Ken Fong, retired senior pastor of Evergreen Baptist, has a podcast called Asian America: The Ken Fong Podcast.
I listened to episode 191 and 192 recently and was struck by how similar Agape Fellowship sounded like Gracepoint! There are eerie similarities. Have a listen.
Much kudos to Ken Fong whom I had the pleasure of meeting recently. I am grateful for his leadership in our community!
Well looks like they've officially planted a church in Princeton now, they even have an instagram page to go with it: https://www.instagram.com/gracepoint.princeton/?hl=en
ReplyDeleteI listened to both podcasts. I agree that it's definitely eerie in how two separate groups arrived at similar cultures -- the commitment that is asked from members, the formation of the "core" group atmosphere, the determination of how "faithful" one is to God, emphasis on Acts 2, overbearing/controlling leaders acting in love, the culture of thanking/appreciating leaders, emphasis on becoming counter-cultural, etc.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Agape felt like it did not start off as a cult but later became one. Gracepoint feels a little more blameless to me in that the leaders did not go so far down the wrong path as Agape did (the intimacy movement). This made me think recently and in my opinion, GP skirts legalism/being cultish, but not to the degree of a cult.
I agree. And also it was scary how many times I thought, "That's exactly what it was like at Gracepoint/Berkland."
DeleteThank you for sharing this! It gave me a lot to think about. I think it is interesting how they paint the fellowship as starting with god honoring intentions but taking a turn. Part of me feels that this is similar to gracepoint but I wad only there for the last 7 years and not the beginning. Others would know better than me.
ReplyDeleteThe story is full of striking similarities to GP:
ReplyDelete- Focus on cherry-picked parts Acts 2 and other passages of the Bible to dictate living arrangements, time commitment, friendships, and obedience to leadership, all of which restrict outside influences that could inspire members to scrutinize the tactics
- Pressure via guilt and shaming to achieve whatever leadership wants: collection of funds, giving up of boyfriends / girlfriends, etc, etc; all while “spiritualizing” leadership’s demands: putting God’s stamp of approval on what they want the members to do
- Relegation of those who resist as second-class Christians who “just cannot hack it” and are not seriously pursuing God
- Labeling those who choose to leave as lacking in Faith
Young people feel like they are a part of something amazing if they can just fully submit and follow the rules. So what’s the problem?
- If you wake up to the abuse and decide to leave, you cut the bond with the people who made the commitment with you and are closest to you. To avoid the pain and loss, many talk themselves into remaining and thus inadvertently play into the system that ensnares other students in the same paradigm. It’s a self-regulating trap, and it will do its job as long as you let it, while the organization continues to milk you for time and money to feed its growth.
- Apparently, sophistication and familiarity with psychological pressure don’t inoculate you: the guest narrator had the Master’s degree in Psychology, and is currently a pastor in LA, yet was spellbound for years. It’s ironic that he, second in command, didn’t suspect wrongdoing until he felt personally wronged.
- Members are married off to one another to secure commitment to the group. Listen to the pastor describe his decision to leave the group while the wife is unable to follow, split between staying faithful to her husband or to the fellowship. Many former members take that guilt with them and live with it for years.
- On the upside, some survivors recovered in really amazing ways, reinvigorating their faith in God, even harnessing the lessons from the ordeal to become better Christians, which is inspiring.
- Others were devastated and grew disillusioned with Christianity to never give it another chance.
Would be really interesting to hear the thoughts of current members who would take the time to listen to the two episodes. Do you see the similarities as significant, or do you think the handful of differences set GP far apart from Agape?
Current member here. I listened to both episodes, and I do see some similarities. Definitely had a few "ugh that does sound like us" moments. I agree with you that both have/had a strong emphasis on the Acts 2 church as parallel to how we should live now. I would agree that there can be an assumption at GP that obeying church/leader = obeying God (which really bothers me), and that leaving the church is often viewed as a step down in one's obedience to God.
DeleteWhile I do find these elements problematic, I think there are some BIG distinctions between what happened at Agape vs current GP.
- GP is not controlling people's finances like Agape was. There is clear separation between personal finances and church finances, and people are encouraged to be personally responsible, have savings, etc. There are clear paths for reimbursement for ministry expenses and no shame around taking them. I think the financial culture there today is pretty appropriate and healthy.
- There is not creepy sexual stuff happening at GP. Cults more often than not do seems to end up with vile, self-serving sexual practices around their leader(s), sadly. Obviously I can't know everything, but I have seen zero evidence of anything like this at GP in my time here. GP is very careful around the issue of sexual purity (some might argue even a little TOO careful).
So nothing as drastic as what happened at Agape is happening at GP. While early stage Agape and current GP have some similarities, I do think GP makes an active effort to "course correct" and put in place safety nets against these kinds of trends. Could they do more/a better job of it? Yes, I think so. But I don't think GP is going to go galloping down the road to being a cult like this with the way things are currently.
That's my thoughts, anyway. I appreciate the invitation to engage with you on this.
- GP is not controlling people's finances like Agape was. There is clear separation between personal finances and church finances, and people are encouraged to be personally responsible, have savings, etc. There are clear paths for reimbursement for ministry expenses and no shame around taking them. I think the financial culture there today is pretty appropriate and healthy.
DeleteHmm...I might agree with you that GP strives to do as you say in regards to finances, but I think it's carried out differently by members.
Let me present two examples. 1) A staff work night is happening and it's time for dinner. A SMN calls someone who's free to pick up food and says it can be reimbursed. Person picks up food, files for reimbursement, and then is later met by the finance person, another leader, who says typically these are not reimbursed, members/staff usually treat at these occasions. 2) A staff intern misses the Thanksgiving offering and later gets talked to that they were expected to contribute.
I don't think these two incidents are far off from the prevalent culture at GP. Both involve a form of shaming. The second example comes off as controlling as well, taking away from the spirit of giving.
I'm responding from my phone so please excuse any typos. I'm wondering myself if the examples I chose were too nitpicky but I still find the finance situation ... A little off. I also get the feeling that GP may have been moreso like Agape in the past but continues to change. I'm open to hearing your thoughts as a current member as well.
In response to Anon on Nov 4th, I definitely agree that Agape, as described in the Ken Fong Podcast, is way more extreme than GP. However, as you stated, the "ugh that sounds like us" moments are so very disturbing.
DeleteI also disagree that there is no shame in getting reimbursed. I distinctly remember Kelly Kang encouraging members to contribute to the church by not getting reimbursed. This was not a regular "teaching" but the words did come out of her mouth. This is the kind of stuff that creates the culture, the stuff beneath the tip of the iceberg that is unseen yet upholds the seen parts.
To Anon and John - those are fair points.
DeleteI think the financial culture at GP has definitely changed, and was a lot more intense in the past. I joined post-Berkland, so I can’t speak to the experience then. I have had a few awkward (but I believe well-intentioned) convos with leaders on these issues, where I was encouraged to be more generous. While I've personally never had a reimbursement questioned, it may be a “your mileage (and your leader) will vary” situation, like Anon suggested. I agree that shaming is not a good way to go about it, in any case, and shaming in general is an issue in the culture at GP (sigh). But I don't think it would be fair to lump together all of those kind of exchanges as "GP wants control of people's money/make them give more." I think we can all agree that generous living is a Christian value. It’s more of a question about proper execution of that value and proper leadership around it.
And that’s a fine line to walk that requires a LOT of wisdom, and I think any church that wants to challenge its members to live generously is going to have some fumbling involved. GP frankly has a lot of financially wealthy people, but everyone is in the same situation. Some people by nature or nurture are going to have a hard time being generous, and may need some accountability around it. People also express generosity in different ways that another person might not immediately recognize. All of this can make things bumpy, even with good intentions.
I was a former attendee from 2008-2011 @ Gracepoint Davis. I've left the faith in 2012 and am a convinced atheist. My experiences at Gracepoint catalyzed this transformation. I have no regrets in becoming atheist, and please don't feel bad or have the need to pray for me.
ReplyDeleteI hear you.
DeleteI attended gp uci. The experience also cemented my atheism. Don't think I'll go back to christianity. Shout out to my fellow apostate
ReplyDeleteMy name is Greg Huang, I would like to attest my own experience. Maybe the other three comments were posted by the same person, who knows? But not mine. I speak for myself.
DeleteI went to GP Riverside. I was there for many years and was even part of staff at one point. I'm so burnt out that I don't care about church anymore and I'm so much happier doing other things outside of church.
ReplyDeleteSorry if my post is "fishy" but I can assure everyone that I'm a separate person from the other posts. Hard to believe since it's the internet and I'm anonymous, but take it for what it is guess you just have to trust me.
DeleteI attended GP and was part of Koinonia at UT Austin for several years. After the experience of being shunned by people I thought were my brothers and sisters, I'm still picking up the pieces of my faith and trying to decide if I even believe in God anymore. That kind of experience and treatment by them really scarred and traumatized me.
ReplyDeleteThe above four comments seem a bit fishy to me. I'm not sure they're all separate persons.
DeleteSame to me actually. I could probably verify 3/4 if they got in touch with me :P I suppose they're still free to post their experiences.
DeleteI do have to filter myself from some posts on this blog, I feel some are just too bent on some odd agenda or are too extreme on here.
Or maybe it's a genuine universal experience that's being finally expressed out by different people in different campuses? Just because they seem fishy doesn't mean that it's not real...
DeleteJohn, rest assured I'm not the same as the other three anonymous posters who replied after me. I was around reading gracepointisdangerous when that blog was still around. I decided to not comment on the church until a few days ago.
DeleteThanks all for chiming in. I appreciate everyone who is speaking up about what they experienced at Gracepoint.
DeleteI left several months ago after attending one of the church plants for 7 years. I'm really struggling to sort through what is exactly said in the bible vs. What I've learned that is filtered through gracepoint. It feels like holding up each belief I have and asking is this from god or from gracepoint? I feel like I am on a path to being agnostic after leaving gp. My peers would be horrified if they knew.
ReplyDeletePlease seek help, be it a pastor at a local church or christian counselor. They will have definitely seen many people who have had your experiences throughout their careers. It definitely helped me my first few months after leaving. Of course, I'll definitely say reading the Bible on my own (constantly) and listening to sermons and theology lectures online helped me ground my faith in the Bible (not GP) in the long-run. Don't hesitate to seek help because what you're experiencing is normal and it's a lot more common than people at GP might make it out to be.
DeletePlease reach out to a professional for help. Leaving GP was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life and I've heard the exact same thing from all of my friends who have left over the years. There are lots of resources out there for you, including this blog. There are many offering their ear and help on this blog so please reach out.
DeleteWere you able to get help? To the people on this forum, perhaps you can share info for specific Christian counselors that you may know, or a supportive community where one could rebuild his or her faith. The OP is already dealing with a lot of pain and confusion, so a task of finding a counselor on his own may feel overwhelming. Every bit of help would likely be much appreciated.
DeleteI'm anonymous from November 7th. Thank you for your kind words and support. I decided not to seek out a Christian counselor. My mental health has fortunately been better than it ever was in my years at GP. I dont know where I stand with God. Now, I am not convinced that we can truly know God through the words of humans. I have a lot of questions and one day I will seek the answers. Rest assured that I am doing well these days!I was lucky enough to have some friends outside of gp that I have gotten really close to.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad to hear that your mental health has improved! Great mentors of the faith like Richard Rohr would agree with you that we cannot know God through words.
DeleteYou CAN know God through words if they're the Word of God. That's literally how he chose to reveal himself in history (plus Jesus who the book of John says was/is the Word).
DeleteNo matter how people try to twist God's words with their own words, the fact that the Bible is still the truth doesn't change. The lesson should be that those who teach the Bible should tremble and be careful not to cause others to stumble. And those who are being taught should constantly consider whether the words of people are consistent with that of God's.
Just wanted to clarify John Kim's comment.
I don't appreciate being clarified as I actually disagree with some of your points.
DeleteGod reveals God's self through the Bible but the Bible is not itself God. I think this is actually one way that Gracepoint/Berkland and many other churches try to control members. The weaponize the Bible and use it to control, just like the Pharisees did. The Bible is idolized, instead of who the Bible is about.
Correction: "They weaponize the Bible..."
DeleteWhat is the stated reason for imitating Acts 2 by having the students and recent graduates living together, like a commune? What do you think is the *actual* reason?
ReplyDeleteAnd what explanation is given for why Ed and Kelly get to live in their own house, and not forced "to eat their own dog food"? I don't think Acts makes any distinction between singles vs married couples' living arrangements?
To your first question, who knows?
DeleteI'm curious about your second question. Isn't it true that the married staff generally live in their own homes? Is there anything different about Ed and Kelly's house in particular?
Also, what do you mean by "to eat their own dog food"? Is this a phrase that has previously been used in the church context?
Someone else can chime in, but it seems like they have been doing the living life together way before the Acts 2 emphasis. Before the push for re-branding to Acts2fellowship and Gracepoint, it seems that Berkland has long been following that tradition.
DeleteBut Married folks definitely do live in their own space 100% of the time.
I think that "not forced to eat their own dog food" means that the leaders aren't forced to accept the same teachings that they dole out or the same rules they impose on other people. I haven't heard anyone at Gracepoint use that phrase, but there is definitely an "I'm above the rules I set" mentality among a lot of leaders
ReplyDeleteI see, thanks for the clarification. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, and I can see how that concept applies to some of the leaders.
DeleteWhen I was there in the 2000s, there were always 4-5 single bros living at Pastor Ed and Kelly’s house, James Seattle, Kevan Ho, John Ko, Kan Lee, Jeff Liu, etc...
ReplyDeleteYou don't think letting some of your subjects live at your home is very different from living in communal quarters with other members, as equals, as Acts 2 describes, and as Ed has all the young single members do?
DeleteEd has described it as living life on life. I know when I was a sophomore arguing with my roommates about milk that it made me rub loves a lot more than peers who lived on their own. Also at least for brothers, there was a strong emphasis on herding together to play basketball at People’s Park or dog pile each other. It creates a family like culture
Deletehttps://vimeo.com/391113479
DeleteMaybe this video will help clarify why.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for not being clear earlier. What I was trying to ask is why the leadership forces the students and recent graduates to live together until they are married. If Acts 2 is the justification, then I don't believe it contains an exception for married couples. So I'm just curious what everyone thinks is the reason for double standard, and why married leaders don't have to follow the same rules that they ask the students to follow.
ReplyDeleteI know of one surprisingly sinister explanation provided by a former high ranking member of the University Bible Fellowship in a book that he wrote about UBF. The reason it may be relevant is that Becky Kim, Ed and Kelly's former spiritual leader, came out of UBF. Ed and Kelly inherited many of their practices from Becky's teachings.
I'm not sure exactly why members were forced to live with other church members. I was definitely expected to when I was in college and post college as well. No explicit reason was given. It was just a given that I would live with them and I was told who I should live with. It seemed like the leaders definitely discussed this and assessed who should live with whom, etc. Some of the reasons I had for living with my classmates at that time were:
Delete1. church comes first before other outside-of-church friendships
2. so that we can keep each other accountable (read: snitch on each other to leaders)
3. so that we can edify each other (see above)
4. to save on resources (as opposed to living by yourself and not sharing the cost of living with others)
5. to do ministry together
Looking back, I think making students live together was definitely an easy way to keep tabs and create a culture of policing one another. Easy way to control the members. It also made logistics easier (i.e. one location pick up instead of 3 or 4 different ones.) During my days, I think they even tried to orchestrate it to have at least one person have a car per household.
How would they orchestrate that that there would be a car in a household?
DeleteI'll chime in. In undergrad not everyone had a car especially as sophomores. The ones that did have one kind of became designated drivers for things like groceries, rides to school and so on. Since everyone lived in the same house, they would schedule group pickup and drop off times. But at the same time, if everyone in a house had a car ie 10 pple, we would have to occupy an entire street
DeleteIn my time, they would know who had cars and then distribute the housing based on that. Rent agreements would end typically in June to mirror the school year, to make the housing more synchronous
ReplyDeleteThat's how it worked during my time as well. I remember somewhat being pressured to get a car so that it could be used for "ministry."
DeleteDon't forget the glory you received for having a van and being the object of shock, wonder, and awe as you were demonstrated as a prime example of sacrifice during Sunday messages.
DeleteI've always thought it's kind of funny how much of a fuss GP has made about not having luxury cars and looking down on churches "with parking lots full of BMW and Lexus" while a bunch of people have brand new $30k+ vans... I get that the vans are more practical, but still.
DeleteTo comment on the housing discussion above, @amd, what's the "sinister explanation" from UBF you're referring to?
I think John's lists of reasons above seems pretty accurate to me (adding on to #1, to remove the perceived negative influence of people outside-of-church as well) and also just to build relationships and community. I think the majority of members are happy to live together and genuinely enjoy it (for the most part).
Brian Karcher is a former pastor who spent over 20 years at University Bible Fellowship. He then wrote several books breaking down their discipleship training model, including “Idenity Snatchers” and “Goodness Found” – an eerily familiar and eye-opening read, both available for $3 on Kindle. After finally taking a stand against abusive discipleship model, he was forced with a choice to back down or be ostracized by UBF. Luckily his wife agreed with him and took his side, rather than be pressured by the fellowship to keep him in line.
ReplyDeleteBut generally, the orchestrated “marriage by faith” is one of the final steps in entrapping a member. After that point, he can no longer make a decision to leave on his own.
Everything prior to that is designed to isolate the students to minimize their chance of falling in love outside of the fellowship. Living arrangements are just a part of that scheme. Another part is keeping the student busy with church activities during as much of their waking time as possible. All to make sure they can’t develop friendships or relationships outside of the church or have time or energy to pursue any doubts that may occasionally arise.
That idea articulates what I have been thinking about when reflecting on my experiences. I would say that no average member of the church is willingly trying to deceive. To me, it seems like the normal member is just as caught up like the rest of us once were by just following that set culture. It would be a cycle of victims perpetuating the cycle of manipulation.
DeleteThe question then in my mind is how did it get this way. Was this intentional manipulation from the leadership? Was this a consequence of Korean culture and UBF influence? The more I read into this blog the more I found it so ironic that Gracepoint separated from Berkland to avoid toxic and abusive leadership. It seems like the tyrannized has become the tyrant.
Clarity only occurs after leaving that circle of life.
As they would say the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This is also something I have reflected on, and I also came to the same conclusion regarding the average member. However, regarding the higher-up leadership, I tend to not give the same benefit of the doubt. If they cannot be held responsible, then who can? No one? It’s hard for me to believe that there is not a high degree of intentionality coming from the higher-ups with respect to the way the church operates, including the culture they try to cultivate among their members. But that is of course just my opinion.
DeleteThe leaders are responsible for the culture within any organization.
DeleteRespect to the commenter (I think ai79?) for exposing the hypocrisy of what selfishness looks like in Richard's message (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kD8uZ8k1eY) - unfortunately, the head of the GP youtube chose not to respond, and they have now hence disabled comments on their sermons..this censorship seems more like the Communist Party versus a healthy discussion on what it means to follow God...
ReplyDeleteWhat did the comment say?
DeleteAlso curious about what the comment said.
DeleteIt was actually very polite:
Delete"Hi Richard. I couldn’t overlook remarkable parallels between your story about “selfish” focus on academic performance prior to Gracepoint, and very similar type of commitment that Gracepoint demands of the students after they join, at the expense of their families or any friendships outside of Gracepoint. In your own words: “I would try to spend all my extra time there, sometimes even staying late into the night… I was more than willing to spend extra time there, but not at …”. It seems that the only reason you no longer consider the commitment selfish is that now it serves the purposes of Gracepoint. This is nothing personal against you, you seem like a nice guy who is in a classic conflict between your own obedience to authority and personal conscience when it comes to serving your flock. Are you sure you are not deceiving them when they first join? Do they know of the 4-5 days’ a week commitment ahead of them, or are they told that it’s just a weekly dinner and bible study?"
Seemed like a good opportunity for Gracepoint to engage the skeptics and concerned families, not just run and hide from any sort of scrutiny.
So in Richard's message, he describes himself in the past as "selfish" because he was so focused on his grades/career, using phrases like "(grades) were always my biggest worry", or "always taking up my free time" at the expense of other people/church. Yet the commenter smartly pointed out that being a Gracepoint member is ironically the exact same type time commitment, (as it literally takes up all our time outside of work/sleep), at the expense of family or people outside of the church, yet Richard never seems to label "this" as selfish. The comment showed these two things seems to be no different but is only labeled differently because one serves the interest of Gracepoint, while one doesn't. Anyway, this type of faulty reasoning is typical among Gracepoint messages, but unfortunately most people can't tell the difference/won't speak up about it. Nonetheless, if GP people see this comment, would love to hear your response behind this logic, - I welcome opposing views and encourage discussion rather than simply "canceling out" anyone who disagrees...
DeleteWhat did Richard Tjhen say?
ReplyDelete