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.

[MamaD]

Just to clarify, the GCLI paper that I referred to in the section entitled "The Book of Government" (remember, we moved the discussion to this section?) was not the same GCLI that Puff referenced a few posts back that had a section on government.

The GCLI paper I mentioned was about 8 pages long and entirely on church government. I believe the part on government in the paper Puff referenced was a portion of the paper I referred to.

[puff of purple smoke]

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?

I'm not going to say GC as a rule never cares if a pastor teaches sound doctrine, but I do think there is an unhealthy overemphasis on "unity" and "loyalty" over sound doctrine and truth. It has even been explicitly stated by Herschel, Brent Knox, and others that we are to submit to our church leaders even if they are wrong. That belief was very widespread in the GC church I attended. This is an "old teaching" that has been present in the movement for decades. Couple this with a leadership structure that isn't accountable to its congregation, in a church movement which has admitted authoritarian tendencies in the past, and you're setting yourself up for some serious trouble.

Look again at your question, "Do you really think that's what GC believes?" Teachers are responsible for teaching clearly. This is leadership training material we are quoting. When Rick Whitney includes "Is the preaching sound?" in a list alongside frivolous church-hopper questions like "Is the pastor funny?", he is sending a message. Given his numerous sermons on loyalty to GC "for life," does anyone really think Rick would ever counsel someone to leave their GC church because the teaching was off? I doubt it. I'm guessing they would receive instead a lecture on loyalty and submission. This is a national leader who teaches other pastors that we are to "plant our flag and die" with GC, and who says that he won't even walk alongside men who are not committed to their local church (ie: GC), because "They lack courage." I realize Rick doesn't constitute all of GC, but he is a major influence who is looked up to, and who teachers other pastors and leaders in the movement.

I spent enough time in GC to understand what "elder led" meant to GC. It meant decisions were made between leaders, behind closed doors, with little or no input from the congregation. It meant that any given Sunday morning, you shouldn't be surprised if a pastor got on stage and sprung a major change to the church upon the congregation. It meant that people who questioned that change were being disobedient to God, and not submitting to the authority of the leaders. When I was in GC I didn't usually notice anything wrong with this approach, however, it manifested itself in other areas of leadership that made the problem with this type of leadership more clear:

Husbands were taught to lead their homes like dictators, and women were taught submission, submission, submission. An example was given that, should a certain husband decide one night that he felt God wanted him to go on a church plant, it would be acceptable for him to come home and say "Honey, pack your things, quit your job, we're moving!" with no input from his wife. This was held up as an acceptable example of male leadership.

The leader/blind-submission model extended itself into the way small group leaders led as well. Leaders were making major changes to the small group without input from the people attending, and when people complained because their input wasn't asked for in those decisions, what followed was an entire small group dedicated to the importance of obeying your leaders. To their credit, eventually these particular small group leaders did see the light and apologize, but one doesn't have to look very far to understand where they got the idea that they were to lead without input from those they were leading.

GC's idea of what leadership should look like is very McCotter-esqe. To this day they idealize the type of "lone ranger" leader that Jim McCotter was. One of the things GC apologized for in 1991 was "authoritarian leadership," but here we are, 16 years later, dealing with the same issues. Obviously an error statement wasn't enough. Perhaps GC should rethink their beliefs on church government and leadership entirely. That is, if they are actually concerned about authoritarian practices in the movement.

[jehu]

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.

How exactly was this alleged opinion poll taken?  As I recall, the gift of Mind Reading wasn't one that Paul listed.  It is in fact my allegation that the GC pastors in my experience didn't listen and weren't any good, and put themselves in Christ's place just as your analogy proves once again.  There is one Bridegroom and you ain't it.  Please sit at the far right end of the table.

Poor Flicka.  She was such a good horse.

[randomous]

Thanks for clarifying MamaD.  I suppose I've never seen the paper you've been referring to, only the one puff posted.  But of course we were discussing quotes from that one anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter much.
To Jehu, with a good set of pastors there's no need to take an opinion poll.  A good shepherd knows his sheep because he's in constant contact with them.  My analogy from before doesn't show pastors taking Christ's place.  I'm just pointing out the parallels.  In both relationships, there is authority and submission.  In a marriage, the husband is in authority.  In a church, the elders are in authority.  I'm talking about in actual scripture verses here.  So don't blame me, or GC, for the bible using the same terms in both.  (I'm sure someone will dispute that, I just can't imagine how).
To Puff, I've never met a single GC husband who led his home like a dictator, or heard a teaching.  Perhaps my church is just more mature on that aspect, but I've met a lot of guys outside of it too.  Again, with submission, it's scripture that teaches that (am I wrong).  
I don't understand this "lone ranger" analogy being applied to churches that constantly strive for plurality in leadership.  That lone ranger mentality is preached against all the time, and cited as a reason plurality is ideal, to prevent that.
And finally, as for the "is the preaching sound" comment, I advocate using common sense and context.  I doubt anyone here honestly believes that GC doesn't value sound preaching.  The point of that article is that no church is perfect, and you're always going to find something you dislike about it.  25% of americans switching churches each year is pretty sad.  No preacher is perfect either, and the way we've all seen that played out is somebody, without talking to anybody at all, suddenly says "I'm not being fed by the sermons on Sunday, so I'm switching churches.  I really like the way Pastor Jigglypuff over at Warioworld Methodist preaches, I just feel like I get so much from his sermons."  And then of course you ask them what they learned the last time, and of course they don't remember, and when you get to the bottom of it, 9 times out of 10, Jigglypuff's just a more entertaining guy who goes through scripture in such a way that people feel like they learn more when they really don't.  That's why I understand that question being in there - it can be asked wrongly, and understood wrongly, or applied wrongly (as in, one comment strikes a person wrong, instead of trying to talk it out they just walk out - happens in all kinds of churches, not just GC).  So I purport that it's a valid inclusion.

[sistanchrist]

In response to Puff,  another entertaining aspect of elder lead, at least at our old church, is that elders decisions weren't even discussed with the rest of the leaders during leadership meetings until the decision was already in play.  Which brings an interesting question, who is defined as elders?  I know it isn't the small group leaders, or small group leader coaches as decisions were sprung on them about a day before it was sprung on the congregation.

[MamaD]

Poor Flicka. She was such a good horse. :lol:

[jehu]

Excuse me, please.  Your Pastor Jigglypuff story is full of false assumptions and really nasty insinuations about good Christians in general.  You're assuming that anyone who won't sign their name in blood to a specific leadership team are flakes and that is exactly the kind of elitist tripe I would expect from Great Commission.

There are amazing bible-learning, conviction-challenging, God-worshipping churches all over the nation that are successful at making their members feel like family, not drones in a corporation.  Occassionally God calls us places we do not expect.  These churches understand this and give their departing members a warm guilt-free sendoff.  I don't feel one bit sorry about the blanket statements that I've made about Great Commission, mostly because this little hand-me-down piece of "philosophy" is the exactly the kind of disparaging generalization that GC was founded on, straight from the book of Jim McCotter.

So let's continue by noting the great successful pastors within Great Commission.  Mark Darling?  Tom Short?  Your people call them "celebrities" and create little cliques behind them in direct opposition to Scripture.  They yell and cause commotion, and sometimes have spouted hateful language precisely to draw a crowd.  The concert atmosphere, the trademark leather jackets and hawaiian shirts, the diatribe--tell me that's not entertainment.  Go ahead, tell me you're not exactly the person you accuse the rest of us of being.  The only difference between your pastors and "Pastor Jigglypuff" is that "Pastor Jigglypuff" doesn't offer you the macho heil-reich and adrenaline your flesh craves.

[jehu]

In response to Puff,  another entertaining aspect of elder lead, at least at our old church, is that elders decisions weren't even discussed with the rest of the leaders during leadership meetings until the decision was already in play.  Which brings an interesting question, who is defined as elders?  I know it isn't the small group leaders, or small group leader coaches as decisions were sprung on them about a day before it was sprung on the congregation.

For the purposes of day-to-day operations within the church, the elders are pastoral staff only.  In twice a year meetings, the board members, who are also elders, have oversight.  Their directive from GCA is not to remove pastoral staff without GCA permission.  Since the board really has no "teeth", their role is mostly decorative, much like the pre Magna Carta parliament in Britain.

The role of small group leaders is somewhat questionable.  I've heard it argued by some that they are not deacons, but in asking a small group leader what biblical authority he had, he referred me to the deacon passage.  Deacons are not elder.  Deacons do not have the responsibility of "one who must give an account".  The fact that deacons do not typically use the title "deacon" leaves a lot of leeway as to who may be included, and this is how Christians lacking maturity can end up in these roles in some cases.

[randomous]

In response to sista, in GC elder=pastor=bishop=overseer.  Four words, one position.  Elder can be understandably confused given that in our language it also means one who is older, but GC generally uses it to mean those who fit the character requirements of 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.  Also on that topic, you would know if someone was a deacon probably - small groups leaders generally aren't deacons, the guy jehu mentioned may have been or may have just been comparing it to that, but they would be "recognized" in the same way elders are.  Servants without governmental authority.
To Jehu - your anger at GC is really showing, both in this and in the posts with Sam (who I don't know anymore than you, fyi).  I do think he has a point in that people are allowed to make unsubstantiated personal claims here about GC, but not about Wellspring.  It is quite a double standard.  This is just and observation.  
I couldn't agree more that there are great churches all over our country.  Christian Missionary Alliance, EV Free, CCCU, Vineyard, Assembly of God are all overwhelmingly good in my experience.  There are plenty in the major denoms too, though I believe them to be in the minority.  It all comes down in the end to whether church is a meeting or a body, a place I go to be taught or something I'm a part of.  The point of my example wasn't even to diss Pastor Jigglypuff - he's probably a great guy and a great teacher.  It also wasn't a hypothetical - I've seen people say that and play that scenario out over and over, almost verbatim.  We should definitely make sure our pastors are teaching correctly, but as I said earlier "is preaching sound" can "be asked wrongly, and understood wrongly, or applied wrongly".  And it often is.  This isn't a GC-only phenomenon - a full 25% of americans switch churches EVERY YEAR.  That is embarrasing, and shows that our culture doesn't understand what church is all about.  A pastor changes, one sermon strikes someone wrong, they hear a preacher they "get more from" (anybody else ever think about that statement and what it shows about the person saying it?), and BAM, one out of four are out the door this year, one out of four next year, and on and on.  This isn't a GC-issue at all, it's a church in america issue - i hope everyone recognizes how sick the church in our country is.  I definitely recommend "Stop Dating the Church" by Joshua Harris, he's a non-GC guy saying exactly the same things.      
One more note on the supposed "elitism" of GC - in reality GC works with more different denoms than just about anybody out there.  Especially in terms of how many denoms support their missionaries.  I myself spoke at a CCCU church this morning, a great church.  It's one of the most ironic claims here - every GC church i know works with all the other parachurch and denom campus ministries in their area, and with other churches.  Mine for example had our leadership retreat at one denom's church, our elder recognition service at another, a passover ceremony at another, etc.

[jehu]

I feel the stinging pain of your embarrassment, but again it's quite clear that the bible doesn't list switching churches as a sin.  I listened to a pastor this morning say "If I ever find that the Lord is at work in another church in our region and not in ours, well that's where you'll find me.  'Pastor John, don't you have any loyalty to this church?' No.  My loyalty is to God."  I said "Amen!" and I was not the only one.  And I happened to be in another church this morning, not because I'm browsing, but because it's where I had an opportunity to worship.  Joshua Harris is a young guy with a lot of ideas on how we're not making the grade as Christians, with all manner of books on how one behavior or another is as good as sin, but you know what?  Joshua Harris ain't my Lord and savior.  And when you put the elders of a church in the place of the Godhead, you are showing your true loyalties.

[randomous]

For your pastor who says his "loyalty is to God", that's great.  Great if one wants to cop out of obligations the Bible says we had.  It's kinda like someone saying to me "submit to the govt." and I say "I'll only submit to God".  Sounds great, but wait a minute.  God tells me in Scripture to submit to authorities, specifically to the government and to my elders.  Ah, so since God tells me to do so, I can only submit to him by doing so.  There's where the cop-out fails.  If I'm loyal to God, I'm gonna be loyal to God's people.  I'm going to submit to those he's put in authority.
Which brings up the key question in church-hopping.  What attitude does church-hopping reveal?  It reveals that we view ourselves as the ultimate authority, that we have no intention of submitting to others or to our leaders.  Which is the original sin - Satan wanted to be God, as do we.  So we try not to be accountable or loyal to anyone.  It's just us, doing what we want.  We like a pastor better, we hop to his church.  We get tired of a certain aspect, hop hop hop.  We "find that the Lord is at work in another church or region and not in ours", we hop to there instead of seeking for the Lord to work where he's put us and improving the situation.  It's all about me, me, me   http://www.sermonspice.com/cart/?p=product&id=592.  It's not about serving the church, being a blessing to our leaders, or doing what God has for us to.   It's about going where we're best served.  http://www.sermonspice.com/search?q=Me+Church&x=0&y=0.
It's not specifically a sin to switch churches, but in many situations it reveals or is motivated by a sinful attitude of pride and disobedience to leadership.  (2 Peter 2 puts this in an interesting category).

[Miss Current]

Let's slow down a bit on the 25% of us jumping churches EVERY YEAR.  (By the way, that is a blanket statement...and I'm okay with it).  But...before we go down the pew shaking our finger at every fourth person and telling them DON'T leave this church this year, let's analyze this for a second.

The following come to mind as maybe the top three contributing factors to the 25% figure:

1) A good percentage of Amercians MOVE every year.  I have in the last 12 months and moving a thousand miles necessitates a church change...went from an Assembly of God to a non-denominational pentecostal church.  There is a good chance I will move again within a year about 30 miles...which in Denver will cause another church change.  I guarantee it is by the leading of the Lord, so even some church changing involves the Will of God.

2) At one end of the spectrum there are going to be CHURCHES...for whatever reasons...which contribute a higher proportion of that 25% than do other churches.  Those churches would need attention more than the churches which "have it right" (or however you want to describe it).

3) Also...at one end of the spectrum for PEOPLE...there are going to be those who jump churches more often then others, further contributing to a higher proportionate share of that 25% figure.  These people need more attention on the subject than the consistent, faithful congregational members who are the bedrock of great churches across America.

So let's don't get demoralized relating to church jumping.  My personal experience would be that I have seen a percentage that is more likely in the single digits.  Factor in the above three items and I have not encountered a problem in my experiences.  Maybe I have just been a part of a few very good churches.

So I'm not disputing the 25% figure, we just need to focus and target our reaction to it in the most appropriate places.

Having said that...I don't think there is any church in America that shouldn't or couldn't grow more and win more souls to Jesus.  And there are very few people (if any) in America who couldn't grow closer to Jesus.  We DEFINITELY all (both churches and people) need to reach out more to the lost!!!!

[MamaD]

Randomous,

Are you a pastor?

[randomous]

No ma'am

[jehu]

Blind submission to authority isn't just idiocy, in some cases it can result in the worst sins man can perpetrate.  I suppose if you were in Daniel's place and the mistress of the house had instructed you to "lie down" you would have without question?  Which prophets should have altered their message to better satisfy their temporal leaders?  And Great Commission has always supported the laws of those countries who prohibit importing the Bible *wink, wink*  You presume that Hebrews 13 authorizes an elder complete authority over all his congregation.  Good luck with that!  At least your pastor in all likelihood remembers your name and who you are--you may have even worked very hard to make this true.  In your case, I agree.  I suggest you get a tattoo to celebrate.

[MamaD]

The word "jurisdiction" comes to mind with the authority examples. Just what is the extent of someone's authority or control.

For example, a policeman is a person with authority. His authority is limited to enforcing the law. If I am driving down the road, going over the speed limit, he/she has the authority to pull me over and give me a ticket.

If, I am driving down the road and the policeman is hungry, he doesn't have the authority to pull me over and ask me to go home and make him a sandwich.

The authority of a church leader is spiritual authority. It is limited first and foremost the Word itself. A pastor may and should boldly preach the gospel. A pastor may not take on for himself authority that belongs to God.

The Hebrews 13:17 verse taken out of context misleads some into thinking that the pastor is God's agent in directing all aspects of someone's life. First of all, Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament tell us otherwise.

You can give all the examples you want on leadership from the Old Testament, but you can't forget Pentecost, nor can you interpret Hebrews 13:17 without keeping in mind that the curtain is torn and we are a priesthood of believers.

Also, Ephesians 5:23,24 (23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything) tells us that Christ is the head of the church. Between the husband and Christ there should be no one else guiding the family. Between "the church" and Christ there should be no one else.

I would not want to be the person who interfered between Christ the bridegroom and His Church, the bride.

Also, on a different topic, Randomous wrote about the Sam situation:

I do think he has a point in that people are allowed to make unsubstantiated personal claims here about GC, but not about Wellspring.

I don't know what you mean by "unsubstantiated personal claims". A lot of us here, at great personal cost have given our names so our stories won't be anonymous and people will understand the seriousness of our concerns. I think there is a difference between saying something happened to me (first hand) and saying someone did something to someone else. Sam, as I saw it, was making claims about things that had happened to others for the most part and some of those claims involved illegal actions.

[puff of purple smoke]

For your pastor who says his "loyalty is to God", that's great. Great if one wants to cop out of obligations the Bible says we had. It's kinda like someone saying to me "submit to the govt." and I say "I'll only submit to God". Sounds great, but wait a minute. God tells me in Scripture to submit to authorities, specifically to the government and to my elders. Ah, so since God tells me to do so, I can only submit to him by doing so. There's where the cop-out fails. If I'm loyal to God, I'm gonna be loyal to God's people. I'm going to submit to those he's put in authority.

Yes, we are to unquestionably submit to every judgment our pastors make, just as we would obey the government. Nevermind the following "renegades" mentioned in the Bible:

Acts 17:11
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." <-- The Bereans, unsubmissive renegades who dared hold their leaders accountable firstly to the Word of God, rather than accepting what they said on the basis of their "spiritual authority"

Acts 5:26-29
Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. <-- Peter and the other apostles, obeying God, rather than obeying the "captain of the officers," who certainly was in a position of governmental authority. They also disobey the high priest, a spiritual authority.

Jeremiah 5:30-31
"An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and my people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it?" <-- Jeremiah is complaining about the spiritual authority in charge of Judah. Not very submissive is he?

Acts 16 also records an interesting account of Paul, who is arrested for teaching customs that were illegal for Romans to practice (ie: he was disobeying governmental authority while still claiming to follow God). Then, after an earthquake, Paul's chains come off, and he walks away from the jail despite knowing that the authority of the Roman government wanted him there.

Jesus himself topples the idea of human spiritual authorities in Matthew 23:8-10, when he says:
But people should not call you "Teacher". You have one Teacher. And you are all brothers. `Do not call anyone on earth your "Father". You have one Father. He is in heaven. People should not call you "Master". You have one Master. He is the Christ.
He is warning us against the idea of having a "spiritual guru" who stands between us and God. We are to have but one mediator, that being Christ (I Timothy 2:5).

The whole blindly following your authorities bit (which is an teaching that originates from the early movement, and has even been propagated by GC "good guys" like Dave Bovenmyer) is not the kind of submission we are taught in the Bible. We are to hold leaders firstly accountable to God, and we definitely are supposed to question their judgments. Obeying God is simply not always equivalent to obeying men.

I also think some of your comments are quite telling of the underlying message of GC's "loyalty for life" sermons. The organization becomes more important than anything else. God, on the other hand, can and does call people out of GC.

Given your dislike for the pastor's statement, maybe you'd have preferred it if the pastor had said: "I am more loyal to this church than I am to God. If God calls me elsewhere, by golly, I'll dig my heels in and stay here."

[jehu]

:shock:   This is your captain speaking.  The president has authorized ThreatCon3.  Please extinguish all smoking materials.  Fasten all seatbelts.  Say your prayers.  Eat your wheaties.  That is all.  Translation: "Would you like to play Global Thermonuclear FlameWar?"

[puff of purple smoke]

You can give all the examples you want on leadership from the Old Testament, but you can't forget Pentecost, nor can you interpret Hebrews 13:17 without keeping in mind that the curtain is torn and we are a priesthood of believers.

Amen! Great reminder of one of the most powerful symbols in the Bible, Mamad.

[puff of purple smoke]

And also, randomous said:

This isn't a GC-only phenomenon - a full 25% of americans switch churches EVERY YEAR.

I searched online for the source of your statistic and this is what I came up with:

US Congregational Life Survey found that nearly 1 in 4 church attendees had switched congregations in the past five years(link)

 
Unless you have a different source for this statistic, please correct your statement. 1 out of 4 people switching churches once every 5 years is a lot less than once every year.