Aug 7, 2009 9:23 AM
In Pastor Ed Kang’s Own Words – “The Letter” to Becky Kim
by makestraight
I have found it sufficiently confounding that Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang refuse the acknowledge the sins they’ve committed, considering that both he and Kelly are guilty of similar infractions and sins that Ed laid out against Becky in splitting from Berkland Baptist Church.
Therefore, I thought it would be appropriate to use Pastor Ed’s own words in order to make my point against them. The following are various excerpts, not the full letter, from Ed’s letter to Becky.
I have removed any references to other names besides Ed, Kelly and Becky.
Try to read it with Kelly and Ed in mind, in light of this post about Kelly’s own deeds. [References to JDSN are references to Becky]:
Again, at the risk of being redundant, the main problem is your insistence on your nearly-inerrant role as a Pope-like figure. Since you can do no wrong, when you DO (and you do, indeed!), we must justify it. Often, you provide your own rationalizations, and we must accept them (and suffer inner damage), and pass them on to others, and crush any who don’t accept it. This is morally wrong. Anyone else who do what you do, say what you say, and have the kind of character flaws you have will be rejected as a spiritual leader. Yet, in the strange and warped BBC pastoral world, the reverse must happen. You become exempt from all normal criteria of evaluating persons; you become above the law. Up becomes down, right becomes left, wrong becomes right.
At no point during our Irvine meeting did you ever acknowledge any wrongdoing, or any truth in anything _____ and I said in Daegu. You continued to defend and justify, and occasionally, sarcastically admitted some small character flaw of yours here and there—“yes, I have a bad temper, but it’s because I deal with people’s sin.”
I am sorry to say, but JDSN, I felt that much of the conversation was inauthentic on your part. You were speaking words designed for impact—to melt my heart—without a strong commitment to truth.
And the fruit of your ministry often produced people who were emotionally dependent on your approval.
You are the inerrant pope, and we are just peons. We (the other pastors), for our part, play dumb and dull, but the whole thing smacks of the unreality and false ritual of ancient king-to-advisor relationships.
A loving person, according to your own teaching, is sensitive to the pain of others.
You queen-like behavior, expectations regarding how you should be served are also reflective of your narcissistic character. Why should someone else get rebuked for forgetting to bring your “han-yak” [this means oriental medicine, per hamcycle]?
Please acknowledge your responsibility for the trauma, wound, and damage to self worth you have caused in many. (And please understand why I cannot tell others, without compromising my conscience and damaging their judgment faculties, that your hot temper and abusive language is because you are like one of the OT prophets.)
Flattery, dishonesty, and fear. Many of the people you surround yourself with will not tell you the whole truth. You can do 9 things wrong, and no one will challenge you or offer criticism. But if you do one thing right, they will lavish you with praise. If they will not offer you criticism, they should not give you flattery either. You have become the emperor with no clothes. (But you have fostered this atmosphere yourself.)
For many BBC pastors, your approval means everything. But since it is often not clear what will displease you, given your moodiness, spontaneity, and unpredictability, playing it safe is at a premium.
Unhealthy view of marriage. As yet another example of up being down, and right being left in your world, happily married couples are made to feel apologetic for it. Their happy marriage is not, of course, a result of anything like emotional maturity, but a lack of commitment to truth, or a lack of spirituality by which the spouses are satisfied with each other. This is very unhealthy indeed, and has caused actual damage to many marriages throughout BBC.
Given all of the above, and more, I cannot, in good conscience, lead others who follow me into the strange and warped world in which you must be adored, followed, feared, and set up as a super-spiritual christian model, where common sense must be abandoned in order to believe all of your rationalizations, and your practices be imitated, and your moods and hot temper suffered. I think this breaks people. It is a wrong I cannot continue to perpetuate.
I refuse to continue to play part in the deceit, the fraud we are perpetuating upon the public, and upon our congregation. Personally, me and Kelly felt at times that we were going insane dealing with all of this over the years. No one else should ever be asked to go through this.
I think the passages speak loudly on their own, so I will not comment on it, and leave you readers to judge truthfully and common-sensically for yourselves.
I will say one thing. The only way to break the cycle of sin being passed down is through repentance.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Characteristics of Abusive Churches, and Related Survey Questions
Aug 11, 2009 11:19 PM
Characteristics of Abusive Churches, and Related Survey Questions
by makestraight
I highly recommend that you read the following site to help determine how an unhealthy, abusive, or even cultic church can be identified:
http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-characteristics.html
I also recommend that you try to answer the following questions I copied over from churchabuse.com:
Here is a questionnaire to determine just how healthy your local church is. To find out how well your church ranks, answer “yes” or “no” to the following 12 questions:
Does your church tightly control the flow of information within its ranks?
Does your spiritual leader use public shaming as a method to gain the compliance of followers?
Is your spiritual leader intolerant of questions or critical inquiry?
Is your spiritual leader the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation?
Does your spiritual leader have unreasonable fears about the outside world such as evil conspiracies or persecutions?
Are you discouraged to associate with former members, being warned that they are “evil” or “defiling”?
Is leaving your group to join another church equal to leaving God?
Does the surrounding community view your church as a cult?
Does your spiritual leader consider it evil persecution when criticized or questioned?
Do the goals of your spiritual leader seem to supersede any personal goals or individual interests?
Do you fear being rebuked, shunned, or ignored for expressing a different opinion?
Do former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances?
If you answered “no” to all of the above 12 questions, your church is very healthy. If you answered “yes” to three or more, your church is showing signs of being unhealthy. If you answered “yes” to six or more, your church is very unhealthy. If you answered “yes” to eight or more, your church is more than likely a full-blown authoritarian cult.
Then measure them against Gracepoint Berkeley - honestly.
I think I’ve laid out extensively in detail about how Gracepoint operates, and to me, it’s vastly evident that they are a very unhealthy and abusive church.
[Read More Traits of a Spiritually Abusive Church]
Characteristics of Abusive Churches, and Related Survey Questions
by makestraight
I highly recommend that you read the following site to help determine how an unhealthy, abusive, or even cultic church can be identified:
http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-characteristics.html
I also recommend that you try to answer the following questions I copied over from churchabuse.com:
Here is a questionnaire to determine just how healthy your local church is. To find out how well your church ranks, answer “yes” or “no” to the following 12 questions:
Does your church tightly control the flow of information within its ranks?
Does your spiritual leader use public shaming as a method to gain the compliance of followers?
Is your spiritual leader intolerant of questions or critical inquiry?
Is your spiritual leader the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation?
Does your spiritual leader have unreasonable fears about the outside world such as evil conspiracies or persecutions?
Are you discouraged to associate with former members, being warned that they are “evil” or “defiling”?
Is leaving your group to join another church equal to leaving God?
Does the surrounding community view your church as a cult?
Does your spiritual leader consider it evil persecution when criticized or questioned?
Do the goals of your spiritual leader seem to supersede any personal goals or individual interests?
Do you fear being rebuked, shunned, or ignored for expressing a different opinion?
Do former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances?
If you answered “no” to all of the above 12 questions, your church is very healthy. If you answered “yes” to three or more, your church is showing signs of being unhealthy. If you answered “yes” to six or more, your church is very unhealthy. If you answered “yes” to eight or more, your church is more than likely a full-blown authoritarian cult.
Then measure them against Gracepoint Berkeley - honestly.
I think I’ve laid out extensively in detail about how Gracepoint operates, and to me, it’s vastly evident that they are a very unhealthy and abusive church.
[Read More Traits of a Spiritually Abusive Church]
So Did Pastor Ed Kang Lie to His Members?
Aug 19, 2009 10:14 PM
So Did Pastor Ed Kang Lie to His Members?
by makestraight
[Updated 8/20/09, 9:50am]
Nyoron has clarified in the comments that Pastor Ed didn’t specifically say that the bloggers “refused” to contact him. However, the question still stands:
Why did he say he tried to contact us “bloggers” when he did not?
——–
I could not get this thought out of my mind recently. According to a current Gracepoint member, there was a recent meeting to talk about “these blogs” which Pastor Ed Kang called “poisonous”.
In this comment, the member stated that Pastor Ed told the GFC members that “he has tried to contact the writers of these blogs and discuss their issues with them, but all have refused contact with him”.
I and the other bloggers hamcycle, 1vois, and oldernwiser truthfully answered that there was no such attempt on Pastor Ed’s part.
Initially, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I realized that the facts just betray the more obvious truth.
First of all, I know we’re assuming the following:
The member [aka nyoron] is telling the truth
nyoron has a truthful recollection of what Pastor Ed stated.
We “bloggers” are telling the truth in stating that we were not contacted by Pastor Ed.
I don’t think this member, nyoron, has any reason to lie. Especially based upon his logical posts, I can only imagine that he’s wanting to seek truth instead.
Also, I can only speak for myself, but I am not lying. I am bound by my own identity as a Christian who answers to God. I can give the benefit of the doubt that the other bloggers are also telling the truth in stating none of them were contacted by Pastor Ed.
Assuming that the above assumptions are true [I believe them to be highly likely], I can only logically deduce that Pastor Ed has lied to his GFC members.
What he stated was a description of an active “reaching out” on his part, and our deliberate refusal. That bothers me. I hope that would bother all of you current Gracepoint members. I can understand if perhaps he sent it to the wrong email addresses for ALL of us [but wouldn't they have bounced back to him?]. But to add that we REFUSED to talk with him? That’s a deliberate act. It paints the picture as though we replied and said “no,” which did not happen.
Isn’t that a lie? Who is more trustworthy now? We “bloggers,” or Pastor Ed Kang himself, who essentially told something deliberately false? How can he make a mistake that he thought he tried to contact us, and that he thought that we replied and refused? [I do want to point out that if he does try to reach out to me, I wouldn't like to discuss them in person, but I would be open to discussing them here in the comments of any of the blog posts. Or even in a more private forum, but not one controlled by Gracepoint. But in either case, I would admit he tried to contact me, and not lie about it.]
Do any of you current Gracepoint members or midlevel staff have the courage to ask Pastor Ed HOW he tried to reach out to us? Ask him more about the details. If you honestly believe he’s telling the truth, you should have nothing to fear, and he should welcome such a question.
After all, he did recently give a message on “Truth Haters” and I didn’t finish listening to it, but one line does stand out. Pastor Ed stated, “We should cultivate a hunger for truth”.
I ask you Gracepoint members and staff to do what Pastor Ed preached.
So Did Pastor Ed Kang Lie to His Members?
by makestraight
[Updated 8/20/09, 9:50am]
Nyoron has clarified in the comments that Pastor Ed didn’t specifically say that the bloggers “refused” to contact him. However, the question still stands:
Why did he say he tried to contact us “bloggers” when he did not?
——–
I could not get this thought out of my mind recently. According to a current Gracepoint member, there was a recent meeting to talk about “these blogs” which Pastor Ed Kang called “poisonous”.
In this comment, the member stated that Pastor Ed told the GFC members that “he has tried to contact the writers of these blogs and discuss their issues with them, but all have refused contact with him”.
I and the other bloggers hamcycle, 1vois, and oldernwiser truthfully answered that there was no such attempt on Pastor Ed’s part.
Initially, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I realized that the facts just betray the more obvious truth.
First of all, I know we’re assuming the following:
The member [aka nyoron] is telling the truth
nyoron has a truthful recollection of what Pastor Ed stated.
We “bloggers” are telling the truth in stating that we were not contacted by Pastor Ed.
I don’t think this member, nyoron, has any reason to lie. Especially based upon his logical posts, I can only imagine that he’s wanting to seek truth instead.
Also, I can only speak for myself, but I am not lying. I am bound by my own identity as a Christian who answers to God. I can give the benefit of the doubt that the other bloggers are also telling the truth in stating none of them were contacted by Pastor Ed.
Assuming that the above assumptions are true [I believe them to be highly likely], I can only logically deduce that Pastor Ed has lied to his GFC members.
What he stated was a description of an active “reaching out” on his part, and our deliberate refusal. That bothers me. I hope that would bother all of you current Gracepoint members. I can understand if perhaps he sent it to the wrong email addresses for ALL of us [but wouldn't they have bounced back to him?]. But to add that we REFUSED to talk with him? That’s a deliberate act. It paints the picture as though we replied and said “no,” which did not happen.
Isn’t that a lie? Who is more trustworthy now? We “bloggers,” or Pastor Ed Kang himself, who essentially told something deliberately false? How can he make a mistake that he thought he tried to contact us, and that he thought that we replied and refused? [I do want to point out that if he does try to reach out to me, I wouldn't like to discuss them in person, but I would be open to discussing them here in the comments of any of the blog posts. Or even in a more private forum, but not one controlled by Gracepoint. But in either case, I would admit he tried to contact me, and not lie about it.]
Do any of you current Gracepoint members or midlevel staff have the courage to ask Pastor Ed HOW he tried to reach out to us? Ask him more about the details. If you honestly believe he’s telling the truth, you should have nothing to fear, and he should welcome such a question.
After all, he did recently give a message on “Truth Haters” and I didn’t finish listening to it, but one line does stand out. Pastor Ed stated, “We should cultivate a hunger for truth”.
I ask you Gracepoint members and staff to do what Pastor Ed preached.
So what is the Gospel?
Aug 27, 2009 12:15 PM
So what is the Gospel?
by makestraight
I’ve decided to take another break after this post, before I post anything new. I’ll try to check comments randomly and respond to them when I can, but I need a break to focus on other very important aspects of my life.
As much as I have found freedom in Christ and a new love for God, I find that the energies spent here are quite exhausting. To be honest, I am not 100% sure if this is a ‘good’ task in God’s eyes [but I am more than 50% sure definitely]
I am somewhat torn in wondering if this is good in that it validates the truth of the spiritual abuse at Gracepoint Fellowship Church [aka Gracepoint Berkeley], and that it protects future people from potentially encountering the same – Or if this is merely promoting a kind of ‘in-fighting’ among believers, which Paul is against.
Again, I don’t fully know. Maybe it can only be judged in hindsight.
I try to view it from the perspective of asking myself if such a website would have helped me if it existed any earlier. For me, I think it would have. I can say that much confidently. I know a couple of commenters have thanked me for this site, and for any help that you received that drew you closer to God, I give glory to Him. In light of this, I do see this as a sort of ministry in a small way.
I thought I would just talk about the Gospel in this post, because in the end, that’s the basis of my charge against Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang and the directors there.
So what is the Gospel?
There’s that well known tract out there that describes it very simply – the 4 spiritual laws
1. God LOVES you and offers a wonderful PLAN for your life.
2. Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life.
3. Jesus Christ is God’s ONLY provision for man’s sin. Through Him you can know and experience God’s love and plan for your life.
4. We must individually RECEIVE Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.
Then of course, the prayer [which need not be recited verbatim]
“Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.”
[for more info you can read this site: www.godlovestheworld.com]
I really appreciate whoever came up with these 4 spiritual laws. It lays out the Gospel clearly.
The Gospel literally translated is “good news”. The good news is that EVERY one of us can be saved from our sins and from its penalty of death, and share eternal life with God!
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sin basically is the “I” problem [directly from course 101 at GFC]. It means having oneself as the center of his/her life and taking the place of God.
God is the rightful owner of our lives, and this means that He should be the center. This is what it means to Jesus as our Lord. And Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to be with us.
John 15
16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
Sin doesn’t only manifest itself in the obvious morally wrong deeds, such as hatred, jealousy, assault, murder, drug abuse, and the like.
Sin also can manifest itself in self-righteousness and legalism.
How?
Instead of relying upon God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we start relying upon our own self-will, systems and laws. Of course, they should be partially involved in striving to be holy, and having a good relationship with God. But when they are the only factors, then we depend upon laws rather than grace, and this is what we essentially call legalism.
OlderNWiser has already posted on this, and you can read for yourself the book of Romans and Galatians.
We read in the gospels about the legalistic teachers of the law, pharisees and chief priests. They didn’t understand the heart of God – they were so entrenched in Do’s and Don’ts of the laws, that they really didn’t care much about God at all. They rather cared more about what the laws did for themselves – give them a sense of significance and self-glory, along with a smug feelings of self-righteousness.
Jesus called them “white-washed tombs”.
Matthew 23
26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Jesus clarified the gist and intent of the law in Matthew 22:36-39:
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.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
We read in the gospels that their main problem with the Jewish leaders with Jesus was their jealousy of him. They could not stand that God was getting more glory than themselves!
I strongly believe that Gracepoint Fellowship Church is entrenched in legalism, and in doing so, they are harming God’s sheep.
Rather than living in grace, and allowing individuals to foster their individual relationship with God by teaching their sheep in grace, they dominate their members with laws, and a culture of fear, guilt and debt to quickly try to make their members look good on the outside [they mistake this as growth]. And granted, look good they do, on the outside.
But in reality, different people have different timelines for how fast they are going to grow, and people definitely don’t grow through laws, systems, or a culture of fear, guilt and debt.
Don’t get me wrong – this is not to give excuse to lazy Christians who don’t really want to grow in their relationship with God, but at GFC, it’s almost like people are lined up to follow schedules all the time. From their weekly schedule, to how soon one should go from member to core member, to staff intern, to staff, it’s like the military. In real life, people grow on their own time perhaps like different plants do. Also, people have different backgrounds and different life experiences. They cannot be forced to be placed under a cookie-cutter of what GFC deems to be a “good Christian” – they produce templated Christians who merely behave well on the outside at best, but are immature and fearful on the inside.
New Christians should be taught and nurtured, but as they grow, they should be allowed to be themselves, make their own decisions based on their own biblical understanding and convictions, while teaching them to consider good advice. They should even be allowed to make a good deal of mistakes so that they can grow, so that their decisions become their own, and the lessons learned are more personal.
But in the culture at GFC, people are so afraid of making mistakes, because they are so afraid of being corrected. Correction [or love for truth as they call it] is such a high value there, disproportionate to grace in my opinion, and just not done in propriety often.
This is more healthy nurturing of a Christian. Did s/he commit an egregious sin like adultery or murder or even stealing? Yes, rebuke such a person! But don’t rebuke a person for not washing your dishes, or not saying Happy Birthday in person!
Furthermore, GFC places rigid boundaries around what a Christian can or cannot do to the point of extreme legalism. Leaders will express “concern” that someone wants to serve at another church for a weekend, like there’s something wrong with it, and a GFC Christian’s ministry is only for anything having to do with GFC itself. This is NOT healthy.
How do you know, GFC leaders, how God wants to lead one Christian or another? Are you stating that you are God and that you know He wants that person only at GFC or affiliated branch churches for the rest of one’s life? Do you dare say you know God’s will for each and evey individual? Do you not believe that God does convict individuals also, and not just via the church as a whole?
I’ll give the Kangs the benefit of the doubt that they meant well initially. Maybe somewhere along the line, things got twisted. The focus went from God to Gracepoint Fellowship Church. It went from glorifying God and nurturing His sheep faithfully in grace, to glorifying itself, and controlling the sheep to make Gracepoint look good.
I pray that the veil may be lifted from the eyes of Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang, and all the directors there.
Why is it that Christians on the outside can see this, but they cannot? Or do they refuse to?
May God’s grace be with you all.
So what is the Gospel?
by makestraight
I’ve decided to take another break after this post, before I post anything new. I’ll try to check comments randomly and respond to them when I can, but I need a break to focus on other very important aspects of my life.
As much as I have found freedom in Christ and a new love for God, I find that the energies spent here are quite exhausting. To be honest, I am not 100% sure if this is a ‘good’ task in God’s eyes [but I am more than 50% sure definitely]
I am somewhat torn in wondering if this is good in that it validates the truth of the spiritual abuse at Gracepoint Fellowship Church [aka Gracepoint Berkeley], and that it protects future people from potentially encountering the same – Or if this is merely promoting a kind of ‘in-fighting’ among believers, which Paul is against.
Again, I don’t fully know. Maybe it can only be judged in hindsight.
I try to view it from the perspective of asking myself if such a website would have helped me if it existed any earlier. For me, I think it would have. I can say that much confidently. I know a couple of commenters have thanked me for this site, and for any help that you received that drew you closer to God, I give glory to Him. In light of this, I do see this as a sort of ministry in a small way.
I thought I would just talk about the Gospel in this post, because in the end, that’s the basis of my charge against Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang and the directors there.
So what is the Gospel?
There’s that well known tract out there that describes it very simply – the 4 spiritual laws
1. God LOVES you and offers a wonderful PLAN for your life.
2. Man is SINFUL and SEPARATED from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life.
3. Jesus Christ is God’s ONLY provision for man’s sin. Through Him you can know and experience God’s love and plan for your life.
4. We must individually RECEIVE Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.
Then of course, the prayer [which need not be recited verbatim]
“Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be.”
[for more info you can read this site: www.godlovestheworld.com]
I really appreciate whoever came up with these 4 spiritual laws. It lays out the Gospel clearly.
The Gospel literally translated is “good news”. The good news is that EVERY one of us can be saved from our sins and from its penalty of death, and share eternal life with God!
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sin basically is the “I” problem [directly from course 101 at GFC]. It means having oneself as the center of his/her life and taking the place of God.
God is the rightful owner of our lives, and this means that He should be the center. This is what it means to Jesus as our Lord. And Jesus gave us the Holy Spirit to be with us.
John 15
16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
Sin doesn’t only manifest itself in the obvious morally wrong deeds, such as hatred, jealousy, assault, murder, drug abuse, and the like.
Sin also can manifest itself in self-righteousness and legalism.
How?
Instead of relying upon God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we start relying upon our own self-will, systems and laws. Of course, they should be partially involved in striving to be holy, and having a good relationship with God. But when they are the only factors, then we depend upon laws rather than grace, and this is what we essentially call legalism.
OlderNWiser has already posted on this, and you can read for yourself the book of Romans and Galatians.
We read in the gospels about the legalistic teachers of the law, pharisees and chief priests. They didn’t understand the heart of God – they were so entrenched in Do’s and Don’ts of the laws, that they really didn’t care much about God at all. They rather cared more about what the laws did for themselves – give them a sense of significance and self-glory, along with a smug feelings of self-righteousness.
Jesus called them “white-washed tombs”.
Matthew 23
26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
Jesus clarified the gist and intent of the law in Matthew 22:36-39:
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.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
We read in the gospels that their main problem with the Jewish leaders with Jesus was their jealousy of him. They could not stand that God was getting more glory than themselves!
I strongly believe that Gracepoint Fellowship Church is entrenched in legalism, and in doing so, they are harming God’s sheep.
Rather than living in grace, and allowing individuals to foster their individual relationship with God by teaching their sheep in grace, they dominate their members with laws, and a culture of fear, guilt and debt to quickly try to make their members look good on the outside [they mistake this as growth]. And granted, look good they do, on the outside.
But in reality, different people have different timelines for how fast they are going to grow, and people definitely don’t grow through laws, systems, or a culture of fear, guilt and debt.
Don’t get me wrong – this is not to give excuse to lazy Christians who don’t really want to grow in their relationship with God, but at GFC, it’s almost like people are lined up to follow schedules all the time. From their weekly schedule, to how soon one should go from member to core member, to staff intern, to staff, it’s like the military. In real life, people grow on their own time perhaps like different plants do. Also, people have different backgrounds and different life experiences. They cannot be forced to be placed under a cookie-cutter of what GFC deems to be a “good Christian” – they produce templated Christians who merely behave well on the outside at best, but are immature and fearful on the inside.
New Christians should be taught and nurtured, but as they grow, they should be allowed to be themselves, make their own decisions based on their own biblical understanding and convictions, while teaching them to consider good advice. They should even be allowed to make a good deal of mistakes so that they can grow, so that their decisions become their own, and the lessons learned are more personal.
But in the culture at GFC, people are so afraid of making mistakes, because they are so afraid of being corrected. Correction [or love for truth as they call it] is such a high value there, disproportionate to grace in my opinion, and just not done in propriety often.
This is more healthy nurturing of a Christian. Did s/he commit an egregious sin like adultery or murder or even stealing? Yes, rebuke such a person! But don’t rebuke a person for not washing your dishes, or not saying Happy Birthday in person!
Furthermore, GFC places rigid boundaries around what a Christian can or cannot do to the point of extreme legalism. Leaders will express “concern” that someone wants to serve at another church for a weekend, like there’s something wrong with it, and a GFC Christian’s ministry is only for anything having to do with GFC itself. This is NOT healthy.
How do you know, GFC leaders, how God wants to lead one Christian or another? Are you stating that you are God and that you know He wants that person only at GFC or affiliated branch churches for the rest of one’s life? Do you dare say you know God’s will for each and evey individual? Do you not believe that God does convict individuals also, and not just via the church as a whole?
I’ll give the Kangs the benefit of the doubt that they meant well initially. Maybe somewhere along the line, things got twisted. The focus went from God to Gracepoint Fellowship Church. It went from glorifying God and nurturing His sheep faithfully in grace, to glorifying itself, and controlling the sheep to make Gracepoint look good.
I pray that the veil may be lifted from the eyes of Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang, and all the directors there.
Why is it that Christians on the outside can see this, but they cannot? Or do they refuse to?
May God’s grace be with you all.
“Friendly Fire” Response from Kelly Kang
Sep 16, 2009 5:57 PM
“Friendly Fire” Response from Kelly Kang
by makestraight
[Update 9/17/09 - I've posted my rebuttal on Kelly's post]
I’m not going to comment thoroughly on this yet, but it seems like a fairly direct response from Kelly about any criticisms against Gracepoint – most likely referring to blogs such as this that reveal the spiritual abuse that we assert she and her husband Pastor Ed are committing.
“Getting Busy for God”
In essence, she is stating that since good works are happening at Gracepoint, any critics are like the wicked Pharisees.
I’ll reiterate again, this blog is to:
1. Warn people so that they would not be spiritually abused by attending Gracepoint.
2. Provide validation to people currently being spiritually abused at Gracepoint.
3. Reveal truths of the leaders, for which they should clearly repent.
Good deeds do not offset the need for repentance, does it? But according to Kelly’s blog, she seems to imply that.
If she and Pastor Ed were NOT commiting any spiritual abuse, there is no need for blogs such as this.
Eph 5:11 “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”
“Friendly Fire” Response from Kelly Kang
by makestraight
[Update 9/17/09 - I've posted my rebuttal on Kelly's post]
I’m not going to comment thoroughly on this yet, but it seems like a fairly direct response from Kelly about any criticisms against Gracepoint – most likely referring to blogs such as this that reveal the spiritual abuse that we assert she and her husband Pastor Ed are committing.
“Getting Busy for God”
In essence, she is stating that since good works are happening at Gracepoint, any critics are like the wicked Pharisees.
I’ll reiterate again, this blog is to:
1. Warn people so that they would not be spiritually abused by attending Gracepoint.
2. Provide validation to people currently being spiritually abused at Gracepoint.
3. Reveal truths of the leaders, for which they should clearly repent.
Good deeds do not offset the need for repentance, does it? But according to Kelly’s blog, she seems to imply that.
If she and Pastor Ed were NOT commiting any spiritual abuse, there is no need for blogs such as this.
Eph 5:11 “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”
Rebuttal to Kelly Kang’s Post
Sep 17, 2009 11:10 AM
Rebuttal to Kelly Kang’s Post
by makestraight
As I was reading through Matthew 9, I was hit by how busily Jesus lived his life while he was here on earth. Everywhere he went, there were people flocking to him. Just in this chapter alone, he heals “a paralytic lying on a mat,” “a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years,” “two blind men,” “a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk,” and raises the ruler’s daughter from the dead. The passage says “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.” He saw that the people were “harassed and helpless, like sheep without shepherd” and told his disciples that the “harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.”
In the midst of all of this are John’s disciples and the Pharisees. John’s disciples ask Jesus a question about fasting. The Pharisees attribute evil source for Jesus’ power. Being the religious people that they were, they really should have been there along with the disciples trying to help Jesus by becoming harvest workers. Instead, they were steeped in arrogance and mistrust. Instead of rejoicing in what was going on, we see them picking fights with Jesus and criticizing his every move. While the crowd was amazed at what was going on, the Pharisees assume the role of spiritual authority and make such outlandish assertion as, “It is by prince of demons that he drives out demons.” The Pharisees could not have possibly known the truth of what they asserted and yet they make such a bold assertion. Such pride, such arrogance! Because of their own agenda to protect their position and maintain the status quo, they have to denigrate what Jesus was doing and come up with a ridiculous scenario to explain away what Jesus was doing.
One lesson for modern-day Christians is that we need to be careful not to engage in “friendly fire” among us. There is so much diversity within Christendom, and quarreling about them only prevents the work of the kingdom. We also need to be wary of heeding the voice of those who seem to major on critiquing other Christians, and ministries—especially if we are not in a position to evaluate the character and actual lifestyle of these critics. Jesus came as a human being. He came to earth, lived among his people, showed his compassion by actually healing and touching lives, taught among the people, etc. A Christian witness has to be embodied. It’s so easy to sound smart by being critical and sarcastic. I am reminded of 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?”
It’s my prayer that every Christian would hear personally the call to join the harvest as kingdom workers and get busy living for God rather than question, criticize, denigrate and slander. Indeed, the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few and we as Christians have a lot of work to do.
First of all, I would say I’m done with this “break”. I can’t sit back and relax while things continue to get twisted by Kelly Kang. I decided to post the full text of her blog, as I wanted to capture it as it was before she might edit it later.
Here are the twisted, false things about her post – essentially my rebuttal. This is off the cuff, and I will add to it and clean it up later.
1. Jesus was indeed busy. But there’s a difference being busy, and being busybodies. After all, Martha was also busy, but Jesus chided her for that. The point of Christian life is not to be busy. It’s to love God and others, and to lead people to Christ to be saved. We ought to be diligent, but not to be point of being a busybody out of touch with the Spirit of God. I was quite a busybody when I was at Gracepoint. God did work in me and through me in some cases. But most of the time, I felt disconnected from God as a busybody. But Ed, Kelly and other leaders would always place the blame soley back at me.
2. In this story about the Pharisees and Jesus, Pharisees were envious of all the attention Jesus was drawing away from them and to Jesus. I have absolutely no envy for Kelly or Pastor Ed. None. It’s not the motivation for my blogging. I’ve already clarified my reasons.
3. Jesus is Jesus. The rest of us are not, Kelly included. This means that Jesus never had to pray a prayer of repentance, or even ask for forgiveness. The rest of us are sinners, and we need to both repent regularly, and also ask for forgiveness to those that we have sinned against. We also need to forgive others also. Kelly’s problem is that she places herself in the role of Jesus. She thinks she is sinless and has done nothing wrong, although the truthful stories of her prove otherwise. She accuses the accuser, rather than listening to the truth about her sins.
4. I make no bold, outlandish assertions against Kelly Kang, Pastor Ed, and the top leaders at Gracepoint Berkeley. Let me also point out that the Pharisees’ accusation against Jesus was simply false. But in the case with Kelly Kang and Ed, it’s different. Most of what we’ve stated are based on facts, common sense, and the Bible. Let me also restate that I do believe God works in Gracepoint for salvations, but I believe He works “in spite” of people, not because of their righteousness. God can work through anyone, even a donkey or a wicked ruler.
5. Who is the one wanting to protect their position? Is it Kelly and Ed or is it any of us that openly “criticize” them and Gracepoint based upon Truth? Rather, it seems through this very post that Kelly seems to want to dismiss any questions or criticisms against them as wicked, dubbing it “friendly fire”. It seems to me that she wants to protect her position. If we were to follow her logic, then we should have left alone Jimmy Swaggart the TV evangelist who committed sexual sin, but was leading people to Christ. Should we also leave alone regular pastors who’ve committed adultery since they preach the Word of God and lead them to salvation?
6. It’s hypocritical that Kelly speaks out against “friendly fire”. Didn’t she and Pastor Ed do the same via the letter they wrote against Becky Kim, their former leader? Hypocrisy indeed. Furthermore, didn’t they both applaud the work of Martin Luther in writing his accusations of truth against the corrupted Catholic church, which gave birth to the Prostestants, and therefore, the Baptists?
7. If Kelly believes criticism against Christians who do work in leading others to salvation is wrong, then why does she discipline, criticize, and rebuke her own members? Isn’t that “friendly fire”?
8. A Christian witness has to be embodied indeed. As many have referred to in various comments in this blog and others, Kelly Kang does not embody the fruit of the Spirit in her controlling, possessive, and sometimes narcissistic character. I believe she is alluding to the anonymity of myself and the other bloggers, and asserting that because we are anonymous, none of our assertions or criticisms are valid. As OlderNWiser has already put into words, we wouldn’t need to if she and Ed were open to criticism in the first place, and were safe people to dialogue with in criticism. Rather, she judges, blames, and even shares negative stories about those that have dissensions or leave. I’ve heard them from her myself. I remain anonymous to protect myself from such wickedness and attacks. Furthermore, Kelly’s basic assertion is false. We read plenty of news articles and history books and encyclopedia entries written by people who we do not know, and yet we safely attribute them as true. How? We simply compare them with reality and bounce the truths with other sources to validate them. You can do the same with my blog and others. Do the same, fair test for Truth.
9. I am not interested in sounding smart. I am interested in exposing the Truth.
10. I don’t “major” in criticizing ministries. I have a fairly busy life. I serve God at my church and I read the Word of God. I minister to others also. I found it sufficiently worthwhile and necessary to run this blog because of the damage the Kangs and their top leaders are doing to people.
11. I would like to ask Kelly to reflect upon the same verse in Matthew 7:3. Before she corrects anyone, she should look at the log in her own eye. She is even blind to how similar to Becky she is. She has rebuked countless people for their “pride” and “wickedness”, but she doesn’t see the logs of pride and wickedness in herself. I try to practice what I was taught by Pastor Ed himself. Repent continually, and specifically. I try to name my sins specifically and even state them to others and seek their forgiveness when I wrong them. It’s part of the Christian life – it’s not just about being busy. Also, it is Kelly Kang and Pastor Ed that do the “harassing” via spiritual abuse, rendering people “helpless” and unable to think for themselves – some even falling into depression. Then isn’t it the right thing for me to do to preach the good news of the Gospel of Grace, and try to help heal those who have been hurt?
12. I do “question” and “criticize” because of Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang’s sins of spiritual abuse, but I do not “denigrate” and “slander”. You can not group them into one bucket. They are different. There is malicious, selfish intent and an implication of lies behind the latter two words. I am not slandering her. I am pointing out truths. I’m not a prophet, but Nathan pointed out truths to David after his sin. That was not slander, but a call to repentance.
13. Lastly, her efforts merely further validate that Gracepoint Berkeley is abusive and unhealthy.
From Characteristics of Unhealthy, Abusive, and Cultic Church Environments:
“Negative aspects of system silenced. People who identify problems are viewed as a threat. They are marginalized, stigmatized and cast out of the system.”
From Battered Sheep:
“Non-abusive leaders do not discourage members from reading information critical about the group. Abusive leaders often control negative information about the group by either discrediting it or by dissuading members not to read it.”
Rebuttal to Kelly Kang’s Post
by makestraight
As I was reading through Matthew 9, I was hit by how busily Jesus lived his life while he was here on earth. Everywhere he went, there were people flocking to him. Just in this chapter alone, he heals “a paralytic lying on a mat,” “a woman who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years,” “two blind men,” “a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk,” and raises the ruler’s daughter from the dead. The passage says “Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.” He saw that the people were “harassed and helpless, like sheep without shepherd” and told his disciples that the “harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.”
In the midst of all of this are John’s disciples and the Pharisees. John’s disciples ask Jesus a question about fasting. The Pharisees attribute evil source for Jesus’ power. Being the religious people that they were, they really should have been there along with the disciples trying to help Jesus by becoming harvest workers. Instead, they were steeped in arrogance and mistrust. Instead of rejoicing in what was going on, we see them picking fights with Jesus and criticizing his every move. While the crowd was amazed at what was going on, the Pharisees assume the role of spiritual authority and make such outlandish assertion as, “It is by prince of demons that he drives out demons.” The Pharisees could not have possibly known the truth of what they asserted and yet they make such a bold assertion. Such pride, such arrogance! Because of their own agenda to protect their position and maintain the status quo, they have to denigrate what Jesus was doing and come up with a ridiculous scenario to explain away what Jesus was doing.
One lesson for modern-day Christians is that we need to be careful not to engage in “friendly fire” among us. There is so much diversity within Christendom, and quarreling about them only prevents the work of the kingdom. We also need to be wary of heeding the voice of those who seem to major on critiquing other Christians, and ministries—especially if we are not in a position to evaluate the character and actual lifestyle of these critics. Jesus came as a human being. He came to earth, lived among his people, showed his compassion by actually healing and touching lives, taught among the people, etc. A Christian witness has to be embodied. It’s so easy to sound smart by being critical and sarcastic. I am reminded of 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?”
It’s my prayer that every Christian would hear personally the call to join the harvest as kingdom workers and get busy living for God rather than question, criticize, denigrate and slander. Indeed, the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few and we as Christians have a lot of work to do.
First of all, I would say I’m done with this “break”. I can’t sit back and relax while things continue to get twisted by Kelly Kang. I decided to post the full text of her blog, as I wanted to capture it as it was before she might edit it later.
Here are the twisted, false things about her post – essentially my rebuttal. This is off the cuff, and I will add to it and clean it up later.
1. Jesus was indeed busy. But there’s a difference being busy, and being busybodies. After all, Martha was also busy, but Jesus chided her for that. The point of Christian life is not to be busy. It’s to love God and others, and to lead people to Christ to be saved. We ought to be diligent, but not to be point of being a busybody out of touch with the Spirit of God. I was quite a busybody when I was at Gracepoint. God did work in me and through me in some cases. But most of the time, I felt disconnected from God as a busybody. But Ed, Kelly and other leaders would always place the blame soley back at me.
2. In this story about the Pharisees and Jesus, Pharisees were envious of all the attention Jesus was drawing away from them and to Jesus. I have absolutely no envy for Kelly or Pastor Ed. None. It’s not the motivation for my blogging. I’ve already clarified my reasons.
3. Jesus is Jesus. The rest of us are not, Kelly included. This means that Jesus never had to pray a prayer of repentance, or even ask for forgiveness. The rest of us are sinners, and we need to both repent regularly, and also ask for forgiveness to those that we have sinned against. We also need to forgive others also. Kelly’s problem is that she places herself in the role of Jesus. She thinks she is sinless and has done nothing wrong, although the truthful stories of her prove otherwise. She accuses the accuser, rather than listening to the truth about her sins.
4. I make no bold, outlandish assertions against Kelly Kang, Pastor Ed, and the top leaders at Gracepoint Berkeley. Let me also point out that the Pharisees’ accusation against Jesus was simply false. But in the case with Kelly Kang and Ed, it’s different. Most of what we’ve stated are based on facts, common sense, and the Bible. Let me also restate that I do believe God works in Gracepoint for salvations, but I believe He works “in spite” of people, not because of their righteousness. God can work through anyone, even a donkey or a wicked ruler.
5. Who is the one wanting to protect their position? Is it Kelly and Ed or is it any of us that openly “criticize” them and Gracepoint based upon Truth? Rather, it seems through this very post that Kelly seems to want to dismiss any questions or criticisms against them as wicked, dubbing it “friendly fire”. It seems to me that she wants to protect her position. If we were to follow her logic, then we should have left alone Jimmy Swaggart the TV evangelist who committed sexual sin, but was leading people to Christ. Should we also leave alone regular pastors who’ve committed adultery since they preach the Word of God and lead them to salvation?
6. It’s hypocritical that Kelly speaks out against “friendly fire”. Didn’t she and Pastor Ed do the same via the letter they wrote against Becky Kim, their former leader? Hypocrisy indeed. Furthermore, didn’t they both applaud the work of Martin Luther in writing his accusations of truth against the corrupted Catholic church, which gave birth to the Prostestants, and therefore, the Baptists?
7. If Kelly believes criticism against Christians who do work in leading others to salvation is wrong, then why does she discipline, criticize, and rebuke her own members? Isn’t that “friendly fire”?
8. A Christian witness has to be embodied indeed. As many have referred to in various comments in this blog and others, Kelly Kang does not embody the fruit of the Spirit in her controlling, possessive, and sometimes narcissistic character. I believe she is alluding to the anonymity of myself and the other bloggers, and asserting that because we are anonymous, none of our assertions or criticisms are valid. As OlderNWiser has already put into words, we wouldn’t need to if she and Ed were open to criticism in the first place, and were safe people to dialogue with in criticism. Rather, she judges, blames, and even shares negative stories about those that have dissensions or leave. I’ve heard them from her myself. I remain anonymous to protect myself from such wickedness and attacks. Furthermore, Kelly’s basic assertion is false. We read plenty of news articles and history books and encyclopedia entries written by people who we do not know, and yet we safely attribute them as true. How? We simply compare them with reality and bounce the truths with other sources to validate them. You can do the same with my blog and others. Do the same, fair test for Truth.
9. I am not interested in sounding smart. I am interested in exposing the Truth.
10. I don’t “major” in criticizing ministries. I have a fairly busy life. I serve God at my church and I read the Word of God. I minister to others also. I found it sufficiently worthwhile and necessary to run this blog because of the damage the Kangs and their top leaders are doing to people.
11. I would like to ask Kelly to reflect upon the same verse in Matthew 7:3. Before she corrects anyone, she should look at the log in her own eye. She is even blind to how similar to Becky she is. She has rebuked countless people for their “pride” and “wickedness”, but she doesn’t see the logs of pride and wickedness in herself. I try to practice what I was taught by Pastor Ed himself. Repent continually, and specifically. I try to name my sins specifically and even state them to others and seek their forgiveness when I wrong them. It’s part of the Christian life – it’s not just about being busy. Also, it is Kelly Kang and Pastor Ed that do the “harassing” via spiritual abuse, rendering people “helpless” and unable to think for themselves – some even falling into depression. Then isn’t it the right thing for me to do to preach the good news of the Gospel of Grace, and try to help heal those who have been hurt?
12. I do “question” and “criticize” because of Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang’s sins of spiritual abuse, but I do not “denigrate” and “slander”. You can not group them into one bucket. They are different. There is malicious, selfish intent and an implication of lies behind the latter two words. I am not slandering her. I am pointing out truths. I’m not a prophet, but Nathan pointed out truths to David after his sin. That was not slander, but a call to repentance.
13. Lastly, her efforts merely further validate that Gracepoint Berkeley is abusive and unhealthy.
From Characteristics of Unhealthy, Abusive, and Cultic Church Environments:
“Negative aspects of system silenced. People who identify problems are viewed as a threat. They are marginalized, stigmatized and cast out of the system.”
From Battered Sheep:
“Non-abusive leaders do not discourage members from reading information critical about the group. Abusive leaders often control negative information about the group by either discrediting it or by dissuading members not to read it.”
Are You Covering for a Spiritually Abusive Pastor?
Sep 22, 2009 11:53 AM
Are You Covering for a Spiritually Abusive Pastor?
by makestraight
[updated 9/22/09 - 2:45pm]
I found the following post from Pureprovender quite interesting.
Are you covering for a Spiritually Abusive Pastor?
When I used to be at Gracepoint Berkeley, I found myself being quite defensive on behalf of the Gracepoint structure and for Pastor Ed and Kelly.
I think it’s only natural – since Gracepoint essentially is your entire life, you want to defend Gracepoint to justify your own life in a way. At least for me it was. Additionally, since it’s such a tight-knit community [as forced and mandated as it is], you end up developing a strong loyalty to your leaders. After all, they are not 100% wicked. Many times, they do good things [good advice, good meals], but that’s what makes it hard to discern when they do something that’s wrong or unbiblical. But you find your mind justifying away those things and constantly trying to remember the good.
You can only do so much of that until it becomes cognitive dissonance. As Christians, we ought to be committed to the truth first, not loyalty [remember this is what Pastor Ed and Kelly did against Becky, and this was praised].
Sorry for the slight tangent, going back to the topic at hand, I knew deep inside that there was something not right. I knew that Gracepoint was very legalistic, and I knew that Kelly had issues with her character, and I knew that Pastor Ed was quite the savvy politician. I also knew that the church was overly authoritarian in a way that was unbiblical.
But I was very unconfident about my own conscience. So I kept dismissing them or justifying them away with superficial logic. I have to admit, I really didn’t want it to be true.
Furthermore, I was told by my leaders that such frustration was just my own problem, and the blame was placed only upon me. And I learned to constantly blame ONLY myself, rather than acknowledging the truth of the big picture that Gracepoint was ALSO at fault.
I hope to validate your thoughts through this blog so that you won’t be deceived as I was. Yes, our hearts can be deceitful above all things, but God does give us a mind to be able to think critically so that we can ascertain truth. Gracepoint will teach you that it’s all about “trust and obey”. But they are really misusing that to get you to trust and obey the LEADERS mainly, and not GOD himself directly.
So learn to give heed to your conscience and your perceptions when it’s aligned with truth. Be shrewed but innocent.
Matthew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
[Related post: Love and Stockholm Syndrome]
Are You Covering for a Spiritually Abusive Pastor?
by makestraight
[updated 9/22/09 - 2:45pm]
I found the following post from Pureprovender quite interesting.
Are you covering for a Spiritually Abusive Pastor?
When I used to be at Gracepoint Berkeley, I found myself being quite defensive on behalf of the Gracepoint structure and for Pastor Ed and Kelly.
I think it’s only natural – since Gracepoint essentially is your entire life, you want to defend Gracepoint to justify your own life in a way. At least for me it was. Additionally, since it’s such a tight-knit community [as forced and mandated as it is], you end up developing a strong loyalty to your leaders. After all, they are not 100% wicked. Many times, they do good things [good advice, good meals], but that’s what makes it hard to discern when they do something that’s wrong or unbiblical. But you find your mind justifying away those things and constantly trying to remember the good.
You can only do so much of that until it becomes cognitive dissonance. As Christians, we ought to be committed to the truth first, not loyalty [remember this is what Pastor Ed and Kelly did against Becky, and this was praised].
Sorry for the slight tangent, going back to the topic at hand, I knew deep inside that there was something not right. I knew that Gracepoint was very legalistic, and I knew that Kelly had issues with her character, and I knew that Pastor Ed was quite the savvy politician. I also knew that the church was overly authoritarian in a way that was unbiblical.
But I was very unconfident about my own conscience. So I kept dismissing them or justifying them away with superficial logic. I have to admit, I really didn’t want it to be true.
Furthermore, I was told by my leaders that such frustration was just my own problem, and the blame was placed only upon me. And I learned to constantly blame ONLY myself, rather than acknowledging the truth of the big picture that Gracepoint was ALSO at fault.
I hope to validate your thoughts through this blog so that you won’t be deceived as I was. Yes, our hearts can be deceitful above all things, but God does give us a mind to be able to think critically so that we can ascertain truth. Gracepoint will teach you that it’s all about “trust and obey”. But they are really misusing that to get you to trust and obey the LEADERS mainly, and not GOD himself directly.
So learn to give heed to your conscience and your perceptions when it’s aligned with truth. Be shrewed but innocent.
Matthew 10:16
I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
[Related post: Love and Stockholm Syndrome]
The Difficulty of Challenging a Cult or Spiritually Abusive Organization
Sep 24, 2009 9:51 AM
The Difficulty of Challenging a Cult or Spiritually Abusive Organization
by makestraight
As I continue to expose truth about Gracepoint, I’m always a bit overwhelmed about how difficult it is to challenge them.
Then I did some searching, came across a site called “The Culture of Cults“. It’s very informative.
The site addresses features of cults, but it also applies to Gracepoint Berkeley. Although it’s not a cult in that it does not TEACH obviously wrong things, it is still aberrant and harmful in that Gracepoint enforces unbiblical concepts through a hyper-authoritarian culture of fear, guilt, shame and debt, with some twisted teachings interspersed.
Gracepoint uses this culture to “promote the gospel” in Ed and Kelly’s eyes, but what is more obvious is that they are promoting and glorifying Gracepoint itself through this harmful and controlling culture.
Whether Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang are abusive intentionally, or are simply blind to themselves – it does not excuse their sins one bit.
I found 2 sections of the site to be particularly true, about how difficult it is to challenge a spiritually abusive group such as Gracepoint. I’ve posted that section with my emphasis in red.
Difficulties Facing Critical Ex-members
In general, cults have a hierarchical or pyramid type of structure. At the lowest level, members are part-timers who are only partially committed to the group and are who are only lightly brainwashed. All the cult leadership really requires of this level is that members should speak well of the group and be generally positive. Members at this level have little power or influence, and are unlikely to be aware of the full range of the cult’s teachings, knowledge of which is restricted to a trusted inner circle of committed, full-time members.
Members at a part-time level of commitment are less likely to be manipulated or abused to any significant extent, because achieving strong influence over a person really requires that they be exposed to a mind control environment on a more full-time basis. Mind control only works on a foundation of personal friendship and trust, and it takes time and effort to establish this foundation. Strong mind control is partly a one on one process, in which the controlee is assigned a personal mentor, a more senior and experienced member, who is willing to devote the patience and effort needed to coach the aspirant/controlee in the beliefs and practices of the group.
For this practical reason, therefore, strong mind control is generally only applied to selected individuals who are perceived to be not only receptive, but who also have something in particular that the group leadership wants. Sometimes this is money or sex, or it may be some practical or business skill which is desired by the group leadership in order to expand the group or to raise money. The greater majority of members are not specially targeted, and are only relatively lightly brainwashed.
A person involved at a more superficial level may find it genuinely difficult to believe what goes on in some of the more committed levels of membership. Members who have not been specially targeted, and who have enjoyed the warmth and friendship of the group without having been exposed to its darker side, will tend to think well of the group, and may be puzzled by criticisms of it. These positive and supportive members can be used as a public relations shield, to counter any allegations against the group, and to reassure new members. Individual critics can be simply outnumbered and their criticisms discredited.
Even if a member involved at a less committed level is not swayed by the general air of positivity, and does develop suspicions about the group, they are unlikely to have enough inside information about the group to be able to verify their suspicions, or to be in a position to effectively warn others of potential problems. Nevertheless, the mere suspicion that a group might be a cult can be enough to deter a person from becoming involved, and so it can still be worth making relevant criticisms and sowing the seeds of suspicion.
If a critic is an insider, someone who has been more deeply involved and who has enough inside knowledge about a cult to be able to make detailed criticisms, they will still be unable to prove anything (because of the subjective nature of personal belief in general, and the non-falsifiable nature of cult belief systems in particular). They will be unable to prove that the group used deception or misrepresentation in marketing the benefits of participation in group run courses and activities.
If an ex-member claims that they were subjected to brainwashing or mind-control techniques, not only is this again unprovable, but it is tantamount to admitting that they are a gullible and easily led person whose opinions, consequently, can’t be worth much. If an ex-member suffers from any mental disorientation or evident psychiatric symptoms, this is likely to further diminish their credibility as a reliable informant.
Additionally, dissatisfied members or other critics have great difficulty in disproving ad-hominem arguments, such as that they just have a personal axe to grind, that they are trying to find a scapegoat to excuse their own failure or deficiency, or that they are simply being subjective and emotional. Cults have a vested interest in challenging the personal credibility of their critics, and may cultivate academic researchers who attack the credibility and motives of ex-members. [29]
In general, the public credibility of critical ex-cultists seems to be somewhere in between that of Estate Agents and flying saucer abductees.
Summary of Advantages Enjoyed by Cult Organisations
To summarise, a cult – defined as an identifiable, organised group of people holding to an independent belief system which primarily originates or is primarily interpreted from within the group, and which has a hierarchical organisational structure based on that belief system – is to a large extent immune from outside criticism, either of its belief system or of the methods used to recruit followers, because:
1. Legal criticism is ineffectual, firstly because freedom of belief laws largely protect cults from outside investigation or regulation, and secondly because of the subjective, non-provable nature of personal belief itself.
2. Moral criticism is ineffectual, because a cult belief system can set its own self-justifying moral codes.
3. Philosophical or theological criticism is ineffectual, because a cult belief system follows its own internal logic, which is impenetrable to an outsider.
4. Empirical or scientific criticism is ineffectual, because the tenets of a cult belief system are non-falsifiable.
5. Criticism by ex-members is ineffectual, because apostates tend to lack credibility for a variety of reasons.
Immunity from outside criticism and regulation does not, in itself, necessarily mean that a group will develop and use what might be considered, by the standards of the mainstream, deceptive or devious psychological techniques to gain or control adherents. It only means that they can, and that there is little come-back if they do. Religious freedom and freedom of belief laws tend to protect the rights of religious and quasi-religious organisations, much more than they protect the rights of individuals who may become involved with those organisations and their belief systems.
It can be quite easy to feel defeated by the difficulty of this task, but I was reminded of the following verses in Matthew 17:14-21
14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15“Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.
19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.“[a]
Also, in the account of Mark 9:26-30, one verse stands out:
29He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer”
So everyone, please pray that the Truth may prevail in all of this. Gracepoint members and staff, you can pray this also. Isn’t that what you want also? Truth?
In the end, if the Truth is against me, I will concede that I am wrong.
I hope everyone at Gracepoint can say the same thing.
God bless.
The Difficulty of Challenging a Cult or Spiritually Abusive Organization
by makestraight
As I continue to expose truth about Gracepoint, I’m always a bit overwhelmed about how difficult it is to challenge them.
Then I did some searching, came across a site called “The Culture of Cults“. It’s very informative.
The site addresses features of cults, but it also applies to Gracepoint Berkeley. Although it’s not a cult in that it does not TEACH obviously wrong things, it is still aberrant and harmful in that Gracepoint enforces unbiblical concepts through a hyper-authoritarian culture of fear, guilt, shame and debt, with some twisted teachings interspersed.
Gracepoint uses this culture to “promote the gospel” in Ed and Kelly’s eyes, but what is more obvious is that they are promoting and glorifying Gracepoint itself through this harmful and controlling culture.
Whether Pastor Ed and Kelly Kang are abusive intentionally, or are simply blind to themselves – it does not excuse their sins one bit.
I found 2 sections of the site to be particularly true, about how difficult it is to challenge a spiritually abusive group such as Gracepoint. I’ve posted that section with my emphasis in red.
Difficulties Facing Critical Ex-members
In general, cults have a hierarchical or pyramid type of structure. At the lowest level, members are part-timers who are only partially committed to the group and are who are only lightly brainwashed. All the cult leadership really requires of this level is that members should speak well of the group and be generally positive. Members at this level have little power or influence, and are unlikely to be aware of the full range of the cult’s teachings, knowledge of which is restricted to a trusted inner circle of committed, full-time members.
Members at a part-time level of commitment are less likely to be manipulated or abused to any significant extent, because achieving strong influence over a person really requires that they be exposed to a mind control environment on a more full-time basis. Mind control only works on a foundation of personal friendship and trust, and it takes time and effort to establish this foundation. Strong mind control is partly a one on one process, in which the controlee is assigned a personal mentor, a more senior and experienced member, who is willing to devote the patience and effort needed to coach the aspirant/controlee in the beliefs and practices of the group.
For this practical reason, therefore, strong mind control is generally only applied to selected individuals who are perceived to be not only receptive, but who also have something in particular that the group leadership wants. Sometimes this is money or sex, or it may be some practical or business skill which is desired by the group leadership in order to expand the group or to raise money. The greater majority of members are not specially targeted, and are only relatively lightly brainwashed.
A person involved at a more superficial level may find it genuinely difficult to believe what goes on in some of the more committed levels of membership. Members who have not been specially targeted, and who have enjoyed the warmth and friendship of the group without having been exposed to its darker side, will tend to think well of the group, and may be puzzled by criticisms of it. These positive and supportive members can be used as a public relations shield, to counter any allegations against the group, and to reassure new members. Individual critics can be simply outnumbered and their criticisms discredited.
Even if a member involved at a less committed level is not swayed by the general air of positivity, and does develop suspicions about the group, they are unlikely to have enough inside information about the group to be able to verify their suspicions, or to be in a position to effectively warn others of potential problems. Nevertheless, the mere suspicion that a group might be a cult can be enough to deter a person from becoming involved, and so it can still be worth making relevant criticisms and sowing the seeds of suspicion.
If a critic is an insider, someone who has been more deeply involved and who has enough inside knowledge about a cult to be able to make detailed criticisms, they will still be unable to prove anything (because of the subjective nature of personal belief in general, and the non-falsifiable nature of cult belief systems in particular). They will be unable to prove that the group used deception or misrepresentation in marketing the benefits of participation in group run courses and activities.
If an ex-member claims that they were subjected to brainwashing or mind-control techniques, not only is this again unprovable, but it is tantamount to admitting that they are a gullible and easily led person whose opinions, consequently, can’t be worth much. If an ex-member suffers from any mental disorientation or evident psychiatric symptoms, this is likely to further diminish their credibility as a reliable informant.
Additionally, dissatisfied members or other critics have great difficulty in disproving ad-hominem arguments, such as that they just have a personal axe to grind, that they are trying to find a scapegoat to excuse their own failure or deficiency, or that they are simply being subjective and emotional. Cults have a vested interest in challenging the personal credibility of their critics, and may cultivate academic researchers who attack the credibility and motives of ex-members. [29]
In general, the public credibility of critical ex-cultists seems to be somewhere in between that of Estate Agents and flying saucer abductees.
Summary of Advantages Enjoyed by Cult Organisations
To summarise, a cult – defined as an identifiable, organised group of people holding to an independent belief system which primarily originates or is primarily interpreted from within the group, and which has a hierarchical organisational structure based on that belief system – is to a large extent immune from outside criticism, either of its belief system or of the methods used to recruit followers, because:
1. Legal criticism is ineffectual, firstly because freedom of belief laws largely protect cults from outside investigation or regulation, and secondly because of the subjective, non-provable nature of personal belief itself.
2. Moral criticism is ineffectual, because a cult belief system can set its own self-justifying moral codes.
3. Philosophical or theological criticism is ineffectual, because a cult belief system follows its own internal logic, which is impenetrable to an outsider.
4. Empirical or scientific criticism is ineffectual, because the tenets of a cult belief system are non-falsifiable.
5. Criticism by ex-members is ineffectual, because apostates tend to lack credibility for a variety of reasons.
Immunity from outside criticism and regulation does not, in itself, necessarily mean that a group will develop and use what might be considered, by the standards of the mainstream, deceptive or devious psychological techniques to gain or control adherents. It only means that they can, and that there is little come-back if they do. Religious freedom and freedom of belief laws tend to protect the rights of religious and quasi-religious organisations, much more than they protect the rights of individuals who may become involved with those organisations and their belief systems.
It can be quite easy to feel defeated by the difficulty of this task, but I was reminded of the following verses in Matthew 17:14-21
14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15“Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”
17“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.
19Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”
20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.“[a]
Also, in the account of Mark 9:26-30, one verse stands out:
29He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer”
So everyone, please pray that the Truth may prevail in all of this. Gracepoint members and staff, you can pray this also. Isn’t that what you want also? Truth?
In the end, if the Truth is against me, I will concede that I am wrong.
I hope everyone at Gracepoint can say the same thing.
God bless.
Written out Sunday Prayers at Gracepoint Berkeley
Sep 30, 2009 10:16 AM
Written out Sunday Prayers
by makestraight
[update 10/2/2009]
Based on anon’s feedback in the comment section after I posted this, I’d like to first mention as a disclaimer that the subject of this post is not a large issue. It’s a rather minor one, but I point it out only to contribute to a larger, fuller picture of the culture at Gracepoint Berkeley.
I pointed out somewhere in this blog before that one effect you’ll see as a result of Gracepoint Berkeley’s fear and guilt driven culture is that you’ll have genuine, individual spiritual growth being stunted.
One need not look further than the Sunday prayers by staff members to see this.
Every staff member will have a typed out piece of paper they wrote out, and take it out, and read it during Sunday Worship Service. I understand if the staff has been serving as staff only for 1 or 2 years. But staff members who have been serving for 10+ years, and even directors who have been at Gracepoint longer will do the same.
Also, almost every staff member dreads their turn on the prayer rotation [I certainly hope this has changed].
Why?
It’s because they worry and fear that they might essentially “pray wrong”, and their prayer has to be “good”.
What I mean is that they are afraid that they may have forgotten to pray about an important topic that came up during the week. If they fail to cover something, they are afraid to be addressed by their leaders, or by Kelly herself, about “How could you forget to pray about that?” Some resourceful staff members will ask the person(s) in charge of the bulletin, or ask their friends who are more “on top of things” at church.
Kelly Kang will sometimes send out emails after prayers, stating why you should NOT pray like such, and how you should instead pray like this. Don’t use these words, use these words. Make sure to say “please” even. I mean, come on! Jesus himself taught us how to pray with the basic structure in the Lord’s Prayer.
Jesus isn’t caught up in grammar, but he teaches us in a straightforward fashion that we should give glory to God, seek forgiveness for our sins, and ask God for providence, and for protection from sin. Prayer is talking with our Abba Father, not a presidential speech.
But Kelly even micromanages people’s prayers.
Why?
Because I believe she’s into how Gracepoint looks and sounds. She wants control over everything to how she thinks it should be, because Gracepoint is about her, and Ed. There’s only one way to glorify God, and that’s how THEY deem it to be worthy. They serve as pope or judge-like figures who guard the gateway to God [the same thing they accused Becky Kim of doing]. Almost every staff member seeks their approval, and are afraid of them [very few will openly admit this]. If they admit they are afraid, they will be talked to, because it’s THEIR problem for being afraid, not Kelly or Ed’s. It’s the staff’s problem for not “trusting and obeying” enough. The pattern of the blame being cast solely upon the staff or member is repeated constantly.
There’s minimal sense of freedom and grace at Gracepoint [again, an ironic name for the church].
Kelly even admonishes staff about how the “reflection” they wrote was written poorly and reveals how “unspiritual” or “unreflective” they are.
I hope that people there [both staff and members] who are unhappy and suffering under the legalism and spiritual abuse can gather the courage to leave. Such an environment does NOT foster individual spiritual growth. It might make the church as a whole look good on the surface, but God does not care about the outside, He cares about the heart.
God will be with you wherever you go. Just continue to seek Him.
Jesus said in Luke 11:11-13
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
God will give you the Holy Spirit to be with you if you ask Him.
Written out Sunday Prayers
by makestraight
[update 10/2/2009]
Based on anon’s feedback in the comment section after I posted this, I’d like to first mention as a disclaimer that the subject of this post is not a large issue. It’s a rather minor one, but I point it out only to contribute to a larger, fuller picture of the culture at Gracepoint Berkeley.
I pointed out somewhere in this blog before that one effect you’ll see as a result of Gracepoint Berkeley’s fear and guilt driven culture is that you’ll have genuine, individual spiritual growth being stunted.
One need not look further than the Sunday prayers by staff members to see this.
Every staff member will have a typed out piece of paper they wrote out, and take it out, and read it during Sunday Worship Service. I understand if the staff has been serving as staff only for 1 or 2 years. But staff members who have been serving for 10+ years, and even directors who have been at Gracepoint longer will do the same.
Also, almost every staff member dreads their turn on the prayer rotation [I certainly hope this has changed].
Why?
It’s because they worry and fear that they might essentially “pray wrong”, and their prayer has to be “good”.
What I mean is that they are afraid that they may have forgotten to pray about an important topic that came up during the week. If they fail to cover something, they are afraid to be addressed by their leaders, or by Kelly herself, about “How could you forget to pray about that?” Some resourceful staff members will ask the person(s) in charge of the bulletin, or ask their friends who are more “on top of things” at church.
Kelly Kang will sometimes send out emails after prayers, stating why you should NOT pray like such, and how you should instead pray like this. Don’t use these words, use these words. Make sure to say “please” even. I mean, come on! Jesus himself taught us how to pray with the basic structure in the Lord’s Prayer.
Jesus isn’t caught up in grammar, but he teaches us in a straightforward fashion that we should give glory to God, seek forgiveness for our sins, and ask God for providence, and for protection from sin. Prayer is talking with our Abba Father, not a presidential speech.
But Kelly even micromanages people’s prayers.
Why?
Because I believe she’s into how Gracepoint looks and sounds. She wants control over everything to how she thinks it should be, because Gracepoint is about her, and Ed. There’s only one way to glorify God, and that’s how THEY deem it to be worthy. They serve as pope or judge-like figures who guard the gateway to God [the same thing they accused Becky Kim of doing]. Almost every staff member seeks their approval, and are afraid of them [very few will openly admit this]. If they admit they are afraid, they will be talked to, because it’s THEIR problem for being afraid, not Kelly or Ed’s. It’s the staff’s problem for not “trusting and obeying” enough. The pattern of the blame being cast solely upon the staff or member is repeated constantly.
There’s minimal sense of freedom and grace at Gracepoint [again, an ironic name for the church].
Kelly even admonishes staff about how the “reflection” they wrote was written poorly and reveals how “unspiritual” or “unreflective” they are.
I hope that people there [both staff and members] who are unhappy and suffering under the legalism and spiritual abuse can gather the courage to leave. Such an environment does NOT foster individual spiritual growth. It might make the church as a whole look good on the surface, but God does not care about the outside, He cares about the heart.
God will be with you wherever you go. Just continue to seek Him.
Jesus said in Luke 11:11-13
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
God will give you the Holy Spirit to be with you if you ask Him.
Why Spiritual Abuse is So Powerful and Wicked
Oct 9, 2009 9:52 AM
Why Spiritual Abuse is So Powerful and Wicked
by makestraight
[updated 10/8/09 - 10:15am]
I think “Spiritual Abuse” is a relatively new term. We’re so used to defining a church as either a cult or not a cult. If a church is not a cult, then we say, the church has its problems, but “…at least they are not a cult.”
But if you think about it, the history of spiritual abuse really goes a long way – back to even the Pharisees. They used their religious title and position to control and judge people, and to lift up themselves as self-righteous. The position given to them as religious leaders was misused and abused for their own gain.
Gracepoint Berkeley clearly commits spiritual abuse. I am not the only point of reference on this. In this site, I have referenced numerous other resources, and many of them are on the links on the right. You can even read over Characteristics of a Spiritually Abusive Church yourself as a litmus test. I didn’t make them up myself.
Personally, I find spiritual abuse to be even more wicked than physical abuse. [I am not making light of physical abuse, but stating how serious I think spiritual abuse is].
People naturally have spiritual hunger. I believe we all have a longing for God. When spiritually hungry people find Christians who seem willing to help them get closer to God, they put their guard down, and they place A LOT of trust upon pastors or leaders of some kind.
They even dismiss a lot of their own thinking, because correctly so, the Bible teaches in Proverbs 3 that we should “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding,” and Hebrews 13:17 speaks of obeying your leaders and submitting to their authority [Make sure you read this clarification on it however]. And so trusting in ones spiritual leader or guide seems to be the appropriate things to do. The leader or guide practically represents God to them.
Things get very twisted, unhealthy and abusive when the leader then does not abide by the Word of God, but introduces EXTRA-biblical teachings as God ordained mandates. Also, it’s terribly wrong when the leader refuses to acknowledge the full truth that he or she is wrong on an important matter, and refuses to apologize, and rather casts the blame back upon the trusting believers. But people who have given their loyalty to their leader will blind themselves to any faults, and in this way, spiritual abuse is very powerful. Spiritual leaders can have an amazing psychological control over their members. [How do you think people end up following the odd and outlandish teachings of a group like Heaven's Gate?]
Additionally, it is downright wicked and ungodly when the focus becomes upon the leaders and the organization itself, rather than the Body of Christ as a whole, with Jesus being the Head and main character.
All of this happens at Gracepoint.
Gracepoint may DO many things in the NAME of Jesus, and have claimed to BE WITH Him, but we see in Luke 13
26“…you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27“But he [Jesus] will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
What we claim about Jesus doesn’t matter, if Jesus himself says he does not know us.
Consider the older son in the Parable of the Lost Son that Jesus told in Luke 15. The older son did everything right, and stayed and worked in the Father’s house, but in the end, did not understand the Father’s heart. It was ironically the son who physically left, and returned that understood the Father’s heart.
The point of the story is about understanding and sharing in the amazing love and grace of our Heavenly Father.
If leaders in a church hurt and damage people through spiritual abuse, is that sharing in the Father’s heart?
If spiritually hungry people walk away from leaders in a church feeling less attracted to God, and almost even repelled and bitter at God because of them, is that sharing in the Father’s heart?
If leaders do not serve in humility, but dominate in hyper-authoritarian ways, is that sharing in the heart of Jesus, who washed his disciples feet, and told us to do likewise?
I grieve over people that ran away from God and remain in depression and even bitterness because of their experience with Berkland/Gracepoint.
I’m not exonerating everyone who went through Berkland/Gracepoint and left. Mostly likely not all who left, have left hurt. There were probably those that did leave “for the world” simply because they loved the world and had no interest in God in the first place.
But people’s relationship with God, and their eternal lives are at stake. Spiritual abuse is an issue of eternity, not just the physical, and so I see it as truly wicked when leaders to indeed abuse their authority and harm God’s children.
Kelly Kang has often called talked about specific people being “so wicked” to her fellow staff members, or has rebuked people directly and called them “wicked”. She doesn’t realize that while much of what she does is good indeed, the spiritual abuse she commits is completely wicked. [Based upon her recent post, it seems however, that she sees herself as a sinless, blameless being who is above wickedness and is always right]
I place my hope upon the fact that God, however, is sovereign. I pray that those of you damaged by Gracepoint are being healed by God and are being led back to Him.
Why Spiritual Abuse is So Powerful and Wicked
by makestraight
[updated 10/8/09 - 10:15am]
I think “Spiritual Abuse” is a relatively new term. We’re so used to defining a church as either a cult or not a cult. If a church is not a cult, then we say, the church has its problems, but “…at least they are not a cult.”
But if you think about it, the history of spiritual abuse really goes a long way – back to even the Pharisees. They used their religious title and position to control and judge people, and to lift up themselves as self-righteous. The position given to them as religious leaders was misused and abused for their own gain.
Gracepoint Berkeley clearly commits spiritual abuse. I am not the only point of reference on this. In this site, I have referenced numerous other resources, and many of them are on the links on the right. You can even read over Characteristics of a Spiritually Abusive Church yourself as a litmus test. I didn’t make them up myself.
Personally, I find spiritual abuse to be even more wicked than physical abuse. [I am not making light of physical abuse, but stating how serious I think spiritual abuse is].
People naturally have spiritual hunger. I believe we all have a longing for God. When spiritually hungry people find Christians who seem willing to help them get closer to God, they put their guard down, and they place A LOT of trust upon pastors or leaders of some kind.
They even dismiss a lot of their own thinking, because correctly so, the Bible teaches in Proverbs 3 that we should “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding,” and Hebrews 13:17 speaks of obeying your leaders and submitting to their authority [Make sure you read this clarification on it however]. And so trusting in ones spiritual leader or guide seems to be the appropriate things to do. The leader or guide practically represents God to them.
Things get very twisted, unhealthy and abusive when the leader then does not abide by the Word of God, but introduces EXTRA-biblical teachings as God ordained mandates. Also, it’s terribly wrong when the leader refuses to acknowledge the full truth that he or she is wrong on an important matter, and refuses to apologize, and rather casts the blame back upon the trusting believers. But people who have given their loyalty to their leader will blind themselves to any faults, and in this way, spiritual abuse is very powerful. Spiritual leaders can have an amazing psychological control over their members. [How do you think people end up following the odd and outlandish teachings of a group like Heaven's Gate?]
Additionally, it is downright wicked and ungodly when the focus becomes upon the leaders and the organization itself, rather than the Body of Christ as a whole, with Jesus being the Head and main character.
All of this happens at Gracepoint.
Gracepoint may DO many things in the NAME of Jesus, and have claimed to BE WITH Him, but we see in Luke 13
26“…you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27“But he [Jesus] will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
What we claim about Jesus doesn’t matter, if Jesus himself says he does not know us.
Consider the older son in the Parable of the Lost Son that Jesus told in Luke 15. The older son did everything right, and stayed and worked in the Father’s house, but in the end, did not understand the Father’s heart. It was ironically the son who physically left, and returned that understood the Father’s heart.
The point of the story is about understanding and sharing in the amazing love and grace of our Heavenly Father.
If leaders in a church hurt and damage people through spiritual abuse, is that sharing in the Father’s heart?
If spiritually hungry people walk away from leaders in a church feeling less attracted to God, and almost even repelled and bitter at God because of them, is that sharing in the Father’s heart?
If leaders do not serve in humility, but dominate in hyper-authoritarian ways, is that sharing in the heart of Jesus, who washed his disciples feet, and told us to do likewise?
I grieve over people that ran away from God and remain in depression and even bitterness because of their experience with Berkland/Gracepoint.
I’m not exonerating everyone who went through Berkland/Gracepoint and left. Mostly likely not all who left, have left hurt. There were probably those that did leave “for the world” simply because they loved the world and had no interest in God in the first place.
But people’s relationship with God, and their eternal lives are at stake. Spiritual abuse is an issue of eternity, not just the physical, and so I see it as truly wicked when leaders to indeed abuse their authority and harm God’s children.
Kelly Kang has often called talked about specific people being “so wicked” to her fellow staff members, or has rebuked people directly and called them “wicked”. She doesn’t realize that while much of what she does is good indeed, the spiritual abuse she commits is completely wicked. [Based upon her recent post, it seems however, that she sees herself as a sinless, blameless being who is above wickedness and is always right]
I place my hope upon the fact that God, however, is sovereign. I pray that those of you damaged by Gracepoint are being healed by God and are being led back to Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)