’s church would adhere to this passage.

If it is a matter of expediency, we might have a discussion on gender differences, in the areas of temperament, ego, self-image, character, interests, personality, etc. all of which has nothing to do with merit but function, and based on stereotypes. These may not be as clear cut a difference as childbearing, but they can be acknowledged.

I think a dicussion of why it is a matter of principle suffices. A home where a woman does not respect her husband as the head is not ideal, as this is the order God intended. A woman leader at church undermines this relationship between man and woman.

Becky, with her abundance of spiritual gifts, rose to leadership solely based on merit, as no man was her equal on this basis. I think it is okay to make exceptions, e.g. Deborah, because at sometimes the needs met by expediency overshadows those by principle. It would be fair to say that there are male equivalents of Becky, who also struggle with not becoming corrupted by power.

I don’t know the circumstances that lead those other women on your list to leadership positions, and to what capacity they serve, and why you’ve described their service at church unsuccessful, so I won’t comment. I will say however that these women are different from Becky in a critical regard: they did not rise to their leadership positions owing to their merits alone, but because of their husbands.

1/19/2009 3:28 PM

1/27/2009 11:52 AM

Anonymous said…

Those pastors’ wives “rose up” to leadership, because of the unhealthy precedence set by Becky Kim.

There is absolutely no need for the above mentioned list of wives to be such a looming presence in the church. In other churches, it’s often quite hard to even distinguish who the pastor’s wife is. Not in Berkland. Every SMN (pastor’s wife) bears that title with a great deal of pride. In fact, being a dominant force is an accolade. It means one is terribly spiritual and a woman warrior for Christ.

People live in fear of a lot of the women listed above — and no, SMNs, it’s NOT a HOLY fear. Women have a rightful and needful place in the church, but it’s not as the Last Word.

1/19/2009 4:00 PM

1/27/2009 11:52 AM

hamcycle said…

And here’s my direct answer:

Women tend to be more emotional than logical. A temperament that is cool and detached is better suited for leadership.

While granted that this does not apply to all women, I have personally encountered more irrational indignation from women than from men. It also seems to me that magnamity, (i.e. generously forgiving of insults or injuries; not envious; high-minded) seems to be less present in women. These too make for poor leadership qualities. Women who exhibit certain traits that are traditionally attributed to males are valued as leaders.

The significance of the former point (about their roles gained not solely through merit), is that they themselves know they wield an authority that is not deserved, which is characterized by an insecurity that seeks to affirm the contrary. These affirmations manifest themselves through putting fear into hearts instead of winning them over via merit.

Not only is this authority undeserved, but to be fair, they didn’t seek it out in the first place. They have been thrust into these roles out of a sense of duty or obligation. Therefore, it is understandable that they would have a sense of entitlement, having made this sacrifice to serve others instead of focusing on their own nuclear family.

1/20/2009 2:43 PM

1/27/2009 11:53 AM

Anonymous said…

Commenting on Becky’s supposed ‘repentance,’ I had the privilege of interacting with Becky since her ‘repentance,’ and was taken aback by just how obnoxious, proud, arrogant, selfish, and loud this woman was.

In her teachings she talked more about herself than about jesus -she bragged about how many people attended her teachings, how many pastors came to her for advice, she name dropped and lied about the reasons she went on sabbatical.

Her excuse for her break… her daughter was getting married and her mother was on her deathbed. I guess we are supposed to sympathize with her recent struggles.

The proof that she has not repented… she is still teaching Friday Night Bible Study at Harvard. She is still leading the mission churches. She is still front and center in all of the Berkland pictures taken this past summer.

She bragged about how the six Presidents of the Southern Baptist Seminaries had chosen Berkland out of all of the churches in Boston to visit while they were there for a conference… you could tell how self-satisfied she was with the ’stamp of approval’ she felt her ministry was receiving by their presence at the ordination service.

Interestingly, while the six men and their wives were present, she sat in the second row, and took a more unassuming role in the service than she might have if they were not there. However as soon as they had gone, she was front and center again.

One of the things that recently disturbed me the most was her admiration for the Catholic church, especially their ’strong leadership.’

1/22/2009 3:50 PM

1/27/2009 11:53 AM

Anonymous said…

Becky’s behavior, as reported in Pastor Ed’s letter and these recent accounts like the one above, is so creepy. It has gone far, far past the belittling and verbally abusive acts I witnessed. So very strange, too, that the SBC hasn’t looked beyond the numbers (both in membership and contributions to the SBC). Do they even care?

1/22/2009 11:17 PM

1/27/2009 11:53 AM

Anonymous said…

When I brought up the issue to leadership within the SBC, this was the response that I got.

“I am not unaware of the problems here. In my presence they behave pretty well, but in all of the churches in Korea and many here there is a severe weakness in the Scriptural understanding of gender and the appropriate roles. Eventually this will undermine them if they do not get it right. “

1/23/2009 7:48 AM

1/27/2009 11:53 AM

Anonymous said…

What a tragedy, and blind hypocrisy – two unrepentant camps preaching about the gospel based upon repentance…

In the end, the gospel has become to them a tool to increase their own kingdoms, not God’s.

1/23/2009 12:58 PM

1/27/2009 11:54 AM

hamcycle said…

I very much want to hear counter arguments to my thoughts on gender roles in the church. Even my own posts leave a bad taste in my mouth.

I want to see more egalitarianism in the church, with each person assessed by the content of their person and not their gender.

The besmirched title of SMN and how it is perceived as a failure of gender instead of say nepotism (for lack of a better word) may be due in part to societal prejudices against the circumstances that surround women. I’m not a humanities or social science major so I’ll end it here.

1/23/2009 1:12 PM

1/27/2009 11:54 AM

Anonymous said…

hamcycle,

I believe it is biblical and not just cultural for a woman to have a role has a helper. It’s pretty clear in the Bible. A man is called to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, as in a sacrificial, protective love.

From my experience, women for the most part are good at helping, at noticing the things that men have missed.

Furthermore, men are designated the head of the household. This means if there is a difference in opinion, the man’s opinion is the final authority. Does this mean that a man is greater? No, it’s his God-given role.

In the context of church, however, it’s clear that Jesus Christ is the Head, and neither man nor woman.

But Paul goes as far to say that women should not speak in the church in 1 Tim 2:

“11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

What’s interesting here is that he does not attribute this to some cultural adherence, but to the order of creation itself. That is the basis upon which he does not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

This makes me wonder, in light of what’s clear about the women leaders in both GP and BBC, if Paul had insight into this already regarding the nature of women.

Maybe he knew that women could overstep their bounds as helpers, and then become arrogant, narcissistic, overly-talkative, controlling, and even abusive as leaders with power over men.

Again, does this mean that men are better per se? No, God-given roles are just that, and something we should accept.

A man is prone to errors in leadership also, but I think there’s something about men, where they understand the need to empower others and allow them to grow as individuals, rather than seeking control over them – a more hands-off approach if you might say, which treats others as adults.

If you go back to Genesis 3, God stated that it would be the woman’s downfall, that a women would desire her husband (meaning a possessive desire). I believe that possessive desire, if not kept in check, can become monstrous and out of control of seeking possessive control over other people also, not only the husband.

That’s my 2 cents.

1/23/2009 5:27 PM

1/27/2009 11:54 AM

Anonymous said…

The more I have researched the topic of women in ministry, the more I am convinced that Paul was right in his judgement that women should not be in spiritual leadership positions over men.

It is a simple equation. Woman + Leadership = Heresy.*

Now I need to recognize that there are extreme situations which require women to be in leadership positions. Currently over 80% of the missionaries in the world are women, and many house church leaders in China are women -is this a problem? Yes, it is a problem, not because women are taking these tasks upon themselves, but because men aren’t stepping up to do their duty!

When there is a man capable of doing the job, then they should do the job! In the case of house churches in China, there are simply not enough male Christians to lead all the churches -so God has raised up women to be leaders until proper biblical leadership can be established under the headship of a male.

In the case of Becky JDSN, she is openly defying scripture by continuing to teach ABSK and exerting authority over BBC Boston and the mission churches. She needs to repent and pass on the leadership to capable men -of which there are many among her ministry. Her refusal to submit herself to scripture is sin.

In Jewish culture, a boy becomes a man at 14 years old -therefore in the culture of Jesus and the apostle Paul, there are 14 year olds in the youth department who have more biblical authority to lead the church than Becky JDSN. Remember, Timothy in the bible was a young man, it did not specify how young, but Paul told him not to be discouraged because of his youth! Timothy was the spiritual shepherd for many men and women who were older than him.

What qualified him for this? Partly it was his training under Paul, partly his calling as a minister (he had be prophetically set aside for the ministry), but also it was his obligation as a man in the community!

This is a rebuke to Pastor Paul as well, you need to step up and take headship of your marriage and your church! Your wife needs to submit to you! Do not be timid, do not let your wife continue to defy the Word of God and lead people away from Jesus.

1/23/2009 5:30 PM

1/27/2009 11:55 AM

Anonymous said…

I am truly grateful for the two previous posts. When freshmen and sophomores of Berkland of my era had questions about the particular roles of women leaders, they were quickly rebuked and silenced. I can recall one pastor basically making the claim that we weren’t spiritual enough to even ask the question. That also meant, of course, that we weren’t spiritual enough for the answer.

Really, is there some deep and intricate exegetical argument that was to open our eyes when we were ready? If there was, none of us received its secrets.

When we became juniors, we just assumed that there was a biblical basis for Becky’s role, but we never did get an explanation from any of the leaders.

It did begin to dawn on me that they couldn’t find a sound way to rhetorically circumvent Scripture. That they were brashly violating what was clearly stated and could only rationalize Becky’s role by doing what very liberal “churches” do: by locking those precepts only within the context of the 1st century church and in those ancient cultures.

But, then, what do we have if we say that these rules laid out by Apostle Paul applied only to the audience specifically named in his letters? Well, for one, we have that very literary exposition that Becky likes to indulge in, where nearly everything in Scripture is a metaphor and Berkland is the mirror of the ideal.

1/23/2009 6:05 PM

1/27/2009 11:56 AM

Anonymous said…

As both GP and BBC state, sin is when something is “not the way it’s supposed to be,” it’s “missing the mark” or transgressing, which means you have crossed a boundary that was not meant to be crossed – a boundary laid out by God.

They have clearly ignored the teachings about the role of women, and have rather emphasized such ambiguous aspects, such as Priscilla’s name coming before Aquilla as an example of a woman who was more spiritual than the husband, and thus was the leader of the household. It’s the pick-and-choose buffet mentality toward the Bible. While it remains clear that most of the laws in Leviticus do not apply and is indeed outdated because of the New Covenant through Jesus Christ, this aspect about women is in the post Jesus era under the New Covenant. It was in the dawn of the Church, and we can more or less infer that it’s still applicable.

For GP, it appears to be due to their idolatry of efficiency, excellence, and duty, something they continue to deny as truth. Since their top leader Kelly Kang is good at these attributes, she is granted that authority, not given by God, nor designed to be. She is clearly transgressing in the position that she is in, and she has also obviously sinned in more concrete specific ways of damaging people.

Her role has become justified for all other women under her, and even more than justified, it became a model. To be fair, however, the precedent was set by Becky.

Gracepoint in this way, is more a company than a church. They clearly violate God’s laid out principles for the role of women, because they value the company-like values of “producing” good work and being diligent and efficient. Along the way, they have driven people in the same way as a company, out of reward, guilt, fear and shame.

But as the adage goes, “The ends don’t justify the means”.

If the idea that “good intentions” for expanding God’s kingdom can justify the abuses, wrongs and hurts done along the way as acceptable, every Christian may as well become a thief to kill and steal money from the rich, donating all the proceeds to missionaries and orphanages around the world.

Or even wield physical power and conquer nations and oppress them, forcing them to turn to God – but history tells us that the Inquisition was not a good moment in Christian history.

Humility, grace, and full dependence upon God via the Holy Spirit is what every church needs, rather than a formulaic system of production and efficacy.

1/23/2009 7:31 PM

1/27/2009 11:56 AM

Anonymous said…

Following up on the post that I made at 1/23/2009 5:30 PM, I would like to clarify that I do believe that women do have a legitimate role in ministry -but it needs to be tempered by scripture.

Paul is actually VERY clear about the role of women in teaching and preaching in church:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.


Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:34-38 ESV)

In another place Paul says that he would not allow a woman to be his teacher. In the life of Jesus we see this acted out by Mary and Martha… Mary was contented to sit at the feet of the master and listen, while Martha was busy trying to ‘do ministry.’

Women and men are equal in the eyes of God, but intrinsically gifted in different ways. Women are more gifted in nurturing and comforting, while men are more gifted in leadership and flexing muscles… this leads to different, but equally valid forms of worship and service on behalf of men and women.

Worship and service are both the same word in Hebrew, and both of them are a matter of the heart, not a matter of the actions that come out of it. A woman doesn’t have to be a pastor to impact the world for Jesus, she can do it by discipling another woman, or visiting a nursing home, or caring for the sick, or attending a missions prayer meeting. In fact, the bible makes clear that the greatest act of worship she can do is by being a good wife and taking care of her family -this is outlined extensively in proverbs.

Lets be honest, women are going to be better at leading other women to Christ, so there is a necessary role for women to work as evangelists -like the daughters of Philip in acts. Women also have very intimate devotional lives, so they can become incredible prayer warriors. Women also have more compassion and tenderness than men, so they make great teachers of children, nurses and missionaries among the poor.

There are over 3 billion women in the world, many of them who have not heard the name of Jesus -there are countless opportunities for women to serve in missions, in children’s ministry, in local charities… these places and many more are what God has gifted women for -so stay away from the pulpit!

There is nothing wrong with a woman teaching other women at a woman’s conference, or a woman’s prayer meeting, or a woman’s missions convention, and for centuries women have been involved in these activities -but a woman shows arrogance and pride when she defies the word of God and presumes that the gifts that God has given her are meant to be used for something that God has specifically forbid.

Becky JDSN and the other SMNS at Berkland may have extraordinary gifts… but they are not using them in the way that God has intended them to be used. Unfortunately this is a very sad thing. Who knows how many countless lives Becky JDSN was meant to touch with her gifts if they were channeled into the right direction and tempered with humility -instead she has become a blight, and all of her blessings have turned into curses for others.

Many people will say ‘well look at how God has used her,’ my reply to that is to say, ‘do not suppose that God has used her, but in fact that God is so good that he can work in spite of her.’ It is the grace of God alone that any of us became Christians through her wicked ministry -it is by his infinite wisdom and mercy that she hasn’t been struck dead for her sin. Anything good that has come out of her ministry is only because of Him! The sad question is, how many times has she quenched the Holy Spirit, how many opportunities have been missed for men and women to meet their full effectiveness in Jesus because of her tight control on the Berkland ministry.

If she had never taken a leadership position, God could easily have raised up 10 men more talented than her -remember when John the Baptist said, ‘out of these stones God could raise up sons unto Abraham.’ God can, and would have provided a leader, or leaders more gifted than Becky JDSN had she stepped aside -or he would have done something more amazing and wonderful than we can imagine… but that is the problem with sin, we’ll never know what God would have done had we fully submitted unto Him. We can only be thankful that God has showed us grace and allowed us to have faith in spite of our sin.

1/23/2009 9:02 PM

1/27/2009 11:58 AM

Anonymous said…

Women indeed have a place — a much needed and vital role in their marriages and in ministry.

I’m not offering exegetical insights from the Bible about this — only what I have come to observe and experience through many years at Berkland/GP.

The women leadership at BBC/GP are extraordinary. They have the ability to command crowds into efficient, productive labor; they are able to physically deny fatigue & illness; they are able to glean truly insightful devotional “points” from the Scriptures. They are highly disciplined and have genuine visions of what they want their churches to become. All of this is very needed in a church the size of BBC/GP.

However…

The women leadership at BBC/GP are NOT the ones who should be leading. Of course, none of them would ever admit to being “head” over their husbands or the church. Even Becky JDSN — undeniably the leader of the Boston branch — defers to her husband. This is exactly what makes their roles in BBC/GP so insidious. On any given Sunday, you’ll notice SMNs seated somewhere in the back row, with a few trusted subordinates nearby ready to take orders should the SMN want, notice, or demand anything. It’s very clear who the authority is of each church. It didn’t take me a long time to know who to fear when I started attending. BBC/GP women leaders have mastered the unstated declaration of authority. Their husbands (with the exception of, perhaps, Ed Kang) look foolishly incapable and lost next to them, as if they are just waiting to finish their sermon or public address hoping they won’t get rebuked about something wrong they said later at home.

Ask any husband (Christian, non-Christian) and they will confirm how important their wives are in running a household. And the church is a household. Obviously, women catch what men don’t. And their presence is an integral part of a family or ministry. I cringe at the image of a church run WITHOUT the input of a spiritual woman.

But women also need to be controlled in that regard. Without this control, small details & other unsubstantial things/actions become paramount for that woman leader. And this leads to sheep that live in fear, a detail-oriented (not Spirit-controlled) atmosphere, and an underlying SMN-pleasing (not God-pleasing) environment. This is exactly what the BBC/GP women leadership have become — obsessing about small details, festering over a seemingly wrong facial expression or missed greeting, adding meaning into a poor word choice on one of the many mandatory thank you cards. And so the sheep respond accordingly — striving tirelessly to get every detail right, watching their words, always making sure the SMN is greeted. And so the group becomes SMN-lead, not God-lead. You become chained to the SMN you are trying to please — and those SMNs by nature are hard to please.

This is one of foundations of BBC/GP. Sure, the church has grown tremendously. It is said of alot of SMNs (Kelly Kang, Becky Kim, Sue Im, etc.) that they could be very successful CEOs, business owners, entrepreneurs. I don’t doubt it. They’ve built up BBC/GP from scratch, many going to a new city to start again from scratch. And after a few years, the numbers grow. It is, like the poster above said, a great business.

Berkeley or Boston or Davis or D.C. or Silicon Valley — the flavor of the SMNs hand is overwhelming. Until the BBC/GP women leadership learn to temper their CEO dreams and become subordinate to their husbands, BBC/GP is destined to go through what it just went through.

1/26/2009 9:02 AM

1/27/2009 11:59 AM

Anonymous said…

@ 1/26/2009 9:02 AM, those are very good descriptions of the atmosphere in GP and Berklands.

Though they teach grace, grace is missing, and though they talk about the Spirit, they displace him and usurp his leading.

The pastors’ wives have come to rule and wield power in ungodly ways, and the essential culture there is that if you follow the pastor and his wife, then you are doing God’s will.

If you were to speak individually in private with many church members, they would confess, “I am scared of ______ SMN”. However, they probably try to justify this in their heart, by stating “I probably just don’t know or understand her enough”.

Jesus says you can judge a tree by its fruit – the fruit of the Spirit is clear in Galatians 5. Pretty simple. Fear-inducing character is not one of the fruits.

I’d also like to state that the husbands of these women are not without blame. It’s because they also who share in this same idea of “efficient ministry” that they allow their women to have this kind of illegitimate rule and power in the church.

So they are all culpable.

My heart goes out to those who still try to live a relationship with Jesus through those churches. They probably feel that something is wrong, and that something is amiss, but can’t quite place a finger on it.

I pray that they may find the true gospel as something liberating – full of grace, freedom, and heart, and even spontaneity. It’s not as efficient, and may be more messy, but God didn’t send Jesus down to die for us so that we could be efficient ministers, but that we could have a relationship with him.

Ministry is not primarily organized work – ministry is preaching and living out what you as an individual already believe and are convicted by, both with others and even alone (not always organized by your leaders)

The church is supposed to be a body of confessing sinners that share everything, thoughts, possessions, ministry, fellowship, etc., all covered by grace.

It’s a tragedy that this beautiful plan for the church could be twisted into a business to “produce more Christians”

1/26/2009 10:25 AM

1/27/2009 12:00 PM

hamcycle said…

Apologies to the authors of the above 28 comments, as I had relocated them from “Aberrant.” A few HTML code was lost during the transfer; otherwise they remain intact from the original.

There was one comment that slid under the radar: 1/23/2009 7:48 AM. The Southern Baptist Convention was contacted regarding this particular issue, and it acknowledges the problem. The SBC leader actually acknowledges that the behavior exhibited during visits may not be representative of the reality. Apparently the issue is neither something that jeopardizes Berkland’s membership nor is it something that the SBC intends to do anything about. Its hands off approach is already well understood, as respecting the local autonomy of its members is one of SBC’s core values.

1/28/2009 7:46 PM

Anonymous said…

Thanks for that information. I have always considered reporting the abuse to the SBC.

They are right — it’s not outright abuse, but it certainly walks the line.

If the SBC has chosen not to reprimand Gracepoint/BBC, then there is likely going to be very little movement from within towards change.

Tragic.

1/29/2009 7:48 AM

Anonymous said…

I would imagine that the SBC is really in a tough spot -since they don’t really have any teeth to enforce their standards.

If they ‘put pressure’ on the leadership to change they might end up pushing the church to become ‘non-denominational,’ the only threat they have it taking away a church’s membership in the SBC, but that is only ever used in the case of extreme deviation from doctrine.

The SBC doesn’t really have that many choices available to them -besides praying for a move of the Spirit within the church in question.

1/30/2009 12:25 PM

Anonymous said…

With all the gift baskets, picture frames, and sweatshirts they give away to any important visitor that comes by, I doubt that SBC, or anyone else for that matter, even notices.

GP/Berkland is great at PR, and showing their “gracious” side to outsiders.

But what matters is that God knows.

1/30/2009 12:33 PM

Anonymous said…

Yes, when the SBC visits, those semi-permanent scowls, forceful directives that you usually see on the faces of the SMN and staff are completely replaced with warm smiles and hugs and giddy laughter.

Truly amazing how Graceopint/Berkland can put a whole different face at a moment’s notice.

Of course, the SBC is always impressed with the throngs of young people serving God; how quickly things are done; how cheerful everybody seems. And special lunches/dinners they get with the chosen handful of Becky and Ed faithful, I’m sure, ooze of PR. So compared to some of the other churhces the SBC reps visit, Gracepoint/Berkland is quite refreshing.

I wish they could just see what’s happening on the other 364 days of the year, after they leave.

1/30/2009 1:17 PM

Anonymous said…

“gift baskets, picture frames, and sweatshirts”

Berkland has tchotchkes? I want some…you know, the way some people collect Enron swag.

Or here’s an idea. Draw Darth Vader next to “Berkland” on the sweatshirt.

1/30/2009 11:26 PM

Anonymous said…

The tchotchkes are only for VIPs — you likely don’t qualify since you do not lend to accredit Gracepoint/Berkland by your position in an organization like the SBC.

As for tchotchkes… at Gracepoint, they have a wide array of GP-wear — sweatshirts, tshirts, pens. What better way to build up company pride than to be able to sport the latest GP-wear? In Boston and the other non-Gracepoint-but-nobody-is-officially-joined-together-yeah-right churches, the common practice is to offer the special guest a sweatshirt from the “best” university at which the Berkland group ministers. So, in Boston, you’d get a special Harvard item (forget the other schools — poor Boston University). In D.C., well Georgetown. In L.A., UCLA? I’m sure this plays a part of why the SBC doesn’t feel compelled to act on complaints and issues — Gracepoint/Berkland is really successful at recruiting on the best colleges in the country.

2/02/2009 7:51 AM

Anonymous said…

I am a current BBC-Boston member.

Recently, we had two guest speakers at our services. The two sermons, I believe, served as God’s warnings and encouragement to BBC-Boston as the church moves forward in striving to do God’s work. I do hope the leadership takes this to heart and make much needed changes in the governance model.

As I know that the leadership knows of these blogs, and coupled with the need to protect my identity, I am posting my thoughts here in the hopes that they may actually consider comments from a ‘rank-and-file’ member like myself.

I do not wish to recount the nuts and bolts of the two sermons, as they contained many spiritual truths for me and to summarize them would take too long.

In any case, the timeliness of the two sermons left me in awe of God’s grace and mercy. He is clearly sending signals through these two non-BBC messengers to the leadership that real change is needed at BBC-Boston, and I pray that the leadership, especially Pastor Paul and Becky JDSN, take it to heart.

However, I was particularly saddened yesterday when Becky JDSN, drew parallels to her retreat teachings and the speaker’s sermon when posing in front of the anniversary cake with the pastoral staff and guests in front of the entire congregation.

Basically, she took one main point of the powerful sermon and tried to make it hers, implying the fact that she spoke about her recent mission trip for 2 out of 4 retreat sessions was a foreshadowing of his sermon.

This might have been true, but it certainly did not sound true. If it her comments were spirit-led, I as a praying believer, along with others, should have confirmed her assertion, and I for one, wasn’t able to.

I don’t think Pastor Paul did either. He had the insight to stop her. The confused look on our guest speaker and his wife probably gave it away.

As a sidebar, many of the staff leaders are genuinely good hearted and want to lead their assigned sheep to a closer relationship with Jesus.

However, I realized that their genuine hearts for ministry and zeal for Jesus are clouded at times by their loyalty to Becky JDSN. This saddens me greatly.

If Becky JDSN is this church’s spiritual leader, then the pastoral staff has a God-given obligation to challenge her on Bible points, correct her on incorrect theology, offer different ministry ideas, etc.

Please become like the “voice calling out in the desert.” I know that you have genuinely prayed for Becky JDSN, especially through the departmental/cell staff chain fasting for this past retreat. God is clearly speaking to all of us right now. Therefore, as one of your many sheep in this ministry, I pray that you heed God’s clear message!

Now that we have four pastors at our church, excluding Pastor Paul, this has become even more imperative, as you are held by God to even a greater account as His anointed messengers of the Gospel.

Given the governance model which quells any grievences about the church even to this day, I sought guidance from mature Christians and pastors leading other churches, who told me that I should seek out the guidance of the holy spirit tempered by Scripture, which I am continuing to do right now.

The convent relationship model which Pastor Paul explicitly stated in his final sermon before the separation into different departmental services certainly sounds great in theory, but has limited God’s spirit-led growth in the members’ lives, including mine.

This is not to say that I am not grateful for my leaders’ guidance. I have been challenged and humbled by their teachings. But whenever they stumble – and they do indeed, after all, they are human beings – I am unnecessarily spiritually hurt, a fact that could have been prevented if a subservient leader-sheep model had not been in place. This experience has been common amongst my brothers and sisters here at BBC-Boston, for which several have quietly left.

In the end, if the leadership does not implement some kind of true reform, I fear God’s wrath, as the church has hurt the spiritual walk of so many people in the past, as evidenced by the blogs and others, and may continue to do so in the future.

3/02/2009 5:10 PM

hamcycle said…

I very much appreciate your thoughts from your perspective as a current member; they bring further credence to the varied efforts made here. I’m also grateful that the general spirit has predominantly been to lead to corrective/protective action, even as my own posts were laced with anger and vindictiveness.

3/03/2009 6:21 PM

Anonymous said…

Even by a young Berkland member’s account, Becky is the self-absorbed and delusional character Pastor Ed depicts in his letter. Chilling that such a person sits atop Berkland.

I, too, am guilty of taking what rightfully belongs to God and claiming it at as my own. Still, I repent and I am vigilant to see where my greed has brought me to the entanglement of empty riches and where my pride takes credit for God’s gracious provision.

Something has a hold on Becky. It reminds me too easily of Tolkien’s Gollum and the ring that made him a creature unable to untether himself from his desire. Perhaps, it is not the best illustration of Becky’s unyielding grasp on Berkland. It’s just the one that comes to mind, perhaps because she once compared herself to one of the heroic hobbits.

Who can say these words: “You, who once knew God’s grace so clearly, unclench and free what you do not own, what you cannot own, what was never yours to claim. You, who claim God’s authority without submitting to it, be broken and repent.”

Can the Berkland pastors say these words? Can Pastor Paul? Pastor Ed, while he went into extensive detail of Becky’s misdeads in his letter, never got around to it, as I recall. I remember disappointment in the letter and the many, many justifications for his departure, but no call for brokenness and repentence. If there was some call to repent, I may have missed it in all those details about the pathetic person Becky has become.

Ironic, because I recall that Berkland messages directed at the students were heavy on that particular theme of brokenness.

3/03/2009 7:42 PM

Anonymous said…

I think both parties – Ed and Kelly of GFC, and Becky of Berkland, can take warning from the Word of God.

The account of Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26 is quite fitting.

He became king at 16, and “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD”. But this is how it ends.

16 But after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall. He was unfaithful to the LORD his God, and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. 17 Azariah the priest with eighty other courageous priests of the LORD followed him in. 18 They confronted him and said, “It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the LORD. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the LORD God.”

19 Uzziah, who had a censer in his hand ready to burn incense, became angry. While he was raging at the priests in their presence before the incense altar in the LORD’s temple, leprosy [c] broke out on his forehead. 20 When Azariah the chief priest and all the other priests looked at him, they saw that he had leprosy on his forehead, so they hurried him out. Indeed, he himself was eager to leave, because the LORD had afflicted him.


21 King Uzziah had leprosy until the day he died. He lived in a separate house [d] —leprous, and excluded from the temple of the LORD. Jotham his son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land.

As hamcycle referred to it a bit, I personally believe none of us should be here to judge and cast stones in anger and spite, but to rather expose the darkness out of concern for those still being hurt, and even hope for repentance.

In the meantime, let us all check for the planks in our own eyes, and face God daily in humility, repentance, and joyful zeal for the gospel.

3/03/2009 11:49 PM

Anonymous said…

seems that the following site had already summarized all this about the role of women in the church.

Role of Women in the Church

3/04/2009 1:47 PM

Older N Wiser said…

i’d have to concur. also, as a side note, words such as “mandate” and “ban” never had such a negative connotation as they did when I was at berkland.

3/15/2009 3:05 AM

Anonymous said…

Interesting, twisted post by Kelly on “Healthy Fear”

http://kellykangblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/healthyfear/

First of all, let’s see the verse in context, Romans 13:3 which she quotes. Consider that this is in the book of Romans.

There were Christians who perhaps thought they no longer needed to comply with the Roman government. But Paul is exhorting them to be good citizens :

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

But Kelly somehow twists this to mean that there should be healthy fear in relationships? This text is NOT AT ALL ABOUT THAT! It’s about being good citizens to government!

She makes a point that there should be healthy fear between parents and children, and I agree with that as a fact in itself without anything to do with this text.

Anyways, the way she uses this text reveals how she operates Gracepoint Fellowship Church. She treats all the members as her children, and expects this “healthy” fear from them. It’s not healthy at all!

She dictates their schedule, thinks she knows what’s best for every single person, questions their motives, blames them if they are not doing well spiritually, sends them off to go on a “prayer retreat” if they don’t agree with something and are “struggling” and plays match maker in marriage. Should they ever have a desire to leave the church or do something else than she planned, she considers them foolish. She also violates people’s personal boundaries and diminishes any sense of free-will.

She treats everyone like children, and in doing so, she makes herself some kind of matriarch of all, which is not biblical. It’s made her into a narcissist at most. She’s one huge overbearing mom in a small package, who also considers herself ALWAYS right, and yells and nags to death. She excuses her temper as “righteous anger”.

But in her eyes, it’s okay, because she does it because she “cares for you.” She’s also modeled this to younger ones, so you get the same kind of women leaders who think they are everyone’s mom. You can be like that in children’s ministry, but not to adults who are in their 20s and 30s! Have common sense!

She needs to stop twisting the Word of God, step down as a teaching leader figure, which is unbiblical, and repent.

Hamcycle, if you could make another section where we can comment on such twisting of God’s Words by her, that would be great.

It’s funny how in her blog, she states:
“Please note that comments are moderated. Since this blog is not intended to be a forum for debates, I will not publish all comments (especially anonymous posts).”

Translation: I will only post if you agree with me.

3/16/2009 10:25 AM

Anonymous said…

Intriguing observations. The comments by Kelly you reference remind me that not all Biblical exegesis is Biblical.

If she did in fact make the argument that her authority is comparable to the authorities mentioned in that passage in Romans, it does seem to betray her beliefs about the reach of her authority into the many areas of people’s lives.

Please, someone tell me that Kelly has not become Becky already.

3/16/2009 2:14 PM

Anonymous said…

Hamcycle, I would like to start a new section called “Twisted Notions at Gracepoint Fellowship Church”.

1. Let’s start with what kelly posted here:
http://kellykangblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/gracepoint-fellowship-church-dt-12/

Kelly states that we owe other people this continuing debt to love them. Sounds fine, right?

She writes, “What does it look like to give people what I owe them?”

But let’s think about this again. Who do we owe a debt to and why?

Do we owe debt to ONE ANOTHER? Really? Where does it say that in Romans 13? It mentions continuing debt to love one another. It does not say, we owe it to each other to love one another.

Big difference.

The continuing debt that we owe is NOT to each other. It’s to God, but in a figurative sense. How can I say this? Read Matt 18, the parable of the Unmerciful Servant.

God is the one who forgave us of our debt, not each other. (of course in minor ways we can owe each other; she bought me starbucks coffee before, and I should buy her something back, but this is not the kind of debt referred to here in Romans. That’s just common courtesy)

Also, read 1 Cor 6:
19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

God forgave us our debt, God bought us. No one else did. The world operates in terms of debt to each other, God’s kingdom does not.

Also, in Romans 13, Paul’s talking about continuing debt in light of being a good citizen. He’s saying, pay your taxes, pay your debts, and pay your debt to love others. Do what you OUGHT TO DO.

It’s obvious that this is not a literal debt. It’s a figurative one.

Romans 6:23 states:
“23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

What we earned and deserved as our wages was death, but God gave us a GIFT of eternal life in Christ Jesus! A gift is free. No strings attached.

So if you step back and look at this text, it’s not about owing one another, and not even about literally owing God. No, we can’t pay back and earn this gift. Not at all!

Ephesians 2:8-9 states:
“8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Jesus paid the debt we owe on our behalf. He was our ultimate sacrificial lamb. He was perfect sacrifice.

Romans 3:25 states:
“25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished…”

So what is this continuing debt? As we can see in Matt 18, the debt of someone who is absolved of so much debt that cannot be paid back is mercy, gratitude and love. The king was upset that the unmerciful servant was not merciful, which was the expected, appropriate response of someone who was absolved of a grand debt. Such a person OUGHT TO respond with mercy and grace to others.

Just like a person OUGHT TO pay taxes, OUGHT TO pay his debt, a Christian OUGHT TO love, because this is the fulfillment of the law.

It’s not a LITERAL debt. No matter how much we love, we can never pay back this debt, and God knows that. But God still wants our full lives to be marked by obeying this greatest commandment.

Matt 22:
36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

He refers to it in Romans 13:9
“9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”

But loving is NOT done out of a sense of debt and guilt. No, rather, it’s done in appreciation of God’s love for us.

1 John 4:19 states:
19We love because he first loved us.

Why am I making such a big deal out of this, what seems like quite a minor point?

Because it’s not minor. It can be and has been twisted into a way to control and coerce people.

Gracepoint and Berkland have both said something along the following lines:

“Your leaders have done so much for you, how can you not do so much in return?”

“You were so loved when you were a freshmen/sophomore, how can you not ____?”

“You were loved in this situation and that situation, how can you leave this church?”

Say you didn’t want to do some specific thing, and wanted some well needed rest (people do work hard there, and need rest at times, I’m not promoting a life of comfort), they’ll say “People sacrificed so much for you, how can you not volunteer or do this/that?”

The kind of atmosphere that this creates is this enslavement mentality, of people thinking they always owe and therefore, they are in servitude to pay it off. There’s a lot of guilt. They can never disagree with those above them that have “poured out so much” for them, because it seems like they are being ungrateful. And sure enough, if you do, they will state as such “How can you be so ungrateful after ALL that we’ve done for you?”

Now you can see how people fall in line of being yes-men, and can never leave, even if it’s something obvious. This also creates the atmosphere where loyalty is more important than truth, and so people turn a blind eye to issues that are clearly wrong, and take the side of the leaders “who have done so much for them” even when they are wrong (”they” includes Pastor Ed and Kelly).

They also create the atmosphere that if you were grateful, you would “bury your bones” at Gracepoint/Berkland, because if you were really grateful, that is what you would do. If you ever left, it’s because you were ungrateful to all that was done for you. (They have used that term “bury your bones” frequently).

But WHERE IS ROOM FOR GOD IN SUCH AN ATMOSPHERE?

By creating this kind of atmosphere, they assume that God wants everyone who is saved at a certain church ONLY to be at that church FOREVER. Is this what God wants? How do they know? What if God wants to lead them, gasp, to another church? Or to another country?

How can any church in good conscience say that a person’s will is to stay at one church for their whole life? Of course, God may lead many to stay, but does he want ALL to stay? I don’t mean leaving for a GFC/BBC branch church, I mean somewhere else altogether.

So be very careful of this kind of teaching. You do not owe each other. Ministry in essence is just living out what Jesus said to love God and our neighbors. It’s this unconditional, giving love, NOT EXPECTING anything back. They can go to another church, they can do however as God leaves, but leaders should NEVER control others by saying or inferring “I did so much for you, how can you not do as I wish?”
That’s not biblical love. Jesus washed his disciples’ feet to teach us to be the servant of all, and ultimately went to the cross, voluntarily, without demanding things back from us in exchange.

The only thing he wanted back was our love relationship with him by GRACE and acceptance of His gift for us.

For those of you under leaders, be careful of falling into such twisted talk. You can be grateful to them, but literally, you owe them nothing. You owe God an attitude of mercy, love and grace, and you ought to show that to others.

You leaders who teach this, shame on you for twisting the Word of God. You use this to control others, and to get them to do what you want to do. You use guilt and a sense of ungodly, and very worldly owing to control them.

God desires that each one “give whatever he has decided in his heart to give, not out of compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” 2 Cor 9:7

Christians are at different stages based on their life experience, background, temperament and faith. As they come to understand at their pace, and God’s pace, the wonder of God’s grace, they will willingly give to God and stretch themselves. Stop manipulating people to fulfill your idol of efficiency and numbers in ministry.

Yes, the harvest is plentiful and the workers are few, but God also meets everyone where they are at, not according to your own idea of efficiency and productivity. You at Gracepoint teach that “God does not need you for ministry”. Then why do you control them according to your own schedule and pace for maximum productivity out of them? God’s church is an organic body of forgiven sinners first who understand the love of God personally.

Don’t slave-drive people with guilt and debt.

For those of you that feel that you operate mostly on guilt and debt, it’s time to re-evaluate your own spiritual life and environment.

I’m sorry this is not as organized as it ought to be, but I hope you all get my point…

God’s grace be with you all.

3/17/2009 8:22 PM

Anonymous said…

The definition of “twisted” is interesting, indeed.

To wind together (two or more threads, for example) so as to produce a single strand.

Berkland/Gracepoint is “twisted.”

These churches bind together holy Scripture and the perspective/desires of their respective leaders. This is how they teach their “sheep” and how the cultures at those churches came to be. What they teach sounds like Truth but are so saturated with Becky’s narcissism, Ed’s lust for a large church, Kelly’s desire for control (the list is endless). It’s insidious, to say the least.

Note how a leader can rebuke you, referencing a specific verse. Later, that leader comes at you with the same verse. Only the point is different — often it’s the complete opposite, in fact. How does this work? New divine insight? Hardly. It comes from a leadership that takes Truth and shapes it around their own thinking & motives. Kelly’s blog is a prime example of this. She takes a verse and uses it to advance the “you owe me” philosophy which drives Gracepoint/Berkland.

The sad casualty of this kind of tainted teaching and culture is that you end up with a lot of confused, fearful, immature people that SOLELY rely on the “insight” of the leadership because they haven’t learned how to read the Word on their own.

Take a look at Gracepoint/Berkland. Ask a few questions — nothing too deep or difficult. It won’t take you long to realize you’re hearing the same words from each person. Stepford…

3/18/2009 10:42 AM

hamcycle said…

Do we owe debt to ONE ANOTHER? Really? Where does it say that in Romans 13? It mentions continuing debt to love one another. It does not say, we owe it to each other to love one another.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I needed to meditate on what was being said, on both your side and Kelly’s.

Your point was difficult to understand and initially I thought you were belaboring a minor point, even as you correctly presumed your readers would make this mistake. Only after a second reading of both points, I realized Kelly does in fact confuse TO WHOM the debt is owed, and it is NOT A MINOR POINT.

The original verse: “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt [to God] to love one another…”

Yet in her language she repeatedly discloses her misunderstanding of the verse:

“I often feel that I don’t owe them anything.”

“What does it look like to give people what I owe them?”

“I have to remind them they owe their spouse things like good cheer…”

And perceiving this debt to be to each other, and not to God, is again motivated by an agenda of the Gracepoint organization, and not the listening to what the Biblical is actually saying, that drives this particular “misunderstanding,” ie. affirmation of the accountability-via-guilt culture.

I would like to make this a post proper, but it needs more delivery organization, even though clearly you did an awesome job already.

3/18/2009 11:27 PM

Anonymous said…

Hamcycle,

I’ve decided to start my own blog, as I felt convicted about the need to untwist wrong teaching that can be used to coerce and manipulate at Gracepoint.

I wrote that post really off-the-cuff, and I do realize I need to clean it up.

I’ve posted it mostly as is for now, but I will get to it soon.

Can you please add me to your blogroll? Thanks.

http://twistedgracepoint.wordpress.com/

3/19/2009 1:17 AM

hamcycle said…

I don’t write off-the-cuff well. I write, think, rewrite, and so forth. Laziness stops me from overdoing it.

Hosting a blog that focuses on this particular theme is a great idea. It demands the specifics, and it helps to have voice consistency.

Looking forward to reading more.

3/19/2009 9:42 AM

will-o’-wisp said…

Hamcycle,

In a post made on 1/23/2009 1:12 PM, you asked for counterarguments to your thoughts on gender roles in the church, and commented that even your own posts have left a bad taste in your mouth. As it seems that the other comments are all in accord with yours, I submit to you a link to an article that will hopefully make the discussion here a bit more interesting.


I Believe in Male Headship by Gilbert Bilezikian

The title is a bit misleading. Here Dr. B (the same one who inspired Bill Hybels to start Willow Creek) argues that the New Testament usage of the word ‘head’ is different from the normal English usage.

3/24/2009 1:42 AM

Anonymous said…

I have a few problems with Mr. Bilezikian’s argument. It begins with his attempt to sound so well-considered as to both sides of the argument that I wasn’t quite sure what he was arguing.

In fact, I think people might misinterpret what he is saying.

Let’s start with this true statement “A basic rule of sound hermeneutics requires that no biblical term or concept be infused with meanings foreign to it.” He cites verses where the word “head” is used to describe a particular relationship. He then does a bit of careful reading to suggest the action described in verses does not suggest wielding authority. His conclusion is that “head” in context means “provider of life.”

What?!

There are a few things wrong with this argument. I’ll mention the most obvious and see if we need to deal with the others.

Reading those verses, you can interpret them, just as easily (if not more so) just the way they are, to explain the characteristics of Christian authority. Why make the modifier that follows in some of those verses as the essential definition of “head.”

In fact, the clauses that follow aren’t definitional but rather are functional. It describes what Christian leadership should look like.

I’m no scholar of ancient texts, but I would guess that “head” has been used in antiquity as a metaphor for authority. They knew the primary senses were “located” in the head. They probably knew that the fastest way to dispatch livestock or an enemy was to damage the head. Where in the Bible or in other ancient texts is head clearly defined as “provider of life?”

Really, “provider of life” seems a bit of a stretch. In fact, to say that man is a “provider of life” to a woman seems really quite backward. (This is why I say that he might be arguing the other side.) He says “man [Adam] gave life to the woman [Eve] as she was taken from him.” Not quite Biblical, is it? In the least, an interpretive stretch.

Instead of redefining the word “head,” I think the less circuitous approach would have been to just say that Christian leadership is something quite different than what secular leadership may look like.

I agree that there should be no hierarchical relationship as in one being better than the other. Of course, the feminists would say that any position of leadership that excludes women presumes a hierarchy. Here’s what is truly unique about Christian headship: it really is about serving and self-sacrifice and a relationship in which we do not put ourselves above others.

I think those who argue for a strictly “make-women-pastors” egalitarianism may not truly grasp how unique that notion is or are unwilling to believe it.

3/25/2009 1:50 AM

alt=Anonymous> Anonymous said…

I took some time to read the materials at CBE. It left me with such deep disappointed. I am just saddened. It is a sorrow that I feel almost in my body as I ponder the arguments made by these individuals.

Where did they learn to read their Bible? Where did they learn to read? Where did common sense go? Where is respect for language, let alone Scripture?

Perhaps, like hamcycle, I felt that my conservative views needed to see the light of this new century. And yet I am unable to get past the Bible verses specifically addressing women’s role in the church. These verses are just too clear and those explanations given by those advocating for “equality” in ministry are just too thin and muddy. Really, where is humility and where is fear in their attempts to interpret Scripture.

I’m not writing, here, to provide a response to those arguments on the CBE website. I am sure there are other sites that respond to their arguments in detail.

I guess I’m just writing to express my sadness at the miscarriage of exegesis by those who claim to be authorities in Scripture.

If I could tell these individuals just one thing, it is this: the writers of Scripture (and say what you will about how the text arrived at its current form) did not write meaningless nonsense for us to give their scribbling meaning as we read it. No. The authors meant what they said and what they said had meaning. How foolish we are, those of us who slather new meaning from weak arguments. And those of us who lean on such arguments to speak with such certainty and conviction. It is a shame.

3/28/2009 2:42 AM

Anonymous said…

Anyone wanting more perspective on roles of men and women, there are some great online books on this site:

http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books

I recommend “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood,” edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper… it has many different articles addressing the different issues surrounding this.

4/01/2009 12:28 AM