Church government

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.

[Kirsten]

I’ve noticed that church government (elder rule vs. a style with more congregational input) has come up several times in regards to changes suggested for GC, most recently by GCM2Timer above.

I’m curious what Bible verses anyone here or “people in general” would use to support that model. I’m not trying to ask this in a derogatory way at all. I’ve heard/studied the verses used to support the elder rule model but I have not heard much as far as verses to support the other views (or seen it personally in my own Bible reading, which doesn’t mean it isn’t there!)

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity on this!

[nateswinton]

Great question, Kirsten.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Kirsten,
I think this is a great passage that describes congregational involvement. The group of believers (numbered at around 120) was choosing who would be the “replacement apostle” for Judas. They elected Matthias by casting lots on a choice of two nominees, Matthias and Barsabbas. I actually suscribe to the hierachical rule of the church, not necessarily a democratic rule, but I think that this passage shows that congregations can and should have input even on very important matters.

Acts 1:12-26 Here’s the passage.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[a] from the city. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20″For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
” ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[c] and,
” ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[d] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

[Genevieve]

I also think it goes back to respecting the Holy Spirit moving in the church as a whole and not just to the leaders. I think if they want to stick to the hierarchical method of leadership, then it seems like there should be another layer of accountability like the early church had with bishops overseeing regions of churches. They should become un-autonomous and really watch over the churches.

I also don’t think it has to be necessarily one or the other with either trusting the Holy Spirit is leading through the people or having strong leadership. There can be a middle ground. At the hierarchical church I go to, higher up church leaders make a lot of the major decisions, though a church council governs each church’s activities.

And there have been times when the leaders have made a decision but the people did not follow. Instead of assuming it was the devil dividing them, they trusted that the Holy Spirit was working in the people and dropped the issue. I think that’s very humble and very wise leadership–leading and following at the same time.

[nateswinton]

“Instead of assuming it was the devil dividing them, they trusted that the Holy Spirit was working in the people and dropped the issue. I think that’s very humble and very wise leadership–leading and following at the same time.”

I agree completely. I’m sure that was encouraging to watch.

[Dipping my toes in....]

Kristen -



So far, I agree most with what Genevieve said. I think it’s necessary to have a leadership structure, but that leadership structure needs to respect the free will of their followers.



I believe in authority and respecting authority (though I don’t believe individuals in authority are any better or somehow more connected with God than anyone else). However, disagreeing and even actively disagreeing with authority does not necessarily imply disrespect of authority or lack of submission in my opinion. I view the US government as a good model of this. In America, you can disagree, protest, and take stands against the government without fear of reprisal from the government. Unless you do something illegal (attempting to overthrow leadership, acts of violence, threaten acts of violence, etc), you are free to take whatever stand you feel led to. Debate and disagreement is encouraged and healthy.



I would suspect that GCM considers their government model similar to the US gov’t, however, replace until you do something illegal with until you are deliberately in sin. Which is where the trouble lies for me as “deliberately in sin” can be interpreted very loosely or very narrowly. I think GCM interprets it far too narrowly sometimes, and fails to have a movement wide standard of what constitutes “deliberately in sin.”

[MamaD]

MamaD prefers the presbyterian form of church government (with the small “p”). In this form, elders are elected by the church members and make up what is called the “session”. It is the session that has final say in the decisions for the local church.

Then, from the elders at each church, some are sent to the higher assemblies to decide on national policy. MamaD likes this one because there is accountability from the congregation, as well as accountability from the denomination.

MamaD dislikes the term “congregationalism” because GCM people use it wrong all the time. (That’s because they have the definition wrong in their GCLI teaching).

Congregational churches are churches that aren’t part of a denomination. Congregationalism is where every local congregation is independent. So, oddly enough, GCM churches are congregational (at least on paper because they say they each church is independent) since they aren’t accountable to a denomination). Congregationalism is not where everyone in the church gets together on Tuesdays to vote on what type of toilet paper the church should use.

The third form of government is episcopal. This would be found in Catholic and Orthodox churches (and I may be wrong here, but I think the Methodist and Lutheran churches lean this way) and is a more heierarchical structure with less (or no) input from the congregation. My dear friends on this blog who are Orthodox would know about what type of involvement the congregation has.

It’s hard to figure out, but GCM people think they are presbyterian in governance (because they read in their paper that “presbyterian” means “elder-led”), but from what I have been able to figure out they are a mix of congregational (since they say each local church is independent from the national organization) and episcopal (since they have a line of succession of leaders…elders appointing elders.)

Which gets me to my final point on eldership in GCM. If you take a current elder and ask yourself the question, “Where did he get his authority?” The answer will be, “From the current elders in the local church.”

Next question, “And, where did the current elders get their authority?” Answer: “Oh, they were appointed by the elders who were sent here to do a church plant in our fair city.”

Next question: “And, where did the elders who were sent here to do a church plant in our fair city get their authority?” Answer: “They got their authority from the elders in Ames who sent them here.”

Final question: “And where did the elders in Ames get their authority?”

Answer: “They got their authority from self appointed apostle Jim Mccctter.”

If you are a current leader in GCM, whether you like it or not, your authority can be traced back in an unbroken chain of “authority” to Jim McCotter.

I rest my case.

Oh, and my husband and I were told that the governance of our local church would never change and were asked to leave it rather than to stay and try to change it.

One more thing and I don’t know what it meant, but it has haunted me. One of the founding pastors who came up from Ames said, “You realize that if you go around telling people you think we are wrong, we are going to have to defend ourselves?”

We should have said, “What is that supposed to mean?” I decided that he meant he would give a Biblical case for why they thought we are wrong. That’s more than fair.

But, we do wish we would have asked him what he meant by that statement. It seemed like a threat.

[MamaD]

Shucks, that should read Jim McCotter, I don’t know who Jim Mccctter is!

[TerryD]

There is an excellent case to be made for being elder-led and at the same time recognizing the role and final authority of the congregation within a church. A well known church in our area expresses it succinctly on this (broken) link:

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1991/761_Who_Are_the_Elders/

The argument could certainly be made that there are several New Testament compatible governance models, but in relation to GC, some observations:

1. Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy historically has not been one of them
2. Even if GC style polity were an option, it’s not a good idea for GC. With the GC track record and reputation of authoritarianism over the years, they of all people desperately need something providing maximum accountability to congregations,
3. Any stated desire for reformation, any progress toward greater humility and spiritual health (a la 1991 Apology Statement) that doesn’t address the need for real structural change seems disingenuous
4. Such change is highly unlikely at this point. A lot of positions and career paths are dependent on the philosophy and structure now in place. It’s a “distinctive” deeply entrenched that most of them really believe in.

[randomous]

This is in response to a convo begun on the Book of Government thread.  In response to MamaD on the topic of congregationalism and GC's style of govt, as well as belief on the final step in Matthew 18.
Interesting.  No, I actually haven't seen that GCLI document.  I was actually just recently reading the three respective articles on wikipedia (none of them are written very well) before my last post.  
But definitely, MamaD is correct in saying that congregational doesn't mean they vote on everything.  I didn't mean to imply that.  I was talking only about the belief regarding Matthew 18 and "the church" in that.  A presbyterian believing person is more likely to accept that 'the church" is an elder board, whereas a congregationalist is more likely to want the entire body involved in something like that.  
In some ways it's moot - just a cursory look at the wiki articles and discussion pages will show you that the definitions of these three types are by no means agreed upon.  Especially when it comes to how that actually plays out.  So I think it's rather presumptious to say "If anyone tells you otherwise, they are misinformed".
It's definitely not a simple subject, and by "it" I mean both the three styles and the meaning of Matthew 18.  There's an example in 1 Cor of picking a board for something like that.  There's common sense (would you want someone to accuse you publicly of adultery, especially if it's not true?).  Plus from the beginning there have been unbeleivers mixed with believers in the church - part of the reason Paul preaches the gospel over and over in the epistles.  
Basically, I was trying to say we need to be very careful in condemning their application of Matthew 18.  This isn't a settled matter.  As for why they put the extra step of going to the national leadership, I would imagine that it is more practical than theological.  I'd guess it results from the past and present criticisms, and calls of people for something like that.  They are an association, which means that they'd naturally want to help resolve disputes in local member churches, or at least know if something is wrong so they can fix or evict that.
That's my two bits.

[jehu]

Therein lies the problem: we all operated under the delusion that we were included in "the church".  I wonder where we got such an outrageous idea?

[MamaD]

Jehu,
Brilliant answer!

Randomous,
You said, "A presbyterian believing person is more likely to accept that 'the church" is an elder board, whereas a congregationalist is more likely to want the entire body involved in something like that."

Mr. D and I were married in the presbyterian church that I was a member of. I can assure you that in no way did I or any other member there ever view (or be taught) that the elder board (called the session) of the church was "the church". No way. Never. They were elected (as are all presbyterian elders) by the congregation, they had term limits, they were accountable to the congregation and the denomination. A two way accountability. Local and national.

You wrote
"So I think it's rather presumptious to say "If anyone tells you otherwise, they are misinformed".

Did you read what I wrote?

I said, "I, MamaD, don't favor the congregational form of government. I prefer the presbyterian. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are misinformed."

I wrote this because a couple Evergreen pastors have spoken and written us things that show they assume that my husband and I prefer a more "congregational" form of church government. I was speaking for myself. A congregational form of governance would not be at the top of my list. I like the "local" and "national" accountability. It seems more safe.

Also, the word used in Matthew 18 is "ekklesia".

It means:

d. in a Christian sense

   1. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
   2. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
   3. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
   4. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
   5. the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

So, my question is: What is the church to GCM? It seems like they view leadership as the church. Another question would be: Are gifts given by the Holy Spirit to all Christians or just the "elders"? Maybe they need a paper explaining this.

[puff of purple smoke]

Here is what GCLI (GC's leadership training program) says in one of their official documents regarding congregational vs. elder led churches:

7.  Our understanding of how a N.T church is led should strengthen our commitment to the local church.

   Maybe our view of how we think a church should be governed has some bearing on this question of commitment to the local church?  
There are two basic types of church governance.  Congregational and elder led.  
While as both types might have strengths and weaknesses, we have held as pastors a commonly shared belief that God’s pattern is for pastors/elders to lead.  
And to lead in plurality.  This does not mean that effective leading pastors are not sensitive to the wishes and desires of their flock, but we see clearly in the New Testament that elders led.  The congregations did not lead.
   I don’t mean to cast any negative thoughts on congregational led churches, but it seems like Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.  They keep watch over you as men who must given an account.  Obey them so that their work will be a joy. . .”  and 1 Peter 5:2, “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers – not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be. . . .”  would teach that an elder led church is the truer, Biblical model.  And that we are not only to follow and obey God’s leaders in His local church, but we are to make them even smile when they think of us!  
These passages would suggest that if we ever left our local church, that we would at least leave with the counsel and blessing of the pastors. How can church leaders give an account, without this kind of fundamental relationship with their people?  
If we are to submit ourselves to our leaders, then our commitment will always be tested.  Similar to how a wife is tested when she must submit to a husband.
If submission to others is not a crucial part of our understanding of how a church should be led, there would, intrinsically, be less testing of commitment.  
If someone holds to a congregational view, then they probably would be less inclined because of those views, to really value submission and loyalty to the local church.  After all, believers are the ones in charge, in that world.
(link to full document)

[MamaD]

All I can say after reading that is, "Seminary can be a really good thing!"

Or, just reading books and studying on your own.

But, for heaven's sake, don't limit yourself to papers written by self-taught leaders. They might be correct or they might be totally off.

Someone needs to tell these people that "congregational" and "elder-led" are not opposites.

In fact, I currently attend a congregational church that is elder-led.

Congregational in that it is independent of a denomination.

Elder-led in that there is a board of elders that lead the church.

I think this is called "equivocation". Using words with more than one meaning. GCM uses the word "congregational" in one way. A text book on church government would not have the same definition. So, it's difficult to have the conversation when you are using the same word, but meaning different things.

[randomous]

I'd encourage a reading of the wikipedia article "Congregationalist Polity", and the discussion thereof.  The last paragraph under the Basics lays out some of the things pretty well.  GC is definitely congregationalist in terms of independent, autonomous congregations (yeah i know, some people disagree with this statement).  
But there's more to congregationalist thought than just that.  There are other common attributes.  One of the ideas is that elders essentially serve at the pleasure of the congregation.  Really that's the way it is with most churches in america.  I come from a Baptist background, and the congregation hires and fires the pastor, with prompting by the deacons and/or a committee.  The bottom line though is that while elders do lead in terms of being a figurehead, they're not really in authority.  They do what the deacons tell them, not the other way around.  I personally think that's a travesty.  
Then, as the GCLI article pointed out, there is the idea that church is a completely voluntary thing.  You don't like it, you just leave.  There's little concept of submission to leaders in congregationalist polity that I can see.  
Those two things are noted in the wikipedia article, as well as the fact that  in congregationalism over time more and more things have become subject to a whole church vote.  
I just think some people aren't giving the GCLI article a fair reading.  No matter how much you hate GC*, there's no reason to automatically reject something just because they said it.

[MamaD]

First of all, if you understood Wikipedia, you would not view it as a primary source. I suggest you buff up on church governance by reading some more scholarly documents. You can find some on the Internet. Or, just go to the library and get yourself some church history books.

Wiki can change from minute to minute, plus that article you referenced has a lot of warnings about it being personal opinion and containing undocumented sources.

I come from a Baptist background, and the congregation hires and fires the pastor, with prompting by the deacons and/or a committee.

Guess what, this description of your Baptist church is also the way pastors are hired in the Presbyterian church with the exception being that in the Presbyterian church the pastor must be approved by the local Presbytery as well as the local congregation. There is a double accountability (up and down) in the Presbyterian system.

My problem with the GCLI article is that is misrepresents the traditional definitions of church governance types and therefore misleads people. The author seems to make up things when he says there are two basic types of church governance and then proceeds to make up a definition of what they are.

He also creates a straw man when he talks about "church shopping." He assumes that all people who find themselves in a position of looking for a new church are asking the questions: “Do these people love me and appreciate me?  Is there a quality Sunday School program?  Do we like the music?  Is there a strong youth ministry?  Is the pastor funny?  Is the preaching sound?  Do I feel like I am loved in this church?”  

Then he shoots down that argument as being selfish and shallow.

I suggest that one of those reasons is an excellent reason to find yourself looking for a new church. That would be the "Is the preaching sound?" question. If the preaching isn't sound, get outa there...FAST.

[randomous]

Haha, believe me, I understand wikipedia.  In fact, I was responsible for those warnings on that page.  My point there is that a) you don't have a monopoly on the definitions and b) there are apparently some who contradict your view.  The editor(s) there apparently agree with you on the core definition, but not on the practice.  I'd bet that that's the case with the "scholarly" documents as well.  Do you really think the books on church government all have the same definitions?  If so you're less well read than you purport to be.
I understand that you have much against GC*.  However, they weren't trying to present a cong vs. pres vs. episc. polity view judging from that quote. It seems to be talking about practically.  In the real world, either the congregation makes the decisions or the pastor does.  It's a question of who's in authority.  In the majority of US churches, while the pastor is the "leader" by title, the congregation is in authority.  He/she is entirely at the congregation's whim.  Whether you agree with that or not, it's an accurate way to view the two styles.  Fundamentally, that's one way to separate the practices.  
I just now looked at the full document to find your quote on church-shopping.  It's not even an article about church government!  The context is an article about Committment to the Local Church (in title).  The re is a small section about leadership and submission that talks about this topic, very small in context.  What's the purpose of the author?  To relate church leadership and membership to committment.  It's preposterous to expect a full discussion of the three "traditional" categories of governance when the author's discussing only one aspect.  Again, context.
Sorry if the tone of this post seems rude, I'm just shocked by the lack of intellectual honesty displayed here.

[MamaD]

Randomous,

This is a pointless discussion.

You say: "My point there is that a) you don't have a monopoly on the definitions and b) there are apparently some who contradict your view."


It doesn't matter what "my" definition of any particular type of church government is. What does matter is that we are talking about the same thing when we use certain words. I was trying to point out that most Christian schools and seminaries teach the three different leadership styles as I described them.

GCM teaches two and their words mean different things.

I was aware that the article was on commitment to the church, not church government. My comment was directed at your comment:

"I just think some people aren't giving the GCLI article a fair reading. No matter how much you hate GC*, there's no reason to automatically reject something just because they said it."

If we're going to give the article a fair reading, we need to understand the straw man that was created in that example. I was particularly troubled that an elder would not care about whether or not a pastor taught sound doctrine.

I rejected parts of the article because they were Biblically unsound.

Having said all that, I will give you the last word on this topic. I don't want to leave people with the impression that I will die on the mountain of church government. Really, you can make a case for all of them.

What you can't make a case for, in my opinion, is having a system that excludes the congregation from the church. The Holy Spirit gives each Christian gifts. Being a pastor is one of the gifts. Jesus is the head of the church, not the pastor. Whatever governance system honors that is fine with me.

[puff of purple smoke]

No matter how much you hate GC*, there's no reason to automatically reject something just because they said it.

I'm just shocked by the lack of intellectual honesty displayed here.

Come on, these comments seem out of line.

People who disagree with that paper are only doing so because they hate GC so much they are rejecting anything GC publishes?

A lack of "intellectual honesty"? I really don't think Mamad is trying to deceive anyone here!

In the majority of US churches, while the pastor is the "leader" by title, the congregation is in authority. He/she is entirely at the congregation's whim. Whether you agree with that or not, it's an accurate way to view the two styles.

I don't think this characterization is typical. The "congregation's whim"? A phrase like that brings to mind images of the pastor preaching a bad sermon, and the congregation getting together afterwards and voting him out. It seems like fear mongering. In GC I often felt a sense of paranoia from leaders, who brought up "obey your leaders" verses way too frequently. That probably should have been my first clue that something was "off." Why would "servant leaders" who are obeying the voice of God need to continually assert themselves as the unquestioned "spiritual dictators" of the church? Since when does God only speak to pastors? Isn't a pastor's job to teach the congregation to develop their own relationship with Jesus? If they were doing this job effectively, wouldn't non-pastors then be able to hear from God too?

In any church, of either governmental style, pastors have more of an influence than the congregation. They're the ones who speak before the church each week. They plan events and lay out the vision they have before the church. If God is alive and active, he will lay his plans for the church on the hearts of the pastors as well as people in the congregation. I have seen it. God does not just speak to "pastors." He does not just want an active relationship with leaders. He wants the full body to be in operation. He has called us all into a living relationship with him, no matter what our gifts are.

I have been in several churches with boards of elders, and to be honest I usually didn't even know they had them. The pastors still led, and did everything you'd expect leaders to do. I never witnessed a congregationalist church voting out pastors based on "whims." I have seen a deep sense of commitment and loyalty in these churches in the long time members, and the best part was that this commitment wasn't forced or coerced from the pulpit via frequent "obey your leaders" sermons!

GC pastors, such as Brent Knox, have taught that God speaks to leaders before they speak to the congregation. Why is it that God can talk to the pastors but not to a board of elders also? Aren't they just another type of leader?

I think terryd absolutely nailed it on the head when he said previously:
Even if GC style polity were an option, it’s not a good idea for GC. With the GC track record and reputation of authoritarianism over the years, they of all people desperately need something providing maximum accountability to congregations

This is a movement with a history of abusive practices and teachings. Why, if they desire change, do they continue to espouse the view that a few "lone rangers" is better than a leadership structure that is held accountable by the congregation/board of elders? They should want as much accountability as possible.

[randomous]

MamaD, I appreciate your giving me the last word.  
First, in response to puff, I wasn't trying to say that MamaD was being deceitful.  Honesty and intellectual honesty are two very different things.  A good definition of intellectual honesty (actually from wikipedia, go figure) is "intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence.[2] For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely."
In application, what I was saying is that there was a lack of proportion - taking a very short passage from a paper on committment and comparing it to a full-on attempt at a history of the three common types of church government.  I don't think it's appropriate to compare the two - the one is a very practical definition talking about one aspect (elders or congregations being in authority).  
PUff, I'm glad you've been a part of such churches.  I come from a small town in the mountains of NC.  A pastor's life expectancy here is about 2 years.  My first pastor, who led me to Christ, was forced out bc someone claimed he slammed a door when leaving a deacon's meeting (the door in question was very heavy and opened uphill - everyone slammed it).  Actually, there was no reason given in the "vote to have a vote of confidence".  There are 46 baptist churches in my county with an average attendance of 38.  Church splitting has replaced church planting.  I see that happen a lot more across baptist churches as I've visited, and other denoms too (a CCCU pastor I met recently went up against a board, the denom had to absolve the board for him to have authority in the matter in question bc the board had become entrenched.  A church split result, predictably)
I've known churches that've kicked out pastors for much less - accidentally allowing an NIV verse to be quoted, etc.  I know a lot of pastors who live in constant fear of saying something the congregation's not "ready for" or which the ruling clique/family disagrees with and being forced out.  That can be contemporary music, whether drinking is a sin, preferred translations, or a host of other things.
I have a great problem with the Hire-Fire system of choosing pastors to begin with, but that's a different issue.
In GC, elder boards are made up of pastors.  So not sure how you meant to apply that - elder and pastor are the same (or at least that is the way GC sees it in Scripture).
A common example pointed out outside of GC is the people of Israel and how they rebelled against Moses.  There are plenty of examples where the congregation's "majority opinion" was absolutely wrong, but the leaders led.  
Nobody wants to exclude the congregation.  The question addressed in that paper is not really systems of governance - it's who is in authority.  Just as in a marriage, no good husband would ignore the wants of his sife.  But he's still in authority.  No good pastor is going to ignore his congregation, though there may be times he has to go against the prevailing opinion.  Its the same concept.  GC, and I, believe authority should be in the pastors' hands rather than the congregations.  It's one or the other, ultimately (no equal authority cop-outs please - there will be disagreements).  That's what the little section in the paper meant, and that's what I meant by intellectual honesty.  Taking things for what they're meant to be applied to and not out of context.  
this isn't the only topic this could be applied to.  I believe the contempt for GC that many individuals have has impacted their ability to be intellectually honest in a lot of their criticisms on this forum.  It's understandable and expectable, but no less true.
Oh, and as for them not caring about whether a pastor teaches sound doctrine - I'd ask you to examine the intellectual honesty of that statement.  Do you really think that's what GC believes?