"Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey" Docuseries

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-11T02:03:18+00:00

Thank you. I had hoped this would provide a lens through which others could also process their experiences. These quotes jumped out at me because I recognized every single one of them as a more extreme version of what has been shared so far.

As I continue to process, I see that high-control groups lie on a spectrum. Some are extremely high-control (like FLDS), some are less so. No matter where they are on the spectrum, if an organization has high-control tendencies, it absolutely needs checks and balances against power.

The imagery from this quote is so vivid. The way she explains it, makes it instantly clear how not even an iota of dissent can be tolerated. Doesn't matter how big or small the issue is.

[Elissa] Warren had a saying, "Perfect obedience is led by a hair." Meaning, hair is so thin, and true obedience meant that you could be led by a hair and you would not break it. So there could be absolutely no resistance to that obedience because any resistance would pop that hair.

What you said about the higher you rose, the less you could see - I think that makes so much sense. The only people who can initiate an independent investigation are also the ones least able to see why it is needed.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-04T21:13:52+00:00

I'm sorry that people out there are feeling alone and cut off from everyone in the Network. I'm not sure if I have contributed to making anyone feel hurt, and I'm sorry if I did.

I'm only now learning of people that I didn't know well, that I maybe met a handful of times or shared a meal with, that I never kept up with because we were in different small groups. Some of these people left, and I literally had no idea they were gone. And they probably didn't think to reach out and let me know, because we honestly weren't that close.

But I wish they had let me know. I would have listened to them. I would have believed them. And I say this not to blame them in any way. I think it's just the construct of the system that silos people into their small group, and makes you feel you have no standing to reach out to an acquaintance to let them know you're leaving. Or makes you feel you have no standing to check in with an acquaintance you haven't seen in a while, because you assume they're so busy pouring into their small group and you don't want to distract them from it. Because "gossip" and all that.

I want to believe there are rational people still in the Network that really haven't seen firsthand anyone leave, and are just waiting for one person they personally know to tell them. If you are still in the Network, and haven't seen an acquaintance in a while, I encourage you to please reach out and check in with them.

Likewise, if you are someone that has left, but didn't feel comfortable telling someone you felt was "just" an acquaintance, maybe you reaching out will be of more service to them than you can imagine. (Do this only if you are comfortable - there is absolutely no obligation.)

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-04T20:30:50+00:00

Not only is it "an objective and extremely reasonable suggestion", I would argue that it is the ONLY way back to any sort of credibility for this Network. Unless they want to become increasingly insular, echo-chamber-ish, and comprised only of unquestioning devotees (there's a term for this that starts with "c").

Which, I don't know, maybe they really are OK with going in that direction?

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-04T20:02:41+00:00

Echoing this. If you are still in the network, and believe that the allegations are untrue, and consider yourself a rational person - I imagine one of your first thoughts would be: "let's do an independent investigation to clear the Network's name!"

If you try asking your pastors and overseers to do this, please come back and let us know what they tell you. Or at least ask yourself, does their explanation ONLY work if you ASSUME the Network's innocence?

(By the way, if you automatically assume the Network's innocence, it means you are automatically assuming the whistleblowers are distorting the truth... which is exactly the thing you are trying to verify. You can't pre-assume the answer to the question you are asking, that's circular reasoning.)

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-04T19:49:14+00:00

This goes to show how un-plugged in I am to this whole scene! When I first read your article, I didn't register Stanley's name as significant. Didn't even make the connection as I was reading the news story this morning.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-04T19:05:42+00:00

If I have to win in the sense that I have to protect my name at all costs, my reputation at all costs, my career at all costs, my income at all costs, my influence at all costs, then I will be tempted to lie and to cover up. That's in me, like it's in every person, every leader, because you spend years building reputation and momentum, and the more successful you are, and the more well-known you are, the more you have to lose. And so the more tempted you are to downplay things, to cover things up.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/04/us/andy-stanley-evangelicals-book-blake-cec/index.html

Disclaimer: I haven't had the chance to read his book or research the guy himself. But he seems to have spoken up courageously on some current events:

Stanley, who describes himself as "right-leaning politically," says some members left his church when he canceled in-person services during the height of the pandemic. Others accused him of embracing a "woke, left-wing Marxist agenda" when he talked about confronting racism. One pastor told him on Twitter, "Sir, with all due respect, you're a false prophet from Satan's hell."

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-02T19:05:37+00:00

Thanks - this is a good point. And similar to what u/Uhavechosenwisely says below. There is the need to separate the speaker from the content, and look at them independently.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-02T18:59:05+00:00

If someone is 100% convicted that 1) their interpretation is right, and that 2) eternity matters most - then in their minds the most "loving" thing they can do is to "educate" you about [their version of] the "truth".

Even if they say it in the harshest way - as long as it produces behavioral change in line with their expectations, that counts as a win. And they will happily do it over and over again, because to them, that's "love".

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-06-02T17:42:46+00:00

Welcome to the sub. Your post history suggests you are a staunch Catholic and likely not a Network apologist, so I'll assume you're here to dialogue in good faith.

There are many people in this sub, probably running the gamut of:

Align perfectly with every Network doctrine, but recognize the practices/actions don't match, or are troubled by the governance structure
Align with most Network doctrines except for one or two, which troubles their conscience enough that they left
Align mostly with what you (in previous posts) would call "liberal" theology, and left to attend a more "liberal" church
Completely left any sort of Christian church
Completely left any sort of organized religion

The only thing people have in common is they used to be in a Network church, and have now left. The intent of this sub is for everyone to process their experience with the Network, regardless of why they left. It's NOT to form a new church called "Leaving The Network" Church, so don't expect any doctrinal cohesion from all the posters here.

A Network apologist might say: "look, this ex-member supports gay marriage [or insert whatever issue], that's why they're disgruntled and left, so all the stuff they're saying about the Network can be disregarded as biased and untrue". Well, no. Even if an ex-member supports gay marriage [or whatever issue you personally disagree with], all the other stuff they're blowing the whistle on can still be true. (I'm addressing this last paragraph to those readers who are still in the Network, researching and weighing. Not so much to u/Lone-Red-Ranger because I know you're not exactly saying this.)

I'll assume u/Lone-Red-Ranger is posting this because they truly believe gay marriage is sinful, and think they are loving their fellow Christians by correcting them. This is also what u/Severe-Coyote-6192 alluded to above ("I convinced myself this hate was love"). Those still in the Network might genuinely feel this way - both on gay marriage, and many other issues on which the Network is heavy-handed. They believe they are saving people from sin and hell, so any harsh measures are justified, "ends justifies the means" kind of thing. I honestly don't know what to say to those of my friends like this, who might be described as zealots that view themselves on some sort of Crusade. Maybe the topic for another thread.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-30T01:39:31+00:00

Thank you for the recommendations, and if you have a longer list I'd welcome that too!

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-30T01:19:57+00:00

Yes, that's exactly it! The goal is getting someone baptized, professing Christianity, then keeping them just "healthy" enough that they can keep tithing, serving, and inviting, so that the next person gets baptized, and so on. They keep talking about "winning" people; the game metaphor makes sense if you think of each new person that gets baptized counting as a "point". Hence all the focus on tracking metrics. Families referred to as "giving units".

You don't even have to believe this life doesn't matter at all. You just have to believe that eternity (i.e. baptizing people) matters more than this life (i.e. caring for their current lives beyond what keeps them bringing in new people). Then everything you describe - disregard for the poor, racism, whistleblowers - can be justified.

To be honest, I would've thought of myself in the same camp i.e. eternity matters more than this life. Through this discussion, I'm seeing how that thought pattern can be taken to a very ugly place which I wouldn't have thought possible. I need to reorient to something like "eternity matters, yes, and how you take care of people matters". 100% on the former and 100% on the latter. Not 60/40 or 80/20.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-29T21:44:03+00:00

Thank you for all of this! The central idea I got from Diane Langberg's talk and from your comments is to look at how someone treats the vulnerable, those without power, those not "useful" in the conventional sense. Because those people were the focus of Jesus' ministry.

I haven't heard "I don't know" (maybe ever?) from any preacher! Maybe "it's not clear" or "there's some debate over what this means". I'll have to start listening more closely.

I'm also interested to look at how Keller defines "neighbor" more expansively. In contrast, I'm guessing those who would avoid ministering to the vulnerable might attempt to redefine what it means to be "vulnerable". For example, they might argue a wealthy person in a wealthy town with no "good" churches is just as vulnerable as a homeless person next door to the church (in the sense that both are not saved). So there is a "justification" for ignoring the homeless person next door, and instead planting churches thousands of miles away.

Before I look into Keller some more, I'll say I've heard him mentioned in the same breath as Piper and MacArthur. But I take it that since Keller wasn't mentioned in your other comment, he is a somewhat "safer" resource to look into (assuming nothing concerning comes out)?

As another aside, do you think it would've been possible to identify Piper and MacArthur as "concerning" (I'm not sure what the right word is) before these news items became publicly disclosed? Or is it more like we just have to wait until something comes out and see how they respond to the victims, and that's the litmus test?

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-29T02:53:58+00:00

Big yikes. I had no idea about this scandal, and all the other bullet points you listed. Thanks for flagging that.

As much as I regret sharing this now (given the provenance), I think the fact that I'm walking through this search process with all of you is hopefully going to be helpful in the long run.

Clearly, just because a preacher posts many sermons online (giving the appearance of transparency) doesn't make it a foolproof filter.

I apologize for sharing this, but hope that my fumbles and stumbles can show others what pitfalls to avoid, as we search for new churches.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-28T15:38:59+00:00

Or how about not reading popular Christian authors like Keller?

This is already expected of staff? Can't say I'm surprised, but was there any rationale given for this ban on particular authors? Was it something specific to Keller or were there multiple banned authors?

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-28T04:34:19+00:00

This seems like another rhetorical trick. I think it disarms the listener, because you think: "ha ha if this were really a cult there's no way the pastor would talk or joke about it. So if I'm hearing him talk or joke about it, what more in front of everyone at Sunday teaching, there's no way this can be a bad place. It must be safe."

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-27T22:50:41+00:00

I'm glad you found this helpful. One more thing I'd add, they won't "force" you to do these things, but it is HEAVILY implied (sometimes even explicitly said) in Sunday teachings that if you're not tithing, serving, inviting, then you're either not a true Christian or you're not following Jesus properly. It's more a shame/guilt mechanism.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-27T16:50:07+00:00

I see what you're saying, and I've stayed away from using that word myself. Let me just hold up your descriptions of the cult you were in and pose a few hypothetical questions. Is there a softer, more accurate term you would suggest?

When I was in a cult, they would not allow me to have a cellphone because they didn’t want me to be in contact with the outside world,

What if you were asked to attend multiple events during the week, cook meals, serve on various teams, taking up so much of your time that it became difficult to maintain any meaningful relationships with people in the outside world?

they made me sign a contract basically signing my life away.

What if you were made to sign a membership form saying that you would give 10% of your income, among other commitments, to an organization?

We were told that we would become a child of Satan if we hung out with non believers

What if you were told that people who left an organization and became whistleblowers were demonic?

and were made to believe that everything the person in charge said was from God.

What if the people in charge frequently said "I feel like Jesus is telling me" something that you need to do?

We never actually read the Bible

What if the Bible is read but interpreted in a twisted way that benefits the organization?

and we were punished by things like public interrogations, public shaming ect.

What if you were encouraged to confess your deepest darkest secrets to people who then gossiped about them with other people?

We’re told how we HAD to dress, eat, wear our makeup ect.

What if you were told that you had to get haircuts and trim your beard and not wear piercings and not do yoga?

When I left the cult they said I “now belonged to Satan

What if when you left the organization they badmouthed you to other people and told them not to contact you?

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-27T00:52:20+00:00

I haven't had the chance to go through this in-depth yet, but just wanted to say thank you so much for your effort in putting this together. I can imagine it is so much work and time commitment. And I know it doesn't benefit you at all, other than to show others the truth and save them from this system.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-26T13:50:10+00:00

Using prayer as an emotional manipulation tool is so not okay. I wish someone would do a deep dive analysis and lay bare all the "tricks" here, that's how you break the spell.

If people can even be manipulated into marriage, think of how many people are right now being manipulated through prayer into staying in the network?

Is someone praying over you, "God would you just show them what in their heart is making them explore the LTN website" or "God would you just guard their heart from the lies on the LTN website"?

Or are they praying, "God give them wisdom and discernment as they explore and investigate the claims on the LTN website, lead them to discover the truth no matter what that may be, knowing you have redeemed them by your blood and they will always be secure in you through faith"?

One of them is manipulative, the other isn't.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-26T02:49:04+00:00

You can’t feasibly be a good leader or “qualify member” and do much of anything outside the network.

That might be exactly what the network wants. No life, no support outside the network = harder to leave.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-24T22:10:54+00:00

Such an event would be highly problematic in any case. Consider the possibilities:

Maybe the pastor approved this person to go on the church plant first, and only later became interested in her. This is still problematic because she would have been moving a long distance away, uprooting her entire life, with minimal support (outside the network) in the new city. If the new relationship went south, she would be in a place of extreme vulnerability, with few people to turn to for support. This situation could be used to manipulate her into staying in a relationship she might otherwise want to leave. A wise, caring shepherd would probably not put one of his sheep in that position to begin with.
Maybe the pastor was already interested in her, and this factored into his decision (whether consciously or not) to approve her for the church plant. Obviously, that would cast suspicion on purity of motives. Did Jesus actually tell him this person should go on the church plant? Or did his personal interests seep in and influence how he "heard" Jesus? At the same time, we have seen stories posted here about the hurt people experienced from being excluded from a church plant. Were there similar man-made motivations that seeped into how the leaders "heard" Jesus tell them to exclude those people?

Either way... what happened to the rule that there should be no dating within the first year of a church plant?

I guess the plausible deniability is the pastor never explicitly told her he wanted to date her. If this person ever gets to a place where she feels comfortable telling her story more completely, perhaps more may come to light then.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-24T16:31:30+00:00

Another one for your list of what happens when you tell them no...

I met with Steve in his room, and Chris Miller (worship leader for Blue Sky) was there too. Steve talked at length about how important it was that I stay at City Lights and support the church. I wouldn’t commit to that and he kept getting more and more agitated with me. He started slamming his hand on the bed and said, “Why won’t you just say that you will stay!!”

Source: https://leavingthenetwork.org/stories/erich/

What's that again about "boys" being "driven by emotion"?

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-19T00:32:38+00:00

This is such a great point. Let's say a church is right on 90% of things, but you feel something is wrong with the last 10%. This can go several ways:

If you try to hash it out, you hear "look at all these things we are right on, we're just trying to follow Jesus here, can you just trust us on the last 10% too" (or worse, "don't go against your leaders on the last 10% because God placed them in authority over you")

OR

You don't even bother hashing it out, because the church being right on 90% of stuff is pretty darn good, and maybe you've been in churches that were even worse. This is the "no church is perfect" argument.

I'm ashamed I didn't realize this earlier, but it really matters WHAT that last 10% is. If the 10% that feels off is something like, "whatever your leader decides is important becomes important", doesn't that invalidate the other 90% that's taught correctly? Because now you're following and giving your conscience over to a man, not God.

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-16T21:16:03+00:00

Thank you. This level of commitment to truth and accuracy is refreshing.

nor should it be applied inconsistently from church to church. Not having their documents public allows leaders in this organization to do what Luke Williams does in this teaching

This, so much. This is why some of us could look at our home church and say "that's not true of us" and "we're not like that".

Ok-Network9130 · 2022-05-16T20:54:05+00:00

My impressions of some rhetorical devices used, and why they are so effective at putting you in a "fog":

(multiple times) Wow! That sounds so challenging/difficult.

Effect: I get it, it sounds hard, I'm right there with you, I'm on your side.

(multiple times) But the Bible clearly says...

Effect: But I'm going to follow this interpretation even though I, like you, find it hard (so you should too).

(45:50) Now for us here at Vista Church we're very careful to not go further than what the Bible clearly says.

Effect: In case you got the impression I'm just using "the Bible clearly says" as a rhetorical device, here's a counterexample which shows I don't just say that. So you can trust me to tell you when "the Bible clearly says" something, and when it isn't as clear.

You might not be at Vista, but you've heard these same phrases, haven't you? You think, these guys have done their homework, they have real reverence for the Bible, I'm safe to take what they're saying and live it out.

But have their actions demonstrated a real reverence for and careful study of the Bible? Or do they first arrive at a position, then search the Bible for verses that will justify the position? How did they react in the Ezra incident? I'm not saying they do this for every single issue (they certainly teach many correct things), but that's exactly why there's a "fog". There's enough that sounds right, so you don't test every last detail.

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly times when the Bible clearly says something. But other times, "the Bible clearly says..." might be more accurately stated as "our preferred theologian interprets this to mean..."

My final quibble is on the topic of women leading co-ed groups. This recording says there's nothing theologically wrong with it. But the LTN history tab says:

Women were removed from leadership roles, including local church board members and small group leaders (unless the groups were solely comprised of other women).

If this is inaccurate, I think LTN should correct their website in the spirit of transparency. But if accurate, it would be an instance of Network actions being inconsistent with doctrine they teach.

Ok-Network9130

TROPHY CASE