This is something I've wondered about for quite some time. Occasionally somebody from GC will come here and admit that even though they know there are problems with the movement, and acknowledge "bad churches", certain problematic leaders, and a history of abuse within the movement, they assure us they are in a "good" GC church that doesn't have those sorts of problems. The standard response to these people has been a gracious: "if you are happy, you shouldn't leave!"
I question the logic of joining/staying at a "good GC church" when you know the movement as a whole has so many unresolved issues.
Do you really want to raise your children in a church movement where if they ever decided to pursue leadership they will be trained in LT
by the movement and not that local church? Are you really comfortable with the future possibility of your children going out on a church plant (something held up by GC as a pinnacle of spiritual growth) knowing full well they may end up serving under "bad GC leaders"?
Would you want to invite any of your friends to a "good GC church" when you know every December they are going to be invited to Faithwalkers to hear Darling and Whitney and others speak on "the good old days" of the movement, topics like unquestioned obedience to GC elders and commitment for life to GC? What will you do when Mark Darling or Tom Short or some other GC big-wig comes to your town for a weekend talk, and it just so happens to be a "bad GC" type of message? Are the leaders in the "good churches" actually willing to point out flaws in teaching done by GC elders, or is it more likely that they in a position of leadership within the movement because they know how to submit to the national elders on these matters?
Are you going to spend time explaining to every person you invite to your "good church" that although you love your church, they should be careful of the other churches in the movement? Or are you going to be put in an awkward situation where you mislead your friends and avoid talking about GC's issues in conversations?
Every year we post links to the Faithwalkers talks on lifelong commitment and submission and so forth.. yet we are supposed to accept the premise that there are somehow "good GC churches" completely unaffected by the rest of the movement's dysfunctions? Are these "good churches" not inviting their members to Faithwalkers and LT and following the GC conferences? Are the "good churches" not also sending a good portion of their money to GC (as required by membership)?
Unless you simply cannot bear to leave because of the friendships you might lose if you left, why in the world would you want to "plant your flag and die" in a "good GC church" when you know how many problems exist in the larger movement?
As EverAStudent stated so elegantly:
Given the proportionately large number of excellent mainstream and independent churches that still exist here in the States, I am certain that I would not recommend a shepherding movement-GC church to anyone to "try" or to "wander into" without prior education. In fact, once one knows what is at the heart of their pastoral philosophy I am uncertain why anyone would intentionally commit at all since the shepherding movement philosophy violates 1 Peter 5:3 and thus makes the man unfit for the pastorate--why intentionally put unfit individuals over you?
