"From the Fringe to the Fold" (the story of another GCI)

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[newcreature]

This article describes the recent transformation of the Worldwide Church of God into Grace Communion International (GCI). http://www.gci.org/aboutus/fringe

The article was written by Ruth Tucker and originally appeared in the July 15, 1996, issue of Christianity Today. At the time, she was a visiting professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the author of 12 books, including Another Gospel: Alternative Religions and the New Age Movement (Zondervan).

It provided me with a glimmer of hope for another GCI that I was a part of years ago. Perhaps someday a major transformation will cause many of them to "join the fold" in a whole-hearted manner as well.

[newcreature]

I read another article this weekend from the "Barnabas Ministry." It is a ministry geared towards encouragement and reconciliation. The founder is a member of the International Church of Christ (ICOC), and even though I totally disagree with ICOC doctrines about baptism, the author does have some very insightful comments when confronting aberrant sects. The ICOC has such a sect in their denomination called "Crossroads." Larry Pile has encountered them as well.

Sadly, this sect has not made the transition from the fringe to the fold. Realistically, some sects and churches never do. According to the author, here is "Unpleasant Truth #1": http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-confront-noworkie.html

Unpleasant Truth #1: Churches Don't Like to Change
Churches don't like to change. This may sound cynical, but it is the truth. There are several reasons for this tendency for a church to remain the same.

To begin with, a church has a set of moral values, teachings and practices about God that define the church. If a group believes these things are right, then why would there ever be a need to change anything? Even if a particular situation is difficult, the spiritual traits of perseverance and faithfulness will reinforce the built-in tendency to stick with their defining elements and thus remain the same.

Those in authority in churches generally feel like they are doing the right things, doing the best they can, etc. And they generally know that they aren't perfect and not everybody will be happy with them regardless of what they do. So they tend to do what they think is right or best. In more troubling situations, those in authority work to maintain that authority and will act aggressively to protect it from any threats. These factors work towards the church remaining the same.

It is natural for people to defend their church and their leaders. They tend to be loyal to the organization and the leaders rather than the truth. A good example of this was seen in the Ted Haggard case, where parishioners defended Haggard without even finding out the truth first (see a discussion of this in the Barnabas Ministry article "Uncovering and Facing Spiritual Abuse").

When churches change things, even minor things, those in authority usually hear far more complaints than praises. This is one of those "human nature" type of things, that people are more likely to complain about things they don't like than give kudos for things they do like. This dynamic provides yet another strong force for a church to remain the same.

Interestingly, scripture recognizes this strong desire to remain the same. In the parable of the wineskins, Jesus made a remark that is so short that it can easily be neglected. In fact, it is only contained in Luke's version of the saying.
He told them this parable: "No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, `The old is better.' " (Luke 5:36-39)

In context, Jesus is answering questions about his followers fasting. He answers the specific question with a broad statement that he wasn't trying to fix-up Judaism but rather he was starting something new. Thus, he wasn't trying to conform his followers to Jewish traditions, nor was he going to be patching up Judaism or pouring new life into it. That's the main point of these parables.

This remark about "the old is better" is intriguing. Jesus is telling us that with regard to spiritual things, people generally prefer the old and the familiar to the new and the unfamiliar-- notice how those in the parable made their choice about the old wine without even tasting the new wine! This dynamic certainly applied in his ministry and was a reason why some were reluctant to accept him and his message.

But this is also a timeless principle. When it comes to churches (and many other things as well), people tend to like what they have and they don't like change. There may be things they don't like about what they have-- but just try changing any of them!

So in confronting hurtful or abusive practices, or corrupt or unhealthy systems, there are two important dynamics to consider. First, there is the harmful thing itself, whatever it is. But then there is the fact that people are used to what they have and are uncomfortable with change. The reality is even if the first can be addressed successfully, the second dynamic will often prove an insurmountable obstacle."

[MarthaH]

Great post, newcreature!

That really helps me because I stayed for so long, hoping that things would change. Every now and then I would see something that would give me hope and think that things were beginning to change. The worst is when people in leadership started saying that they were aware of problems and that changes were taking place. However, over time, tradition would win out. So many of my friends are staying because they want to change things in their local church. The sad thing is, things won't change locally unless they change nationally. Faithwalkers is proof that people don't want things to change on the national level. Faithwalkers is about keeping tradition.

The best thing to do if you see practices that do not line up with scripture and with Jesus Christ, is to simply leave. Pray that leadership's eyes will be opened at the national level (as it was in the case of the organization newcreature mentioned in an earlier post). The testimony of the majority of people on this site is that they wanted things to change and brought it forward to leadership (myself included) and that for the past 40 years, nothing has changed for the long haul. Apologies have been made, but the abuses keep persisting and rearing their ugly heads because the traditions have not been truly repented of.

Jesus' instruction to the people under unbiblical leadership was, "Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14)

[Linda]

The last ECC pastor we met with was Mark Darling. We talked about all the things that we believed were theologically unsound with ECC/GC teaching. He listened. Then he said pretty much (I hesitate to put it in quotes since I didn't record it, but this is pretty close), "Please don't stay and try to change us. Just go. If you do go and tell people that you think what we are doing is wrong, you do realize that we will defend ourselves, don't you?"

I agree with MarthaH, simply leave. When your pastor is on the national board and tells you they are going to continue doing what they do and requests that you leave rather than stay and try to help them correct their error and change, polite people leave.

Defending your beliefs is one thing, threatening people is another. I would expect ECC leaders to defend what they believe. I would never ask them to be silent. I would never ask them to agree to a two sentence statement and say nothing more when asked why they left as happened to us. Huge red flag.

[newcreature]

Linda, I copied Unpleasant Truth #2 from the Barnabas Ministry after reading your post and Martha's post. The author listed 20 nasty tactics that churches (or cults or TACOs) can use against you when you ask questions or confront sin like you and Terry did. It looks like GCI attacked you and your family with many, if not most, of the 20 ungodly tactics. I have been blessed by your kindness and your persistence to seek the truth and seek their best in spite of their unrighteous attacks.  
http://www.barnabasministry.com/recovery-confront-noworkie.html

Unpleasant Truth #2: Christians Can Be Nasty When Change Comes into View
Bringing up serious problems or matters of offense and advocating necessary change can be an exciting or threatening time in the history of a church. Many group dynamics come into play, and the responses can be very strong.

Overall changes in a church happen when the leaders and the people are fairly unanimous about it and the impending course of action is clear. And in confronting something unhealthy or hurtful, the message could be valued and changes could take place. This is the way things are supposed to work. When this happens, great.

But in confronting something, a hornet's nest of opposition could be stirred up. Not only will the words of counsel or confrontation be rejected-- it is quite likely the one doing the confronting will be attacked and purged from the system because the system itself cannot bear the change, or even the thought of the change. It threatens the identity of the church and the members too much.

Here are some of the things I've personally experienced or personally witnessed concerning people in these type of situations:

(I numbered them 1 to 20 and applied some punctuation because the bullets didn't copy from his site to this one.)

1. Be told they "didn't bring things up the right way," and then how they brought up the initial issue becomes the new issue.
2. Be fired or pressured to resign.
3. Have a slanderous or harmful report spread about them to other potential or actual employers.
4. Be marginalized -- removed from whatever positions of influence they might have.
5. Be attacked and discredited.
6. Be mischaracterized as bitter, unspiritual, "out to get" somebody, or looking for power.
7. Have their spirituality or their love for God or others questioned.
8. Be subtly put-down, such as being described as "struggling."
9. Have sins confessed in confidence leaked out.
10. Have every failing or inadequacy magnified.
11. Have all good things you have done discounted, or credited to others.
12. Be spoken against from the pulpit as a "wolf" or evil, bad person.
13. Have close friends or family turned against them.
14. Be accused of being unforgiving, impatient or the like.
15 Be spoken of in a condescending way, portrayed as someone who isn't competent to speak about the things in question.
16. Be mischaracterized as attacking the church or the work of God instead of the sin or unhealthy things being addressed.
17. Events could be "spun" to make it look like whatever wrongdoing is going on really isn't happening or isn't that big of a deal.
18. History can be re-written to omit people out of favor with the leaders.
19. Have their children ostracized or shunned by any "friends" who are children of those who defend the system.
20. What were thought to be good friendships can evaporate in an instant.

The common trait of all of these items is that they have nothing to do with the matters being brought up. For example, if a church leader has been dishonest about something, what does it matter if the person confronting him went on a certain mission trip or not? Or what does it matter if a church leader was honest about something else? What does it matter if a person accused of mistreating one person was kind to a hundred other people? Doesn't that person that was mistreated matter?

These irrelevant things are red herrings designed to divert attention from the matter at hand in hopes that people can be manipulated and the offenders can escape the confrontation. Dont' be fooled by it. (I'm convinced there are some people whose primary defense of their own wrongdoing all throughout life is to counter-attack anyone who confronts them.)

Nobody thinks this torrent of mistreatment can happen to them. After all, those who bring these things up love the church and the people involved, and they're trying to help. They really want things to be better. Everybody who is thinking about confronting an authority needs to think and pray about these things and be ready for what might be coming.

But if we take a step back from the nastiness, what does this tell us about what is going on? It seems that when the issues being confronted are closely tied to the identity of the church, confronting the problems associated with those things is nearly the same as confronting the very identity of the group. If we view the church as a wineskin that can only bear so much change without being destroyed, it provides further insight about why people respond so strongly at the prospect of change.

[MarthaH]

Wow! Wow, wow, wow! Great article! Thanks for posting, newcreature.

I had experienced several of these things on the list first hand when I left. Potentially more may have been done, but I am unaware since I am now removed. I can say for sure that many of these things happened to others when they left. They were discredited, their influence was attributed to others, they were marginalized and were struggling with sin or spiritually. One leader recently left and things were definitely spun based on what I could gather by others still in the church as to why he left.

For people who are beginning to question things they see, I would again encourage them to search for both sides of the story. Ask the people who left why they left. It is amazing at how their reasons for leaving differ so greatly from the explanations you often receive from leadership.

Right now I'm envisioning Jack Nicholson's character from A Few Good Men yelling, "You want the truth...you can't handle the truth". I'm also picturing Morpheus asking Neo, "How deep does the rabbit hole go?" Once you start digging for the truth, it's amazing what you find. I, for one, am glad I did. Great post. These are great questions to ask!!

[Linda]

That list is very interesting! In our homeschooling, we happened to do the study of fallacies just after we left. I was astonished to see how many were used by GC leaders to defend their unsound practices. Red herring, ad hominem, either-or, and straw man are among the favorites--anything to detract from the message of those challenging teaching.

This post has me thinking, but I don't have time for a longer comment right now. Maybe soon.

Also, to clarify, in your first paragraph, I wanted to mention that Terry and I didn't "confront sin" (except for the "sin" of false teaching ). We have no first hand knowledge of any "major moral failings" on the part of any in leadership. Our issues were strictly with the practices of the church that stem from faulty theology regarding the body of Christ and the priesthood of the believer.

We are challenging ideas and practices, not individuals. In fact, while some have chosen to "shun" us and misrepresent us as divisive and slanderous, I have no problem speaking with any in leadership when we happen upon each other in public.

[Linda]

Ask the people who left why they left. It is amazing at how their reasons for leaving differ so greatly from the explanations you often receive from leadership.

Great post, Martha. Your idea of suggesting people call people who leave and ask them why is a great one. I know people were told not to ask us because someone told me that. I'm not quite sure why, but I had the vague feeling that it was suggested that we were struggling (see number 8 on the list!) and it would be embarrassing for us to be asked.

#20 on the list is personally the hardest. People I thought were my friends never asked us why we left and just vanished from our lives.