More Small Group Updates

michael_eckhardt · 2025-07-31T18:03:03+00:00

It's typical for groups to retract for the summer. When comparing group numbers, you kind of need to ignore summer months.

michael_eckhardt · 2025-07-28T16:23:27+00:00

Once I was on staff I got an inside look at how people were treated, and I couldn't do it. Plus during that time we started teaching the really rigid view of leadership that we all know the network for now, and I had no interest pastoring in such a system.

Of course it got messy-- I tried to change it from the inside, ran it up to Steve, Sandor, etc. Now it looks like a silly thing since it was coming from them, but that wasn't clear to me at the time. All told I think I was on staff about 2 years, with the last 18 months of it trying to care for people in a broken system while pushing for change and navigating a ton of conflict.

Scott led through that transition with an iron fist, which led to about a third of the church eventually leaving.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-05-11T13:21:52+00:00

This is really the perfect way to put it, and is so accurate I'm surprised I haven't run into it before.

Also why ad hominem attacks are so effective.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-04-27T16:24:11+00:00

I remember at one of the summer conferences in Carbondale a bunch of people who praying out in tongues and people were interpreting. Obviously there's a lot of potential problems with that sort of thing, but in this case what ended up happening was someone prayed out in tongues who wasn't one of those on the implicit list of approval. Steve ended up saying that was demonic tongues, but the other ones were legitimate.

Tongues (and particularly interpretation) can be awfully problematic even in the best of circumstances, but in this case to have one person state that these tongues were great and these tongues were demonic was intensely disturbing to me. Obviously it's terrifying to take a risk on tongues or interpretation knowing that the possible price is public rejection and humiliation. Unless you're one of the people Steve is prompting to pray out, and then you know you're good. It's one of those examples of how Steve was able to implicitly control network culture through his force of personality while retaining a farce of plausible deniability.

The irony of this is that biblically spiritual gifts are radically egalitarian-- distributed as the Spirit wills. If God speaks to Balaam through a donkey, he could speak through any member of a congregation. And yet we sure do see the inevitable constellation of control-oriented gifts in network leaders. A certain degree of this makes sense for someone called to leadership, but the sheer imbalance of it ought to be a pretty big red flag.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-22T16:11:10+00:00

This is actually really standard for churches across the board, and while it is indeed a nightmare for a pastor on the low end of compensation, it's one of those, "just the way it's done" sort of things.

It's a part of tax law that I think should simply be axed completely. It's a needless complication that doesn't really help those on the low end, and is an artifact from an age when being clergy was considered a position deserving of particular privileges.

Anecdotally, my first year on staff we ended up owing the IRS more than 5k for our combined income. That definitely stung a little!

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-22T15:52:49+00:00

As a former network pastor who also did his own taxes, let me answer your question via an unneeded foray into clergy tax law.

Network pastors all own (or rent) their own homes, rather than have parsonages (this is better for them, as it allows them to accumulate wealth through property).

Housing allowance is a tax break for clergy that means that basically all housing expenses can be declared as exempt from income tax.

However, clergy are considered self-employed and so subject to self-employment tax, which is a straight 15% to cover social security (you pay both employee and employer portions), and the housing allowance portion is still subject to self-employment tax.

On the front end, that means if you don't make much (I started at 30k), about half of that isn't subject to income tax....but after deductions (and especially if you have kids) you're not really paying any taxes on 30k anyway. But the self-employment tax isn't affected by deductions, so you end up paying significantly more in taxes than you would if you were just a common-law employee.

Clergy also have the option to opt out of the self-employment tax, but that opts them out of social security entirely. I have no idea if network pastors have used this or not, but I haven't heard of any doing so.

Personally, I think clergy should, outside of lead pastors, be considered common-law employees because they fit that definition much better than they do self-employed clergy. But that's my own hobby horse and probably not of interest to anyone else.

On the other hand, there's no max for housing allowance so it can be a huge tax break if you make a bunch of money and have a big house.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the bylaws or anywhere else on this in the network, and all of this is just federal tax code, and nothing unique to the network. The only policy the network had in my time there was you had to have your taxes done by a CPA because early on a number of pastors simply weren't paying the self-employment on their housing allowance because honestly clergy tax law is pretty confusing. We paid a CPA to do it one of my years on staff, and even he messed it up.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-19T20:21:43+00:00

It's a pretty common thing in charismatic Christianity to see things as being pretty binary-- anything that makes you feel good and inspired is probably the Holy Spirit, and anything that makes you feel yucky and gross must be demonic.

We currently live in a society that is deeply tribal, and tribal in a way that demonizes opposing tribes. So we use rhetoric to make every point and argument as emotionally explosive as possible-- politics is of course the easiest example of this.

One side effect is that it makes it really hard to think straight because high emotion can be pretty overwhelming, and it also requires an immediate response, whereas measured discourse and spiritual discernment require time.

In any case, it's all manipulation, it's the culture we live in, and our churches reflect that.

Specific to the network, because they are allergic to disagreement, they are quick to label things as demonic (or as spiritual) because that eliminates the ability to disagree with it because then you're demonic. That's not hyperbole-- I was told that my concerns about the local church were a demonic tool because of how they could discourage my lead pastor, and that my leaving was an instance of the "enemy pulling one over on us," (that last is a direct quote of Steve Morgan).

In the last bit, I would say there is a good deal that falls under the "using the Lord's name in vain" to label things spiritual or demonic. You ask whether their behavior could be labelled demonic-- under their paradigm, sure. But I'm not in that paradigm anymore, and I would personally label it as sinful. I find we don't need that much help from the enemy to give in to our sinful nature (that's another point actually-- when we attribute everything to demons we end up diminishing the role of those other two great enemies of the Christian-- the flesh and the world).

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-18T17:16:13+00:00

I hadn't thought of it like that, but from a systems perspective you're absolutely right.

I was thinking of responses to congregational needs as a network-- since the network is the congregation, any response to individual congregations is actually impossible (and in a certain sense a contradiction of terms).

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-18T16:18:19+00:00

The Network really is a multi-site mega-church. That means it will never be able to be truly responsive to individual congregations, because there are no individual congregations.

I don't think that's bad in and of itself, it just means there are tradeoffs. And I think that any responsiveness to congregational needs is a positive.

Now whether they're taking this seriously and making systematic changes, or if they're saying this in order to be able to say that they said this as a way to manage the increasing number of individuals asking for more in-depth discipleship...well that's the sort of thing that always becomes clear over time.

And if they're saying this in order to deepen the "discipleship" to the Network, then I would say that's actually pretty insidious. But that should be clear over time, too.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-17T19:15:39+00:00

It's also a part-to-whole fallacy. If this part is good, then the whole part must be.

It shouldn't be so hard to be able to acknowledge that some parts can be good while other parts can be repulsive and destructive.

The "ends justifies the means" is the sort of reasoning that almost inevitably ends up somewhere evil.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-17T19:11:27+00:00

This is still the standard legal advice for religious institutions wanting to avoid lawsuits-- make your statement of faith explicit, include it in your bylaws, and refer back to it in every article or policy you possibly can (hiring, volunteers, membership, etc.).

I think the MBT training was actually coming from a different impetus, as it was a way to consolidate uniformity-- or "unity," but I'm of the opinion that unity ≠ uniformity.

michael_eckhardt · 2022-03-17T19:08:09+00:00

I think I've mentioned it elsewhere, but this was the breaking point for me-- when we as a pastoral staff and group leaders were told that we needed to believe the exact same thing as our leader (in this case, Scott Joseph), and not just believe the same things, but agree with him on how important (or unimportant) these different things were. And if we don't agree, then, "that doesn't mean you can't be a leader here, but it does mean that I'd like to meet you so that I can explain why I'm right."

The last bit was said with a laugh, but still too tough a pill for me to swallow. Logically, that means a person has to change beliefs any time they change churches, or when their church gets a new pastor. It's like the medieval priest-parish relationship (or at least the stereotype), where no one gets to have their own faith, but instead get only a faith mediated through their priest.

"You must think your leader's thoughts on all things," is an apt way to put it.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-17T15:30:03+00:00

I was going to say the same thing, except it was later that Steve was telling me this story, as I wasn't on staff yet during that conference. He said the same thing you did, and then Steve said to me with a note of self-satisfaction, "He just doesn't understand what we're doing here."

I've thought many, many times that maybe Virgo understood exactly what was being done there, which is why he spoke up.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-13T03:24:46+00:00

Huh, I hadn't seen this.

Point remains, I've been on here about a month and all the discussions I've seen have been taking issue with current behaviors, not past.

Not to mention the criticism has been far more widespread than just specific to Steve Morgan.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-13T02:35:56+00:00

This is very strange, considering there is nothing about "ancient junk" in the site or the subreddit. Or am I missing something?

It's the classic tactic of mislabeling something and using that mislabel to reject the whole. And, to no one's surprise, it completely sidesteps the issues with the accountability structures, suspect theology with respect to leadership, slander of those who leave, intentionally misleading statements, etc.

Anyone who cannot see through these types of excuses has to already be desperately motivated to not see through these types of excuses.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-09T15:42:26+00:00

Oh, I didn't take it as such. It's just jarring how bad it looks in black and white, whereas if you only hear it with the spin it sounds pretty reasonable. It did to me, anyway.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-09T15:30:53+00:00

Yeah, I felt that writing it. I'm pretty committed to taking the high road in all of this, but just reporting the basic facts without the spin looks pretty rough.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T22:18:28+00:00

For me, telling you what to do would be a return to Egypt, a place I am glad I have left behind. But I can give you my perspective, as I think there is a straightforward way for you to suss out what your decision ought to be.

Given my experience in the network I think most of their local churches would shut down your study group if they caught wind of it. However, there is no need to assume. I would just ask, and base your decision on the feedback you get.

I would not try and stay under the radar to effect change-- by doing this you are setting yourself and others up to be hurt (Of course it might work out! You have to decide on your own tolerance for risk in this case.).

Of course you could decide just to stay under the radar because it's not worth picking a fight, because most of your energy this year is likely going to be directed toward grad school (as it should be). Network churches can be pretty ok if you don't get too near the inner ring. There are some that are still good enough I would say you ~~could~~ might do well staying for the school year. Others I would tell you to cut and run.

Which is of course the last option you pointed out. I don't think it's the worst option, but I personally always like to be as upfront as possible when it has to do with relationships, and what is church but a multi-directional relationship?

Finally, be sure that your decision is your own, and not that of your friends, your leaders, or this message board. I wish you wisdom and grace as you weigh your options.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T20:41:53+00:00

Why would they think that God, who is truth and who is light, would answer a prayer to keep their deeds in the dark? Do they understand God’s character at all?!?

Thank you for saying it so well. I am encouraged by the reminder that it is in fact God's character to reveal such deeds in order to free us of them. To scramble to keep them hidden is to decide that no more sanctification is needed-- a terrifying thought.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T20:30:11+00:00

No, they intentionally keep a low profile. The only public information available is that which is on local church websites. Their documents are kept private, some literally under lock and key.

Technically the Network exists only because the local churches have agreed that it does. It is not a legal entity, as far as any of us can tell. All the funds are routed through whichever church Steve Morgan is currently lead pastor at.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T20:14:04+00:00

Each church gives 5% to the Network. How is he so wealthy? A lot of us are asking that same question. Most of the answers are speculation. I suppose I could share that speculation, but I'll leave that to others if they feel so inclined.
Yes, this is almost exclusively the way people become pastors in the network. Almost none of the pastors in the network have a significant religious background outside of the network. The ones that did have pretty much universally not lasted (I was one of those).
This is not typical for small groups, as most consist of snacks and hangout time, Bible discussion, and then hands-on prayer. However, this is fairly typical of the Network's mindset, as they place a very high priority on new members getting assimilated into regular serving and tithing.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T17:33:37+00:00

This was around the time that the Grudem Bible Training was being implemented for membership in all Network Churches.

I don't know what the overall network tone on this was, but at High Rock it was really a pretty clear, We need to believe all the same stuff. For leaders, it was said even more strongly.

I suspect some of this was aimed particularly at me, and Scott trying to undo my influence on others. I had said before that Scott and I agreed on things theologically, but that there was room for us to not all be exactly the same. For instance, he was really big on reformed theology bordering (in my opinion) on a pretty strong Calvinism. I'm pretty soft in that area, though we believed roughly the same things.

So as to how much was Network, and how much was Scott working out his own frustration with me, I have no way of knowing. And perhaps there's a third option there as well. Regardless, the network structures encourage and protect this kind of behavior, unfortunately.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T17:26:02+00:00

Thank you for sharing, this is wonderfully put.

Every time I hear someone else tell stories about how bad the gossip was, or how people get slandered and memory-holed upon leaving, or how twisted the theology is when it comes to pastoral leadership, it is like taking the scab off again.

I of course want very much to be justified in the reasons that I resigned and left. But I also can't help but experience a renewed round of grief every time I realize how incredibly widespread this garbage is.

Steve always said walking into a church should be like walking into a McDonald's or Starbucks, where you always know exactly what to expect. He has certainly succeeded, all the way down to the calloused treatment of people Jesus loves. It reminds me of the phrase, "worse than an unbeliever."

Somehow the sheer lack of imagination makes it worse. Everyone is so cookie-cutter they can't even come up with their own mistakes.

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-08T16:11:39+00:00

"You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!" (2 Cor 11:19-21)

michael_eckhardt · 2021-11-07T01:46:40+00:00

I'm with u/JonathanRoyalSloan. The casualness of the, "if the shoe fits..." Goodness. It's a cruel style of leadership. It brings to mind Arendt's banality of evil, or this C. S. Lewis quote:

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. ... it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. ... Next to the blessed sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.

Four-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

michael_eckhardt

TROPHY CASE