This series is an examination of teachings and practices from Grace Fellowship, drawn directly from a private video recorded by its leadership. Over time, questions have been raised about authority, membership, discipline, and the ability to leave. Rather than relying on summaries or accusations, this series presents the leaders’ words in their own context and evaluates them alongside Scripture, historic Baptist principles, and practical implications. The aim is simple: to understand what is being taught, to identify where tensions or contradictions may exist, and to ask whether these structures reflect healthy spiritual leadership or something more controlling in nature.
Matthew 18
“Abusive pastors often deflect the attention off what they’ve done by issuing loud complaints that proper procedures weren’t followed. So loudly do they object that they begin to look like the victims and the abused individuals appear to be the real perpetrators.” [1]
Michael Kruger, in his book Bully Pulpit, captures a dynamic that can emerge in church environments where authority and process become closely intertwined.
One of the most common responses to those who leave is this:
“They didn’t practice Matthew 18 with us. They just left.”
In many situations, following Matthew 18 is both wise and necessary. It provides a framework for resolving personal conflict within the church. However, it is not a universal solution for every situation, nor is it always appropriate—particularly in cases involving patterns of harmful or controlling behavior.
Kruger notes that in such situations, the burden of accountability is often shifted:
“And it is the job of the church, not the victims, to provide that accountability. If the church fails to provide it yet insists the victims meet with the abuser, they have shifted this burden to the victims.” [2]
This raises an important question:
What happens when the structure that is supposed to provide accountability is itself part of the problem?
_________________________________________________
When Process Becomes the Focus
“We always think Matthew 18 should be followed….”
That statement sounds reasonable on the surface. But it also ensures that any disagreement occurs within a controlled environment, where leadership defines both the process and the outcome.
Rather than asking:
“Did this happen?”
The discussion shifts to:
“Was the correct process followed?”
This is an example of what can be described as process substitution—focusing on how a concern is raised rather than whether the concern is valid.
_________________________________________________
The Dilemma
The interviewer asks a simple question: If they have already left, how can they still be expected to follow the Matthew 18 process?
Critics are said to be in error because they did not follow Matthew 18; on the other hand, the pastors state that members don’t have the authority to leave a church.
They are in sin because they left.
They are in sin because they didn’t follow Matthew 18.
They are in sin because they don’t have the authority to leave a church.
In such a system, disagreement itself becomes evidence of wrongdoing.
_______________________________________________________
The Closed Loop System
If someone stays, they are subject to the process.
If they leave, they are still judged by that same process.
The process determines legitimacy.
In either case, the outcome is predictable and often predetermined.
Hence, the Hotel California reference in the previous articles. “You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave…”
The situation is reframed.
The focus shifts away from the original concern and onto the process itself.
Instead of asking, “Did this happen?” the question becomes, “Did you follow the proper procedure?”
Historically, many Christian traditions—particularly within Baptist thought—have emphasized the importance of liberty of conscience and the voluntary nature of church membership.
When leaving a church is framed as a moral failure, and when procedural requirements override substantive concerns, an important question arises:
Is the system functioning as a means of spiritual care, or as a mechanism of control?
That is not a question that can be answered simply by appealing to process.
It requires careful examination of both the structure and its effects.
______________________________________________________
Conclusion
If the system being described is as healthy as it claims, an important question remains:
Why must departure be treated as something that must be tightly controlled?
The deeper question is whether the structure itself allows for honest disagreement, personal conscience, and genuine freedom in Christ.
When procedural requirements are used to dismiss or discredit concerns, and when individuals are told they lack the authority to leave, the result is a system in which accountability becomes difficult, and dissent becomes suspect, and this has been the process at Grace Fellowship for a very long time now.
“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…” John 16:13
–Kevin
[1] Kruger, Michael. Bully Pulpit. Zondervan Reflective, 2022. 81.
[2] Ibid, 72
Uncommon Faith 