Being Above Reproach

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.

[namaste]

A few years ago, while sitting through yet another seemingly unending monologue on the evils of dating, I heard a gcm pastor actually make a good point.  Sometimes, it's not just whether you're right or wrong (in the eyes of God or yourself), it's being above reproach.  

Of course, this was being used in support of never, ever being alone with a member of the opposite sex.  :lol:  But even if his application stunk, the wisdom of the comment remains.  He was right- sometimes it's not a matter of right or wrong...one should conduct himself in such a manner that his intentions are above question.

One of the things I've been considering lately is the reality that a big part of the problem with GC is that they frequently consider their actions in a vacuum, failing to consider the perceptions of individuals.

For example, it's not whether preaching sermons about slander is sinful.  It's not about what their intent was in doing that.  The fact of the matter, is that in doing so (in certain situations), they appear to be controlling information.  It legitimately makes them look bad.  And if they really think certain individuals are slanderers, then they should act with the knowledge that by providing "fuel for the fire," they're causing others to sin.

It's not whether they intentionally concealed the error statement, embarrassing events in church history, or are right or wrong in doing a dance around releasing the articles of association that would make even the most crooked politician proud.  The fact of the matter, is that it looks bad.  Of course these behaviors are cause for reasonable concern and speculation!

For all I know, GC has never considered the reality that changing names ALL THE TIME makes it exceedingly difficult to track down information (attempting to gather further verification for this statement) on the organization.  But if they're so insistant that they not be labeled a cult (or "shady" organization), then they ought to consider that name changes are a common cult obfuscation tactic before they change names.

Anyhoo, this is getting quite long, and I apologize.  I realize that a GC ideal is being "set apart" from the rest of the world.  But in my observation, that is all too often used as an excuse to refuse to accept the reality that their actions do cause legitimate concern.

[puff of purple smoke]

Good post.

Another thing that I think falls into this line of thought is the GC churches who tell people they are "non-denominational" and don't mention their affiliation with GCM/GCAC on their websites. Some GCx churches, such as mine, present themselves to the "public eye" as just another non-denom Christian church, and you only figure out their affiliation with GC after you've been attending for quite some time. I certainly was surprised to find out my "non-denominational" church was a part of a national organization, that the speakers who visited frequently were all a part of that organization, that some of my tithe money was going to this org., and that the conferences and leadership meetings were being put on by this organization. I felt very misled, and I've spoken to others who have been in this situation as well. Many GC churches are not upfront about what they are. If they have nothing to hide, why downplay their ties to GC?

I also agree with you about the GC* acronyms thing. If not for obfuscation purposes, what exactly is the point of them changing their name every 10 years? How is a normal person generally going to perceive a church with a troubled past that changes its name all the time? Rick Whitney commented on the name changes in one of his sermons:

I recently heard a brother comment on our church association’s recent history.  He used the phrase, “Our organizational wilderness . . . ”  He was reflecting on some of the changes that we have been wrestling with as a church movement.

I understand what he means.   We have gone through changes and it seems like there is no end to the number of Great Commission, “GC acronyms”, that we can come up with. I understand his humor and maybe his partial frustration.

      But honestly, nothing has changed.  We are still the same group of men and our bond remains strong.  We have lost a few and yes, it hurts and yes, there have been challenges. All movements of God have lost men.  Even our Lord lost a few.

      But nothing has really changed.

One has to wonder why, then, if nothing changes other than the name, the name needs to change at all. Just last year they changed their name again to GCC (Great Commission Churches)!

[puff of purple smoke]

For all I know, GC has never considered the reality that changing names ALL THE TIME makes it exceedingly difficult to track down information (although instructing churches in the late 80s to drop the "gc" part of their names makes this unlikely)

Hey, can you elaborate on this? GC told churches to drop the "gc" part of their names?

[GD]

On the original subject of the post:

I've heard the "free from accusation" and draconian rules placed on student interaction, while living arrangements with nannies and renters would often be viewed liberally.  So consistency is a big key on how valid a real "principle" is.

In a non-GCM church, I was accused of making-out with another guy's girlfriend.  A brother confronted me on the gossip much to my surprise.  The good news is that when I told my pastor and the guy/girl involved about the rumor, everyone had a huge laugh because they knew how ridiculous it was.  I think that is what "free from accusation" really means.

Rabbit trail:
I will say that during 1 of my 3 turns as a GC small group leader, I was amazed at all the guy/girl issues that I was dragged into.  Girl A is creeped out by guy B "liking her."  Girl C is good friends with guy D for two years and is upset when he asked her out.  Previous leaders divided groups to deal with some "problems" secretly while keeping their "crush" close-bye.

This kind of junk is probably why some pastors teach what they do on dating.  It also may explain some of the odd splits that group members didn't understand.  Hard to explain without gossip!

[namaste]

For all I know, GC has never considered the reality that changing names ALL THE TIME makes it exceedingly difficult to track down information (although instructing churches in the late 80s to drop the "gc" part of their names makes this unlikely)

Hey, can you elaborate on this? GC told churches to drop the "gc" part of their names?

To be honest, that's one of those things that I kinda thought was "common knowledge."  I even heard our pastor mention it at one point and I really feel like I've seen it referenced here as well.  I realize that's not convincing factual evidence, though.  

In the interests of having good, verifiable info here, I'll do a search and see if I can find other sources that are referencing this (hopefully a newspaper or something) and point you to them.

In the meantime, I'll take out that line of my original post.  I would really hate for someone to read that and equate it with iron clad fact if the truth of the statement is in dispute!  :oops: