Calvinism

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.

[ISU Alumna]

Many people on this board have commented on how GC leaders have rejected some of their own church members for beliefs that the leaders have labeled "Calvinism." I would be curious to know just what is is about Calvinist doctrine that GC-ers find so unacceptable. I suspect that theirs must be a highly idiosyncratic definition of Calvinism, since GC leaders have no training in theology; nor do they have any interest whatsoever in history -- whether cultural history, political history, or even religious history.

It just strikes me as funny that these people should be on the attack towards so-called "Calvinism," since back when I was a member of the church, a number of my professors commented on the "extremely Calvinistic" nature of the doctrine that I was parroting from my church elders. LOL!

Any ideas?

[guest]

This is my first post and I'm going to try to be objective because I see both good and bad in GC. From my limited experience with GC, I think there are several leaders who take various stands on Calvinism. For instance, I know Kurt J. (last name?) has very Calvinistic viewpoints while others sway towards the other side and some simply don't take a stance on it one way or the other. One of my friends asked their GC pastor what his thoughts were on it and he replied with something like, " I'm not going to take a stand on it because I believe it's individuals convicions about the matter - there is Biblical evidence that supports both sides of the argument."

Personally, I think it's a huge distraction. I think it is good to have an understanding, but historically, it has always caused dissention in churches and caused great division among the universal body of Christ. So my answer from my experience, is that it varies from church to church?

[Linda]

My experience is also that it varies from church to church. I also am aware of a pastor that didn't know the difference between a Calvinist and an Arminian.  I tend to agree with you that it is a huge distraction, yet basic theology is something that a pastor should know.

For what it's worth, I also agree with your statement that not all of GC is bad. In fact, I think that one of the reasons that people put up with the bad stuff is that there is also good stuff. I remember a line in one of the Narnia books (Last Battle, maybe) where Aslan says that a lie mixed with a little truth makes for a better lie. Likewise, bad teaching, mixed with some good teaching strengthens the bad teaching.

An example that our GC pastors used to use (I think when they used this example, they were talking about people complaining about the church to others--and by complaining they meant questioning what was being taught) was that of adding a teaspoon of feces to the brownie batter. Out of all of the batter, only a teaspoon contained feces, but it contaminated the whole batch of brownies.

In my mind, the question with GC teaching is, "Was the feces mixed into the batter, and therefore contaminates everything and is impossible to fix, the brownies must be thrown," OR "Is the feces sitting on the corner and if it is cut off the batch can be saved." Either way, there is feces on the brownies and something must be done other than to suggest that the people noting that the brownies are contaminated with feces are divisive slanderers!

Time for lunch!

[guest]

I have also heard that statement about a little poo in the brownies. I certainly hope, and I personally believe, GC is in the "feces in the corner" part of that statement.

I know I will get criticized for this statement because I've watched others get torn down by saying this, but I am a firm believer in "there is no perfect church." There is a little poo in every church and that's because every church is filled with and led by sinners. I've never been in a church, listened to a pastor or even had a conversation with another believer where we didn't eventually disagree, offend one another, misspeak or teach something that was a little off in some way. Now, this isn't making excuses for things people in GC have done. Trust me; I've had my issues...

Unfortunately, I probably did my far share of hurting some of the people on this very site. But there's quite a bit I've learned from my experiences with GC and I would hope I would find forgiveness by those on here whom I might have unintentionally hurt by my immature words and actions…regardless of if I’m a current member or ex-member of GC.

[Linda]

About the no church is perfect thing...where to begin.

For starters, of course, no church (small "c") is perfect.

In my experience, when this was said by elders (and it was said often) it was an attempt to blow off some pretty big errors. Rather than admit the error and correct it, they used the diversion technique of, "Well, you realize no church is perfect." If there is error, correct it, don't use the, "Well, he did it too," excuse, and make no attempt whatsoever to get the poo out of the brownie, but rather criticize/excommunicate/slander/defriend the person who noted the poo and took the time to point it out.

Pastors telling others that they are to give the controls of their lives to the pastor is a big issue (and it gets you on cult watch lists).
Pastors getting between parents and their spouses/children is a big issue.
Pastors assuming they always speak for God is a big issue.
A pastor telling the church that we were his bride is a big issue.

These are not "color of the carpet" issues, these are fundamental Lordship of Christ issues.

[guest]

What would you say to a person who is aware of these issues, but personally doesn't see them in their local GC church? Are they unenlightened, naive, ignorant, lying etc? Should they stay or go? Do you believe everyone should leave GC churches or should they stay and try to make some changes? Maybe there are a few good GC churches that could set a higher standard for the others? Maybe not?

Again, I'm not going to say if I'm a current member or not but I know enough people on the "inside" and "outside" to know both sides of this story.

[guest]

I hope that didn't come off as hostile - I just really haven't been met with the blown off attitude. I've had my concerns and I've had many conversations about them with pastors, staff, members, nonmembrs, but I haven't had a bad experience in taking problems to church leadership. Maybe I'm the exception? I've even seen some things changed because of discussions I've had - and I'm a woman!

That seems very different from the stories I've read on hear. Now in all honesty, I don't know what some of those folks are doing today - but I saw some real change!

[guest]

here*

[AgathaL'Orange]

Hmmm.  Well do people say that they see these issues in your church?  I think it's entirely possible, in fact, probably that there are people who don't see the issues.  I think there are probably GC churches that don't have issues.  If someone in your church saw issues and you didn't, would you write them off?  If you believed them, but you don't see it, why do you stay?  If you saw issues, mentioned them and they dealt with it, that's great!  Have they gone to try to make things right towards those they have hurt? 

For me, the vocal branches of GC have not changed.  In the apology letter, there were many admissions of guilt (good on them).  Today however, we have the same things playing out.  Why is that?  I think it's because they think that these practices are right and "God's Best" for His church.  I think people who hear things like "People are stupid and needy", "People should give over the controls", "I do what my elder tells me to", and strict rules about dating and do nothing are perhaps blinded to problems, agree with those statements, or perhaps think "They don't really mean it in the strict sense of the words."

But we've found they DO mean it in the strict sense.  They really do.  So I will turn it back on you... why do you want to attend a church that is unashamedly associated with churches that DO have real issues, that are strongly or subtly authoritarian, that have no insurance policy against these errors happening again, and that laud the "old days" when "perhaps it was an honor to be called a cult."  And I say this with no hostility and feel no hostility coming from you! 

[AgathaL'Orange]

And guest, you are absolutely right, there is no perfect church.  Some churches have an "error loop" or a protocol so to speak built into the DNA  to address imperfections.  Others don't.  GC has no real system to address abuse or harmful teaching from pastors.  That's dangerous and a recipe for future disaster.

[grandslam]

The original post asked what it is about Calvinism that many in GCM find unacceptable.  Well, there are plenty of things that one could find unacceptable about the system referred to as Calvinism.  

Just to be brief here.  Calvinism is based on a philosophical belief known as determinism.  In this system of thought, everything that happens is because God willed that it would be so.  NOTHING happens outside of this unalterable eternal decree springing from God.  This means that every evil (and every good) that has ever taken place is because God caused and determined that such would transpire.  Calvinists further believe that before the creation of the world God chose who would be saved and who would be damned without any input whatsoever from the choices of man.  If you are elect you will certainly believe, if you are non-elect you cannot possibly believe.  Lastly (and there are many more, I'm just being brief), Calvinists typically hold to limited atonement.  This means that Christ did not die for every human born into the world, nor does he love all humans in any meaningful sense of the word (contra John 3:16).   Calvinistic thought did not begin with the early church after the death of the apostles.  Rather, it began with Augustine and Calvin later borrowed it and systemetized it.  It's probably no coincidence that Calvinism took off when the church wielded great power and control, a foreign concept to how the church was founded and how believers lived for the first 300 years after the death of the apostles.

The following YouTube video (speaker Jerry Walls) is an excellent expose of the errors of Calvinism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzWN0Kw3Bl0

[Linda]

I always thought of my GC church as Baptists in disguise (so much in disguise that they don't know they are) so assumed they leaned more toward Calvinism. My experience was more in line with ISU alumna's professor's thoughts in the opening comment. The idea that God put you in the church you are in under the leaders you are under so are supposed to be there seems more in line with Calvinism.

I understand, though, that there have been some differences among leaders/members over this issue in recent times.

[student]

I thought this site had pretty good information about the topic and thought I'd share it here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/calvinism.html


this goes more in depth and on the bottom, you can go to the next point in the 5 points, starting with total depravity:

http://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html

[AgathaL'Orange]

I think in GC there is an inability to dialog or express differing opinions without people taking offense.  They are compulsive about unity.

[Linda]

They are compulsive about unity.

Agreed.

Unity is the cardinal doctrine...May God give us a driving spirit of unity, a spirit that consistently burns brighter and hotter than all jealousy, envy and selfish ambition put together! There must be unity at all cost. When believers divide over so-called doctrine, they are always trampling under foot the cardinal doctrine — UNITY.

Here is the link to the full text. The part quoted is in the section entitled "Plurality".
http://gcxweb.org/Books/Leadership/Elders.aspx

This is why pastors continue to teach error. No pastor ever corrects another because that would violate the cardinal doctrine of unity. There can be no meaningful "plurality" or accountability when the cardinal doctrine is unity.

[MidnightRider]

I think in GC there is an inability to dialog or express differing opinions without people taking offense.  They are compulsive about unity.

I think you are right, but there is a cart and horse question. If the leaders had been Calvinists, they would have insisted on everybody uniting as Calvinists.

The background of some of the leaders was the Plymouth Brethren denomination. That is where they got most of their theology.