Controversy FAQ Interview- Full Version

Over time, negative comments and accusations regarding ACCD and its programs have appeared on the Internet. As an organization, we believe in transparency. In that spirit, we have put together a FAQ section regarding the specific accusations that have been leveled against ACCD.

We realize there are always many points of view within Christendom, and vigorous disagreement has been an integral part of religious discourse throughout the history of Christianity. We realize that, at times, reasonable people can agree to disagree, as evidenced by the thousands of denominations currently in existence in Christianity. We appreciate the right to free speech and value the understanding that comes through conversation and dialogue. As a ministry, we seek to reconcile with any and all who have offenses with us, in the spirit of Matthew 18.

We also vigorously disagree with most, if not all, of the accusations leveled against us as an organization, believing they are peppered with mis-information and misconstrued half-truths. We are clear as to what we believe God is calling us to as an organization, and we are unwilling to compromise the principles to which we are committed, which are distinctly Christian. We are committed followers of Jesus, and we are open to reconciliation with anyone who takes issue with us.

We stand by our record. We have had over 15,000 participants attend our training events, and the feedback we consistently receive, using the industry gold-standards of survey feedback and metric analysis, is overwhelmingly positive, with a high percentage of participants stating that attending an ACCD training event was one of the most significant experiences of their lives.

The accusations on the internet primarily stem from those who have no first- hand experience of our work, and the vast majority of accusations found on the internet originate from a handful of people. We weigh this against the thousands of lives changed and thousands who have come to the Lord through our work, and we will stand by that record.

A thorough representation of the accusations that have been expressed on the internet and our reply in the face of these accusations follow.

1.Is Jesus Christ central to the teachings of ACCD Trainings? What do you say to the charge that ACCD is a secular, humanistic, or even a New Age organization masquerading underneath a nominally Christian garb?

Those are two different questions. Let's answer them one at a time.

Is Jesus Christ central to the teachings of ACCD Trainings? Jesus Christ is the foundation of ACCD's whole mission. He is central to the trainings. Jesus Christ is who we look to serve with all that we do. The entire focus of what we're up to is reconciliation with God and with man, and our beliefs are that outside of the mediation of Jesus Christ, such reconciliation is impossible. Therefore, He's the central focus and the necessary and vital element in everything we do.

As to the charge that ACCD is a secular or humanistic or New Age organization in Christian garb, there's a problem with the question in terms of how it's being asked. Mainly, because it's loaded with ambiguous terms, and any answer that's given, without first clarifying the terms, acknowledges and implicitly validates the ambiguity. What does New Age mean? Is the person who's asking the question clear about what they mean by it? Are they clear about what the person being asked means by it? Are the two parties aligned in their understanding? The term "New Age" is often used as a straw man argument to mask other agendas.

The answer to this question is no, with the caveat that the interviewer understands what we understand the phrase "New Age" to mean, which is man setting himself up to be God. Now, we do believe in man's responsibility in responding to God's call to salvation. We invite people to recognize their personal responsibility in life, not in the sense that personal responsibility determines outcomes in life, but rather is a way of responding to the life that God has called us to.

Like a farmer sowing a field, people take responsibility to prepare and maintain the field of their own lives and to take responsibility for their dreams, and they offer those things up to God. A farmer sows and does all he can to prepare the field to contribute to the environment of the field, though God is the author of weather and everything else and, ultimately, the fruit that the farmer gains only comes from God's blessing. But nothing would have been realized if the farmer did not take responsibility to respond to God's laws of sowing and reaping and farming in order to open up the greatest possibility for God to bless him.

2. Are you saying that the focus that ACCD puts on personal responsibility and mankind's response to God gets misinterpreted or labeled as New Age or secular humanism?

Yes, in our experience, people often use this question to create a polemic through which they can leverage their agenda of defending their right belief. If somebody's looking to find something in the history of our organization, our emphasis on personal responsibility is what has been misconstrued and placed into the framework of New Age thinking. If you don't define your terms and throw around words like "New Age", you can attempt to demonize anything you want. That's the power of not defining terms: it allows you to throw around blanket accusations without having to stop and actually have a conversation. It's a power play. These sorts of charges depend upon a definition of terms. Most times, when people make these sorts of accusations, they are not clear on the terms they are using. They frame accusations as questions without any real inquiry.

The bottom line is that there's a hidden agenda behind this question, and that agenda is "Do you believe like I do (and of course, I believe like God does), and if you don't, then you must not be for God."

Take the question, "Is ACCD secular?" The first thing we would say is, "Well, what do you mean by secular?" If you mean by that we are non-Christian in our orientation or that Jesus Christ is somehow outside of the center of what we do, then, no, we're not secular, because the exact opposite is the essence of what we're about.

Or if they mean that we're secular because we use structures such as the experiential format of our trainings (what we call experiential education, which means that rather than a strictly lecture or teaching-based format, we use small group discussion, exercises, and one-on-one interactions) or secular music in our trainings that the non-Christian, secular world also uses, then we would say, in that case, yes, and so are you. For example, a question we'd ask in response to this question is, "Have you ever done an icebreaker?" If you've done an icebreaker in a small group, you've done an exercise that came out of an experiential education book…a secular system. Which means that most any kid that has ever been to a typical youth group has taken part in a secular experiential education exercise. It so happens that the experiential education format is similar to some things we do in our trainings. But to take it to the extreme that because our format is related to a secular format that our content is somehow secular is a leap that doesn't make sense.

Along these lines, many times people like to take what is in reality a preference and then endeavor to dogmatize it. For example, because our educational format is very distinct and not used commonly within the Church, they endeavor to label it as something outside of the mission of the Church. In reality, all the educational formats of the Church were borrowed from the secular culture. And, therefore, in that sense, to take someone else's educational format with which you are unfamiliar and then try to label it as outside of God's way simply because you don't do it or aren't familiar with it is ridiculous. Again, "secular" or "New Age" is a label that people tend to apply to anything that's outside of their personal format/environment preference.

To the question of are we humanistic, again, it's a vague, ambiguous question.
We would say we are humanistic in the Christian sense of the word: we do not deny the human aspects of Jesus Christ nor do we deny our human responsibility in being a faithful citizen of the kingdom. If by humanistic the questioner means that man somehow replaces God, then no, in no sense are we humanistic.

As to the question of whether we are masquerading underneath a nominally Christian garb-in other words, taking secular principles which are essentially self-actualization principles and then putting Christian language into them--that is at the opposite end of the spectrum of what we do. The orthopraxy that we invite people into speaks to the very heart of the essence of the Gospel, which is repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

3. How do you think the ACCD trainings reconcile with the notion of salvation through Jesus Christ alone?

We're quite upfront about that. In our trainings, anyone can come in with whatever belief system they have, and we're fine with that, but we are also open about where we come from and what our beliefs are regarding Jesus and that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the way to the Father. In all of our work, we create openings for people to consider embracing the reality of who Jesus Christ is, and we make an explicit invitation to accept Jesus in the Breakthrough Training.

4. What is the purpose of an ACCD training such as the Discovery Seminar or the Breakthrough Training?

The purpose of the trainings is to produce a transformation in people's character through wisdom, which begins with the awe of God.

5. In the trainings, where is the flocus of truth…in the participants' emotions or in Scripture?

Again, this is a question which, in how it's framed, is more an accusation than an actual inquiry. It sounds like one of the questions the Pharisees tried to catch Jesus in. We believe the locus of truth is God, and God dwells in people, not a book. To clarify: we would be more apt to listen and believe that God is speaking through a person than to think that our interpretation of the book is telling us what the truth is.

For instance, Jim Jones said he got the locus of his truth from the Bible, and many destructive and maniacal cult leaders have claimed the same thing…that they got their inspiration and "truth" from the Bible. Even Hitler used the same line. Asking this question is a great way to send a meta-message (that is, a message hidden above the literal question). When you ask somebody, "Do you think the locus of truth is in the Scriptures?", the meta-message is "Hey, don't mess with me because my interpretation of what is in the Bible is the ultimate truth, and if you question me, you're questioning God, because I got my interpretation from the Bible." To which we would say, "Which one of the 20,000 denominations in the United States alone has the grip on the truth?", because they all say that the Bible is the essence of their truth, and they're constantly attacking each other over this whole issue. Holding the Bible in any way that one person has the exact, God-given interpretation of every part of it isn't a resourceful or relevant way to govern ourselves or to lead others, and it's what got the Pharisees and other sects into a lot of mischief, because they were more focused on being right about their interpretation than actually living in what the Father was speaking.

We believe that the Bible is the word of God. We would also suggest that there's no exact formula for interpreting it. The Bible is a great resource for us in discovering and living in relational truth rather than a handbook or rule book for figuring out the way things are "supposed" to look, because, often, that is what people are asking for when they want the truth. The Bible is the great plumb-line to go to for help in inquiring into my life from a point of view of "'How can I better love somebody else?" or "How can I make a better difference in the lives of my spouse and my children?" From that point of view you can really look for the truth of God in the people in whose life you are involved. You can look for truth in relationship, which is actually what the Bible is all about. "How is God in this relationship? What is opening up through God and through love, joy, peace, and kindness? How is truth opening up in this relationship, how is it being closed down?" This is more dynamic than the assumption that truth is some static concept that we can figure out and then possess through our knowledge or orthodoxy. We don't believe that; we think that truth is a dynamic being that mingles and lives within our relationships and indwells in our thought life, and as such, we highly value orthodoxy but we focus on orthopraxy, which is essentially our beliefs actually translating into action in the real world and in real relationships.

In Scripture itself, it's very clear that truth is more than just holding concepts in your mind. Throughout Scripture, there are various references like being true walking in truth, and living truth. Our work introduces people to a much richer, deeper, and more connected experience of how to be and live truth. So for those who dumb it down or simplify it to "all of truth is captured within Bible verses and knowing Bible verses," that really leaves the whole essence of the gospel out of the equation, which is relationship: relationship with God, relationship with Jesus Christ, relationship with each other, and being true and living truly in those kinds of relationships.

In I Corinthians 13:12, scripture says that we see through a glass dimly. If that's the truth, it behooves us to be open to different views of the truth, since we can't see the fullness of it. A part of our truth is that we're constantly inquiring into what is the truth about what's going on; we resist landing on some absolute answer because, so far, the absolute answers that have been fed to us by the dogmatic institutions of "the Church" over the last 2,000 years have often left much to be desired. They've worked in some circumstances, not others, and they certainly haven't worked for society as a whole. There's obviously something that is being lost in the translation, and we think it has to do with not being open to the dynamic nature of truth and that as humans, because we love control, power, and authority, we tend to dogmatize it. People tend not to question their own view of truth because they are more inclined to use truth as a tool for making them right and giving them power (just like the Pharisees) than they are about humbly walking in it.

Finally, we don't believe truth changes; we believe the perspective of the one viewing truth or searching truth changes, and it's easy to mistake "my perspective" as the full picture, such that when it changes, we think "truth is changing" versus "my perspective is changing." We believe that humility is recognizing that we all have a perspective about which we can be very passionate and certain. We must remain open to what else we're not seeing, because we see through a glass dimly, and when we are open to that sort of inquiry, God, who is The Truth, can really meet us and fill our lives with His truth.

6. Is the theological notion of God's grace alone being the key to salvation and transformation a key principle of an ACCD training event?

We believe that God's grace is man's salvation-not key to it, it is salvation. In all of our work, we operate in the assumption that God's grace is making up the difference between our human ignorance and His wisdom. We invite people into that kind of relationship with God.

Our core belief is that outside of God's grace, what we're committed to do in our trainings will not happen. Outside of His grace, we're doomed. So it's not just a core principle, it is the essence of anything of value that we produce in a training.

7. The trainings are open to both Christians and non-Christians alike, correct?

Yes. As we said earlier, anyone can come in with whatever belief system they have, and at the same time we are very open about our beliefs about Jesus. In everything we do, we invite people to consider and embrace the reality of who Jesus Christ is. We are not doctrinal in our orientation in the sense that we're not there to enforce dogma and make believe people as we do. We're there to invite people into an inquiry, and that presents a much deeper relational context that is an invitation for people to meet the Lord.

8. How is it that non-Christians can be said to be transformed? What room does this leave for the Holy Spirit in an individual's transformation?

Consider this: Paul was out killing Christians and Jesus turned him around; he was transformed, no one could argue with that. He became about as big a believer in Jesus as there could ever be. He was transformed by the Holy Spirit on a road, and there was no Church, no Bible being used, no minister, and no formula. God just intervened in his life and transformed it. Isn't this how unbelievers are met, whether on a Damascus road, or on a subway, or in a training?

This question brings up a larger issue, which is the attitude, as revealed in this question, that Christian religion has become a kind of self-appointed gatekeeper of the Holy Spirit. This view, ironically, is essentially that we Christians own the One who has come to save us and that we know exactly where, when, and how he can show up. This question seems to presuppose that the questioner has clearly defined all aspects of how the Holy Spirit moves and now is simply looking to see if our answer matches the "perfect wisdom criteria" they have received from on high. It presupposes a significant level of arrogance, as if we somehow know how the Holy Spirit's going to work and that there's no way He could be working in the life of someone who has yet to believe or that He's limited in how he can interact with them because of that. If that were true, wouldn't there be no hope for anyone? How does anyone ever come to God if a precursor is their already having the Holy Spirit? It's a non-sensical question. How in the world am I ever going to come to God unless I first have an opportunity to have an experience with him? In that sense, our work is highly evangelical, in that it presents people with an opportunity to embrace the reality of who Jesus is. Hundreds of people have come to the Lord in our trainings.

We believe and attest that, in our work, apart from the Holy Spirit, nothing would get done. If there's any fruit from our actions, it's because of the Holy Spirit, not because of anything anybody else did. If somebody leaves an ACCD training and goes back to their wife or husband and repents and transforms their relationship with another or they reach out to an unreconciled party and there's a reconciliation, that comes from God. God showed up there, and we believe that God's principles show up in the lives of those who believe and also have yet-to-believe.

We believe that if we give ourselves openly and as honestly as we're asking others to give, because such an action requires faith in God and in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will be faithful. Even in the face of our errors--our organization's ignorance, mistakes, and errors--God will move, because we're moving in faith that He'll meet us in it. And we'll be corrected and shifted and adjusted along the way.

One of the things that has tended to generate suspicion about our trainings is the background assumption that what produces transformation in people's lives is dogma or information. Our presupposition is that what produces transformation is relationship. And so, to a dogmatist, when we sit down with a homosexual or somebody that's struggling with homosexuality or somebody who's an atheist or a staunch whatever-they-may-be, outside the current cultural Christian definition of what it is to be Christian, then our loving them and standing with them (not trying to force some dogmatic axiom down their throat, but engaging them and staying in a relationship with them) feels like "New Age" or creates suspicion. Dogmatists sometimes assume that we are condoning what people struggle with, whereas we are actually committed to being with people in their struggle and loving them through it, which has nothing to do with condoning their behavior or abandoning our convictions. We believe this is what Jesus did. We understand that it can probably be pretty threatening that we don't distance ourselves from what the Church traditionally has distanced itself from in society for over the last thousand years or so, or more, but we believe that reaching people means being willing to stand with people in their struggle even if that gets interpreted (or mis-interpreted, in our opinion) as condoning their behavior or compromising the gospel.

9. Let's say that someone takes the training and they're not a Christian, and they come to the training and they rejoice in the fact that they feel like they've had a very transformational experience. They plan to go out in the world and live in this transformation. But they make no decision towards God, or they have no plans or inclination towards becoming a Christian or believing in Jesus. Would you say that this person has experienced transformation, or are they deceived? Or are they taking part in transformation but not the full thing? How would you describe that scenario?

Since we're not God, and since we have faith in God, what does it matter? How do we know what happened there in the training? We would say, "We don't know." We trust that God is with that person because God loves all people, and that whatever was good and life-giving was from God, and that whether this person has associated that connection with God there and in that moment, or just after the training, is not important. That we have been part of the process that God is engaging in their life is more important to us and we trust that God, in His timing and in His wisdom, will reveal Himself to those whom He has purposed to reveal Himself, and we're dedicated to being part of those on earth that align themselves with Jesus and His mission. We trust the Holy Spirit to do what He said He would do, and we're going to love the people that come before us like we would want them to love us. And we figure that Jesus will take care of the rest.

The question presupposes that the questioner has a clear and exact knowledge of the consistently repeatable formula that God uses in a lineal progression in bringing people to Him. How do we know how God works? Who knew that Saul, on the road to Damascus, was going to become a Christian? He had just killed Stephen!

Top

Page 2