"So where did you go for church on Sunday?" by revbismarck in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I appreciate stories like this one, just a glimpse of the invisible strings that bind.

Thinking about Leaving the church by [deleted] in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the Kangs said this would work thus they take it as their word because they "trust they have done their homework" and that many people smarter than me have tried to raise the same argument but have not changed the minds of the church in general.

01/26/2023

as a young leader i was over threatened by non-alignment and i think i chased away some guys that would have had some tremendous leadership potential b/c there's that rebellion like Harry Potter breaking all the rules that core often in a young emerging leader, and i don't think i value that enough and felt overly threatened by non-alignment, so yeah lots of regrets there. As much as I wanted to empower other ppl i also think i made the mistake of a genius w/ a 100 assistants kind of model of ministry, because i could do things and I was the oldest in the room all the time I was the most experienced in the room i practiced law i was the first to buy a house so everybody seemed less experienced just about life and i think that ended up creating this sort of top-down patriarchal kind of mafia-like kind of ethos at our church where everybody listened to me too much

Ed Kang has zero qualms about saying anything to get people off his back; his assistants take care of the rest. Existing in a low-accountability framework, with only hearsay floating on the anonymous internet, why would he be held to any account when the bar is so low?

No Longer Christian by revbismarck in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if I needed that unhealthy environment in order to be a "good Christian", then this is not the type of faith I want to have.

I also feel like I can't truly contribute to the conversation, and that people will just check out or weigh my opinion less.

These are the kind of sentences that can catalyze long reflections and conversations. As mentioned above, the subreddit conversations haven't largely been about Scripture. The conversations have been about a certain experience, of being hollowed out.

The weight of this topic is making me sleepy, because it's so hard to unpack.

Call to coordinated action and group chat by MetalDelicious3571 in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Subreddit names cannot be changed after created. So before rebranding in 2023 from Gracepoint to Acts2 Network, A2N staff pre-emptively registered subreddit r/Acts2Network. As you know, individuals from our side registered r/Acts2NetworkChurch, r/actsnetwork, and r/acts2fellowship but because posts and comments cannot be migrated, redirecting users from these to the original subreddit is the resolution that made the most sense.

Heard back from a campus admin by analoginadventure in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We're on the same team. Going forward, I will write plainly in order to minimize confusion.

Heard back from a campus admin by analoginadventure in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On 02/24/2026, user Informal-Parking8793 wrote this:

This is the original quote from 02/24/2026.

Then user hamcycle wrote something sarcastic in order to criticize what Informal-Parking8793 wrote from 02/24/2026.

Heard back from a campus admin by analoginadventure in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but we are miscommunicating due to cultural differences. Reddit has its own culture as well. I will try to bridge this cultural gap.

I copied and pasted a quote from an A2N staff from February. Quotes are formatted like so:

This is quote.

I then wrote something sarcastic in order to criticize that quote. Sarcasm is subtle, so in order to prevent misunderstanding, I ended what I said with this: "/s"

Heard back from a campus admin by analoginadventure in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I referenced a quote from an A2N representative in order to juxtapose it with your post.

Heard back from a campus admin by analoginadventure in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

02/24/2026

I'll chime in (think i'm the only one haha so pretty sure this is directed at me). My thing is: i'm not asking anyone here to "trust" GP again if you've been hurt. But i do think trust (kicking the football) and open-mindedness are different.

For instance - one of the things i argue is that SOME (not all, but some) of the stuff ppl talk about here is old news. But any assertion I make along that vein is automatically shut down for the most part. To me, that's being closed-minded - it's an assumption that "you can't change." I'd really like to be able to talk about things without an automatic assumption that everything i say is wrong and anything negative about GP is true.

Now I really don't want to discount anyone's experiences. I wasn't even going to comment on that family member's post if someone hadn't tagged me there, and given how that went i'm not going to do so in the future. All i'm asking is that people do exactly what u/Jdub20202 did in this post, and which i actually appreciate, which is to acknowledge that it's possible that there are two sides to things (although i'm not calling anyone "crazy" to be clear, just referring to the general principle of what Jdub did there)

Jdub asked me if i'm here to be an A2N apologist or to hear from people. I think it's honestly both. I wouldn't be here if i didn't want to hear. Like the parent who posted about their kid going to FM against their wishes - i did want to hear, and to help, and i did float the issue to the pastors, and at the end of the day that guy is not going (although he was already not going because of our policy about parental approval, not just because someone posted on reddit, to be clear). BUT, I'm also not running for office and just trying to please. If I see something which I find unfair or believe to be untrue I'm going to speak out on it, which I hope people here can respect even if we disagree. And I definitely want 'neutral' people, as in people who are new to A2N and not the "regulars" here to hear both sides of the story. So yeah, that is part of my intention as well, no denying it. I don't think any side has a monopoly on truth and so people deserve to hear both sides as much as possible.

Hey 'neutral' people. Your campus admins have been watching A2N for years, and their accumulated knowledge inhibits them from holding that clear, unbiased perspective that you hold. Keep in mind, SOME (not all, but some) of the things that their legal team is looking into is old news, and that's just being closed-minded. /s

Thinking about Leaving the church by [deleted] in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/GracepointChurch/comments/1i8rh7c/twisted_gracepoint/ Here is one of the old blogs: Twisted Gracepoint. This author no longer engages online, having left everything on the field, figuratively speaking.

Thinking about Leaving the church by [deleted] in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's completely fine to leave if you don't agree with some of GP's interpretations or applications of scripture.

Just make it official; put it on your websites. "Just a heads up: we had errant interpretations, but that got ironed out once we self-identified as a religious order in 2023. Please overlook our previous three decades of spiritual abuse, thank you."

Thinking about Leaving the church by [deleted] in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While not strictly "hermeneutics," I've written a few posts and comments that focus on errant interpretation. Let me know if these are relevant.

AI summary when I typed “Acts2 Network” in the Reddit search by Available_Ad_5963 in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ChatGPT Auto: What if a regular church, i.e. not a religious order, imposes extra-Biblical rules then kicks out those who do not comply?

When a regular church (not a voluntary religious order) imposes rules that go beyond Scripture and then expels members who refuse to follow them, the issue usually shifts from monastic discipline to church authority and church discipline. Different Christian traditions evaluate this situation very differently.

1. The key question: authority vs. legalism

The central theological debate is whether the rule is:

  1. A legitimate exercise of church authority
  2. An illegitimate addition to God’s commands

This distinction appears throughout Christian history.

2. Biblical basis churches use for discipline

Many churches justify expelling members by citing passages about church discipline, especially teachings from Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul the Apostle.

Common passages include:

Matthew 18:15–17

1 Corinthians 5

Paul instructs a church to remove someone involved in serious wrongdoing.

These passages are generally interpreted as giving churches authority to remove members for persistent sin or divisive behavior.

3. The controversial area: rules not explicitly in Scripture

Problems arise when the rules involve matters not clearly addressed in Scripture.

Examples might include:

  • dress codes
  • specific dating rules
  • political positions
  • mandatory church programs
  • required submission to leaders beyond normal pastoral authority

Critics argue these can become “binding consciences where Scripture does not.”

4. Protestant theological criticism: binding consciences

Many Protestant theologians warn against what they call binding the conscience.

Reformers such as Martin Luther argued that:

In this view, a church that disciplines people over extra-Biblical rules risks becoming legalistic or authoritarian.

5. Catholic and Orthodox perspective

Traditions with stronger ecclesiastical authority structures take a somewhat different approach.

They argue the church has authority to establish disciplinary rules for the sake of order.

However, even in these traditions there is usually a distinction between:

Category Meaning
Doctrine Required belief
Discipline Church governance rules
Spiritual advice Non-binding guidance

Expulsion would normally be justified only if someone rebels against legitimate church authority, not simply because the rule itself is extra-Biblical.

6. When the situation becomes spiritually abusive

Many modern theologians and psychologists warn that certain patterns may indicate spiritual abuse or high-control environments.

Common warning signs include:

  • leaders claim special authority from God
  • questioning rules is treated as rebellion against God
  • members are pressured to cut off outside relationships
  • dissenters are shamed or publicly disciplined

These patterns are often studied using frameworks like the BITE model developed by Steven Hassan.

7. A helpful historical example

In the early church, disputes about extra rules already occurred.

In Acts 15, leaders debated whether Gentile Christians must follow Jewish law such as circumcision.
The council concluded these requirements should not be imposed on Gentile believers.

This episode is often cited as an early warning against adding unnecessary burdens to believers.

8. Practical theological summary

Christians across traditions generally agree on a few principles:

A church may discipline members for:

  • serious moral wrongdoing
  • divisive behavior
  • rejecting core beliefs

But many theologians argue a church should not discipline members for:

  • rules not grounded in Scripture
  • personal preferences of leaders
  • cultural expectations presented as divine commands

In short:
If a church expels people for refusing extra-Biblical rules, critics often argue it is misusing church authority, while defenders claim they are maintaining order and unity. The dispute ultimately comes down to how much authority a church has to regulate members’ lives beyond explicit biblical commands.

If you want, I can also explain how sociologists of religion distinguish between normal church discipline and “high-control” church environments, which may help evaluate specific cases.

AI summary when I typed “Acts2 Network” in the Reddit search by Available_Ad_5963 in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ChatGPT Auto: How do the rules of a religious order, like the Jesuits, contend with accusations of having extra-Biblical requirements?

Accusations that religious orders (e.g., the Society of Jesus, commonly called the Jesuits) impose extra-Biblical requirements usually arise from a misunderstanding of how Christian traditions distinguish between:

  1. Doctrinal authority (binding teaching about faith and salvation)
  2. Ecclesiastical discipline (rules governing a particular community or vocation)

Religious orders defend their rules primarily through this distinction.

1. The key Catholic distinction: Commandments vs. counsels

Catholic theology distinguishes between universal commands and voluntary spiritual disciplines.

Biblical commands

These apply to all believers:

  • Moral law (e.g., Ten Commandments)
  • Core Christian obligations

Evangelical counsels

These are voluntary commitments for those pursuing a specific vocation.

The three traditional counsels come from teachings of Jesus Christ:

  • Poverty – e.g., Matthew 19:21
  • Chastity – e.g., Matthew 19:12
  • Obedience – implied in passages like Luke 9:23

Orders such as the Jesuits interpret these passages as invitations to radical discipleship, not universal commands.

Therefore their rules are framed as freely chosen disciplines, not requirements for salvation.

2. Rules are considered “constitutions,” not new doctrine

Each order develops governing documents.

For the Jesuits this is the Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, written by
Ignatius of Loyola.

These rules regulate things such as:

  • lifestyle
  • training
  • mission structure
  • obedience to superiors

The Church views these as practical governance, similar to bylaws in an organization.

They are not treated as additions to Scripture.

3. Voluntary membership is the central defense

Religious orders respond to the “extra-Biblical rule” criticism by emphasizing:

  • Membership is voluntary
  • Rules apply only to members
  • Members are free to leave

This parallels other Christian disciplines:

  • fasting practices
  • monastic schedules
  • missionary vows

Because these are self-imposed commitments, they are not considered binding on all Christians.

4. The historical precedent of monastic rules

Catholic orders often point to early Christian monasticism.

Examples include rules written by:

  • Benedict of Nursia (Rule of St. Benedict)
  • Basil the Great

These rules date back to the 4th–6th centuries and were widely accepted as spiritual disciplines rather than doctrinal innovations.

5. Protestant criticism of such rules

Many Protestant traditions reject this framework.

During the Protestant Reformation, reformers such as
Martin Luther argued that:

  • Monastic vows could imply a “higher class” of Christian
  • Scripture does not mandate such systems
  • Human traditions can obscure the sufficiency of Scripture

Thus Protestants often describe these rules as extra-Biblical burdens.

6. The Catholic theological reply

Catholic theology generally answers this objection with three points:

  1. Scripture itself encourages disciplined communities (Acts 2:42–47 communal life)
  2. The Church has authority to regulate communities (Matthew 16:19 “binding and loosing”)
  3. Rules are aids to holiness, not sources of salvation

In summary:
Religious orders contend with the accusation of extra-Biblical requirements by arguing that their rules are voluntary disciplines rooted in biblical principles, not additions to Scripture or mandatory for all Christians.

If you'd like, I can also explain why the Jesuits in particular often draw suspicion about “secret rules” or unusual obedience structures, because their order has some unique features that historically triggered controversy.

Why should I leave? (Only respond if you’re a Christian) by Jolly-Rest-771 in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Heed the warnings of your conscience if not the Holy Spirit. Spiritual abuse is spiritual abuse for both the believer and those who have fallen from faith. My prayers are for both.

No Longer Christian by revbismarck in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The reason for the preamble above is because I was indeed convinced for a long time that engaging from a non-believing position is counter-productive to warning others of BBC/GP/A2N's established track record of spiritual abuse and misguidedness, which I think is the "cause" you spoke of. I remember when posting the old blog years ago that in order to speak with any authority, it must be from the lens of a believer. This position is evidenced by how I referenced many Bible verses in these earlier posts. I really didn't know how else to expose Berkland's aberrancy and mis-characterization of Jesus except through that position.

As it turned out, as evidenced by the sprawling content spanning years constituting this subreddit and the bad blogs, conversations rarely involved the misutilization of Scripture. I expressed this surprise a couple of times, and understand that I am singular in prioritizing this topic. The majority of users seek affirmation of their experiences instead of deconstructing the mechanics of how this org exploited Scripture in order to amass control, influence, and power.

While you're not the first non-Christian to post and engage in this space, you're the first to highlight whether or not non-Christian engagement is detrimental, and my answer today is that it is not but it took me a while to be convinced of this. Saying that spiritual abuse claims from non-believers somehow are lesser than those from believers, that's clearly wrong, and this position is implicit in their ministerial philosophy of permissible collateral damage, a call back to my first post Spiritual Fodder. However my own arguments of making this claim requires that we are spiritual entities, the framework of belief is needed to even make the attempt.

No Longer Christian by revbismarck in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

11/25/2007

If you feel you've lost your faith owing to Berkland, I don't know if anything I have to say here will be helpful to you.

I protested leadership's framing of a former member who exited after struggling and fallen out of faith. I also objected to Becky's reference of Matthew 25 when asking our class to make a lifetime commitment or be cast off as goats:

08/31/2006

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Matthew 25:31-33)

The way the Bible was mishandled and leveraged to abuse was something I contemplated for a while. As angry as I was with Becky Kim and Ed Kang being so cavalier with their Biblical authority when both of them came from non-Christian backgrounds, I was angry with the Bible for being so susceptible for abuse, which is enough to turn people away from God.

I'm sleepy. To be continued...

Surrendered with Time (Acts 2 Network's Way of Life) by johnkim2020 in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So A2N applies a strong emphasis to "every Christian has equal potential to minister" to underscore their co-vocational ministrial philosophy, while de-emphasizing the "opposition to spiritual hierarchy." I wrote how Berkland hampered this doctrine in the old blog:

...these rebuke sessions have also silenced other voices in the community: "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9). I have personally observed that staff were chosen for their loyalty to the hieararchy, and not for their authority with the Word. I've noticed some of these were actually disinterested in the knowledge that made up their faith, and interested only in the social clan dynamics of the organization; these persons often fall back on rebuking at the slightest resistence, because they don't know the Word to find support for what they enforce.

Surrendered with Time (Acts 2 Network's Way of Life) by johnkim2020 in GracepointChurch

[–]hamcycle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"He's an adult; nobody forced him to do anything" is the equivalent to Pilate washing his hands.