Controversy FAQ Interview Question 11

How does ACCD compare to other LGATs?

There are some fundamental differences that are critical in terms of where we are coming from and where these secular transformation training programs are coming from. Number one, we believe that what we're up to--which is transformation for people and fundamental shifts in growth in character and in their ability to impact others with an experience of God's love-is impossible outside of God's presence and provision. Therefore, outside of God's grace we have no chance of accomplishing anything in our training. Absolutely, those other organizations do not believe that. They believe that the human being has the capability of carrying it. That's about as wide a chasm as one can have in terms of context and come from. To say that we have some sort of a thin Christian veneer is to simply not understand what we are about.

We're much more distinct around promise because we believe that we're children of promise and that Jesus was the promise. We're the people of promise as well. The scripture is very strong on promise and the spiritual power of promise, agreement, and conversations for action, and we have a different approach towards that as well. We believe in the power of prayer, and those organizations do not. We have a much clearer and distinct stance on repentance and on using language as a tool for catharsis or cleansing. They are less distinct about that. Again, our similarities would be more structural in certain areas, while contextually we are very different because of our dependency on God.

Despite some structural similarities, our methodology is very different. For example, EST (which is now The Forum) is very trainer/student oriented. They have very little interaction between the participants themselves and they are completely existential--there is no reliance on God in their worldview. That obviously creates a completely different context than our worldview. In a structural sense, ACCD is a bit more like Lifespring in that both encourage people to interact with one another. Out of those interactions we make distinctions and have learning conversations. But again, our worldview is very different.

To say that we are basically Lifespring with a Christian veneer, which has been said, really misses the whole point. The point is that just because we have an educational format that has some similarities to another company or organization's educational format doesn't mean that the context from which we come is identical. It would be the same as saying, "Hitler used lecture to large groups to generate enthusiasm and loyalty, therefore anybody who speaks using lectures to large groups for the same purpose must be evil like Hitler was evil." Obviously that's a ridiculous assertion. The fact that our structural format has similarities to other training organizations does not equate to us having the same worldview of any structurally-similar organization. It would be like saying that Stephen Covey's trainings are Lifespring because they use the Red/Black Game (which is an experiential education exercise). That does not mean that they are in any way the same as Lifespring.

In our view, the people who make these accusations are often spinning propaganda. They are protecting their ownership of belief, and that ends up meaning they have to demonize others and make them wrong. The bottom line of this issue is an ownership issue, and a lot of the organizations like CRI, Dr Jeudes, and others make their living sharing their opinions, which they treat as facts which they own. It becomes necessary for them to polarize discussion, and to do so, they question in a way that sets them up as the expert so that other people have to explain themselves to them. If someone says to us, "ACCD is Lifespring with a thin veneer of Christianity", the assumption inherent in the question/accusation is that we are supposed to prove that it isn't. So we're having an argument based on their straw-man assumption that they have the truth to which we must be accountable because they are the repository of all that is pure and true. Nevertheless, we've reached out to our detractors in order to reconcile differences.

Back to Controversy FAQ