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.

[TerryD]

It’s a mistake to think of GCx’s eccentricity as primarily a governance issue. It is that, but only in a secondary sense. Much of what we read and hear from GCx, including it’s passionate defenders on this forum, demonstrates that the deeper problem is theological, not governmental. If the definition of church were not in error, other things would tend to fall into place.

The most glaring problem with the GCx view of church is in fact its absence. The gathering of believers is largely missing—from their conception of what the church is, from it’s deliberative processes and from anything but a kind of servile participation in it’s function. The crowd gathered around the leadership is there to raise the funds and do the work (and of course, for a select few, find opportunity to work their way up into that leadership). The gathered believers are an auxiliary or volunteer force. A friendly analysis would probably place them simply as a para-church or a corporation in their leadership practice—not a church. The insistence, however, that this is The New Testament Way makes the problem more serious, because from this understanding flows the potential for heavy handed discipling and a variety of other harmful experiences described here and elsewhere. To say nothing of the spiritual impoverishment that comes from limiting the guiding and directing work of the Holy Spirit to a self-selected few, when it is the Spirit’s intent to manifest Himself “in all and through all” as He distributes gifts among all the believers.

It all proceeds from what amounts to sort of medieval, pre-Reformation view apparently adopted by GCx founders (whether deliberately or out of ignorance, I have no idea) which has persisted through the years. The irony of course is that a group which focuses so much on cultural hipness and gospel contextualization would have at it’s core something so creaky and archaic and properly outmoded, but so it is.

It was common in the corrupted Roman system to think of the priests and bishops and councils as “the Church.” They lead, spoke for, decided for, and disciplined on behalf of the whole church. They, practically speaking, “were” the church. Early reformer Marsiglio of Padua in 1324 identified this corruption of New Testament truth (at his own peril). E.H.Broadbent summarizes his message:

“He says it has become usual to apply the word Church to the ministers of the Church, bishops, priests and deacons. this is opposed to the Apostolic use of the word, according to which the Church is the assembly, or the total of those who believe in Christ....It is not by an oversight, he points out, that an improper use of the word has been adopted, but on well-considered grounds, which have great value for the priesthood but destructive consequences for Christianity.”

Nowhere is the nature of this absence of the gathered-believers-as-Christ’s-body more obvious than in it’s view of Matthew 18 discipline, where the final and most fundamental governance question of all, “who will be allowed in the church?” is decided. And how is it decided? “Bring him (the man whose membership is on the line) before the whole church.” In the medieval view, the whole church meant not the whole church, just the hierarchy. Luther, writing on this text in his 1530 thundered:

“The congregation which is to ban a person should know and be certain how the man has come to deserve the ban, as this text of Christ indicates....And the congregation is not obliged to believe the note of an official or the letter of the bishop.... For a Christian congregation is not the maidservant of an official....”

It’s interesting that GCx churches commonly describe their discipline steps as ending with the local elders...or the regional leaders...or the national leaders...never with “the whole church.” Is that merely a governance style issue? An oversight? Or a significant biblical mistake as to the very nature and role of the Church gathered?

Another misapprehension is betrayed again and again in their teaching on submission, specifically the comparison of elders’ authority over the church with the husband and wife relationship in marriage. I’ve heard this one many times from GCx’ers in my ten years there and since. I assume it’s a talking point in one of the papers developed to defend the status quo. The parallel in Ephesians 5 is husband-to-wife and Christ-to-church, not husband-to-wife and elders-to-church! When pressed, they have said they are not putting leadership in the place of Christ, but that is of course what tends to happen in practice when the word of truth is not “rightly divided.”

The use of this profound passage as an example of how submission works with human leaders reveals more than sloppy exegesis. I’m wondering if it goes to the heart of what takes them off-center and gets pretty close to the foundations of authoritarian structure. This is one you don’t want to get wrong!  As others have said. “think twice before messing with Jesus’ bride.” Check presumption at the door and take your place at the end of the table. There is a Wedding underway, and this is a dance where no sane man would dare cut in.

[randomous]

As for the stat on church hopping, i got that specific one from the GCLI document linked here previously, attributed to "George Barna, statistician to the church, says that less than 40% of Christians who describe themselves as faithful members – even attend church.  He says that 20-25% of the Christians in America change church – every year!".  I also found on the net that 1 in 6 or 1 in 7 (two different sources quoting Barna) change churches every year.  Perhaps it fluctuates.  Regardless, it's a lot.
Honestly, much of the latest comments are quite ridiculous.  Comparing submission to blind obedience demonstrates a major misunderstanding of both GC's positions and the Scripture.  
Question - would you apply the same logic to a marriage?  Basically what I got from a couple of the posts was "Leaders don't always have everything right, always obeying them isn't right, I'm going to use this as an excuse to ignore the scriptures on submitting".  The problem with jehu and TerryD's arguments is that they leave out submitting period.  
Nobody's talking about blind obedience.  I never said obeying God was always equivalent to obeying men.  What I did try to say is that you aren't obeying God if you're not endeavoring to obey your leaders.  That submission is an essential and undeniable part of the Christian walk.
Submission is all over the NT - to authorities, to masters, to husbands, to God.  Would you say the fact that a husband's obvious ability to fail in any way lessens the wife's responsibility to submit?  That a master's problems excuse the slave from this requirement?  That a government's corruption erases the command to submit?  Obviously not, I hope.  The Acts 5 passage is great, i referred to that principle earlier.  If a government tells you to do something contrary to what God says, of course you don't do it.
  If a husband tells his wife to do something explicitly sinful, of course not.  HOWEVER, if an authority tells you to do something which is neither commanded nor restricted by God, then what?  To me, that's where submission comes in.  
BTW, I continue to use the marriage analogy bc the bible uses it.  Submission is the same practice.  Of course they have different areas as you said.  Wives are called specifically to submit to husbands sexually (biblical example, in terms of not depriving, vice versa).  Obviously not an area they'd submit to an elder.  
Submission is a complex issue, no doubt.  But it's there.  It's a part of the  Christian life.  God's put the authorities there for our own good, elders included.  We're called to submit to them.  It's our choice, but it's a part of obedience.
I found an interesting Barna quote where he says that in our country "believers think of themselves as individuals first, Americans second, and Christians third".  I'd add something like "part of a church" "accountable" or "under authority" as the fourth (maybe that's optimistic).  The bottom line is that most people aren't willing to commit to a local body or be under the authority of their elders.  I look at submitting to elders as a way to grow in humility.  To think that I'm always going to know better than my elders is remarkably arrogant, but when it comes down to it that's what most people believe in practice.  We aren't willing to put aside our own ideas, ambitions, or concept of what God wants for even a moment.  The thought process should be "Okay, my elder thinks that this would be the wrong decision.  I don't see it.  I can either ignore them and go do my own thing, or I can choose to be a blessing to them and respect their character and position."  If I ignore the elder's counsel, consider what that may reveal about my core beliefs.  Could it be that I believe that foremost God is going to speak to and use me as an individual?  Could it be that I don't really belive God wants to use the church in community?
I think that's it.  What is your core belief?  Is it that you have a specific role to play in the body?  Do you believe that there are others wiser than you and further along in their Christian walk?  
You may not get what I'm trying to say.  I'll put it another way.  Submission is inextricably tied to humility.  Humility requires an accurate view of yourself.  When an elder thinks that something you're doing isn't wise, maybe instead of saying "I don't have to listen to him", you would be better to say "Maybe he's got a point, whether I understand it or not, and it would be wiser to do what he said given his character, experience with such things, wisdom, and the fact that God's put him in my life as a spiritual authority."      
I would hope that the pastor would say "I'm committed and loyal to this body, as its shepherd I'm going to protect it with my life, seek its best, and guide it no matter what kind of trouble comes or how much greener the work of God looks at another church."  And I would hope that the sheep (yes, the bible uses this analogy) he's appointed to lead would have some loyalty and know enough to follow him.

[jehu]

I'm finding the reliability of GC sociological research somewhat questionable.  Do you have any way to qualify the numbers, the methods, or the credential of the men to which you attribute them?

A pastor who approaches a homeless former member, and attempts to secure not only a withdrawal of criticisms but also the identities of other former members with criticism, has crossed the line of his authority.  The line has been crossed in other instances and those pastors go unpunished by Great Commission.  The choices to preserve the power of their authority and the authority of the organization to the detriment of the well-being of individual members is blatant in each of these instances.  The convenience of a lack of witnesses sufficient to convince an entire board of fellow elders hired by those pastors for each specific infraction (enough to convince them to contend with the Association itself) will be insufficient one day.  Some day, some aggrieved member is going to be smart enough to catch those (in my opinion) very slimy elders in the act with a voice recorder and then it needn't be a matter of convincing a board.  They'll be able to convince a court of law and then, Mr. Wood, we won't be having this conversation.  We'll be having a very different one.

For the record, this is the only instance in which I have ever defied the authority of any pastor.  According to my estimation, he was no longer my pastor previous to that point.  But according to your convictions, leaving a church or challenging a pastor isn't an option no matter the circumstance.  (Though they may end the relationship at their discretion)  How is that tattoo coming along?  Glad you brought up slavery so I didn't have to say anything.

[randomous]

Sometimes I wonder if you even read what I write.  The "sociological research" is attributed to George Barna, the most well-known and cited statistician on church issues.  Nuff said.
 

But according to your convictions, leaving a church or challenging a pastor isn't an option no matter the circumstance.

I don't know where you get that.  It certainly isn't in anything I wrote.  Challenging a pastor is fine, I do it all the time.  Pastors aren't perfect, and the ones I'm around are humble enough that everything's on the table.  But at the end of the day, I'm still going to submit to them unless they tell me to go murder someone or something equally ridiculous (which I don't expect them to)  As for leavign a church, yeah, I'd hope people wouldn't do that frivolously or without the blessing of their leadership.

I must confess, I'm surprised to see you throw out a last name and attribute it to me.  Do you know this Mr. Wood?  What makes you think I am he?

[MamaD]

A few thoughts.

First, a few posts ago, I melodramatically said that using my name to tell my story had come at great personal cost to me. I take that back. Great personal cost is way too strong a word that should be reserved for people who have been tortured and killed for their faith.

What really happened was that telling my story led to some irritations and  caused some acquaintances to decide not to associate with us. I didn't lose any real friends in the deal and on a positive side, I have learned a lot about the Church (the one with the big "C"). I'm still learning.

We were at our church 10 years. Spent the last 2 trying to clarify things assuming our issues were misunderstandings rather than getting disgusted and leaving immediately. That hardly qualifies as church hopping. And the people I know who left their GCx church were longtime members and didn't make a hasty decision about leaving.

We, too, found ourselves as former members hounded by pastors (3 of them) asking us to take back words and calling us divisive. SOME OF THIS HAPPENED OVER A YEAR AFTER WE LEFT THE CHURCH. One letter was even hand delivered by a pastor who showed up at my door, alone and unannounced at noon on a Wednesday over a year after we left. This is strange, to say the least. Keep in mind, he was not in authority over me in any way at this point.

In addition, shortly after we submitted our resignation letter, the pastors sent us a letter telling us they disagreed with us (we were inaccurate, borderline defamed them, things like that). That was their right. Then, they sent a copy of that letter to our grown children. I think it is highly unethical for a pastor to send a copy of a personal letter directed to us and that corrected us to our grown children (or anyone else for that matter) without our permission. But, perhaps protocol like that is something you learn in seminary.

Finally, I know this is a hodge podge comment, but you can't talk about authority without talking about how someone rises to that position and what limits their authority has (back to the jurisdiction comment).

Keep in mind, at some point in the early 70's a few men got together and "recognized" themselves and from that point on the leadership chain has been self-perpetuating.

One other thing that haunts me. At the meeting when it was clear to us that we had to leave (after Mark Darling suggested it would be better if we left rather than stay and try to change things and we realized that things were as they were by design), I said, "You know that plurality of leaders thing can work as a cover up for sin. It seems like a pastor could have an affair and the elders would know about it, but the congregation never would find out about it."

To this he (Mark Darling) said, "I'm sure it's happened."

Now, I have no idea what he was talking about, but the fact that a pastor would admit that there was a possibility that sin had been covered up among the elders is astonishing and frightening. It is especially frightening in a system where people are taught to obey their leaders.

[jehu]

That's funny.  Without mentioning the particulars of the "whos" of the situation I left, I have a hard time visualizing that conversation where I ask for his blessing for my leaving.  

"Pastor, you know, I've been thinking, what with the fact that I'm caught within an ongoing cycle of gossip, an extended project of selected breeding, a household founded on extensive correction and sleep deprivation, surrounded by the constant failures of younger, prouder and ironically patronizing leadership team, punctuated by the fact that people often mention the word cult unbidden by me and rarely even request that I pray for their freedom, due to all that, Pastor, would it be okay, would I have your blessing to go ahead and leave this church?  May I?  Because I know you are really watching out for me as a man who must give an account, and I would never want to be a burden to all your hard-working efforts to serve me."

"Remind me, who are you again?"

[randomous]

I have trouble believing, especially if I know you as I suspect I may, that your issues with your pastor were as severe as your parody makes them out to be.  Assuming they were correct, I'd expect you to approach your pastor(s) about the gossip and any specific failures that are appropriate to mention to him rather than the specific leaders.  I literally don't understand what you were trying to say with the "punctuated by the fact that people often mention the word cult unbidden by me and rarely even request that I pray for that their freedom" and "househould founded on extensive correction and sleep deprivation" comments.  Please elaborate.  
The last sentence I would hope you could say seriously ("Because I.... serve me")
If the remind me comment was directed at me, I'm afraid I can't as I've never said who I am.  You can message me through the forum if you think you know me though, in fact I would enjoy that.  I can't imagine who you could be.

[TerryD]

Of course there is a place for meaningful authority and real submission (under the Word and the Spirit) within the church. No serious Christian denies that. To do so is to invite chaos.

The question is: Where does that authority come from? How is it bestowed? What is the nature of that authority? What are its limits?

When I look back on my years in a GCx church, and the research and analysis I did as I left, I concluded something like this: GCx is an Evangelical Authoritarian Sect. Nothing more or less.

Evangelical—because its doctrinal statement is consistent with any solid, reputable evangelical church or organization, and it seeks to bring people to a personal saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the preaching of the Gospel. With Paul in Philippians, we must rejoice in that.

Authoritarian—because its view of the church and relationships between people within the church is sadly skewed. There is a curious and remarkable fascination and preoccupation with leadership and authority evident in some of their earliest history, through the 1984 McCotter and Clark book on leadership (with its military insignia cover), reiterated in countless sermons and papers, monolithically enshrined in church polity, and currently demonstrated in posts here. The fruit of this preoccupation is also evident in the experiences of many ex-members alleged throughout this forum. This is not to say that all the leaders and aspiring leaders in GCx are heavy handed, self-aggrandizing or insincere. I know some of them personally to be kind, good, gentle and sincere men. I do think they are caught up in the vortex of a system that does themselves and their congregations a disservice and even real harm. I have particular sympathy for the zealous young guys (they're the ones most attracted to the GC way, it seems) who find opportunities for significance there and become entranced with the whole thing.

Sect—It is in my view pointless and inaccurate to call the group a cult (though I sympathize with those who use that more culturally available term when they describe their more disturbing experiences with it, and the way it has "messed with" their minds). All protestations and window-dressing examples aside, generally GCx has tended to isolate itself, indoctrinate itself, demand loyalty to itself, and see itself as a cut above the rest and "special" in ways that give it the distinct flavor of "sect." I have no doubt that flavor is evident more and less depending on where you go in the movement.

That's about all I've got to offer the debate....

[jehu]

I have trouble believing, especially if I know you as I suspect I may... I can't imagine who you could be.

Now you're fishing.  Which is ironic because you've got the vast Atlantic and the gorgeous Gulf of Mexico nearby.  Try to keep it to church (mis-)government on this thread, Sparky, mmmkay?  The synthesis of our dialogue has made it quite clear the necessary steps to produce actual reform within Great Commission, and having a little chit-chat with the pastor over problems within his congregation is going to prove about as productive as the chit-chats we're having with, well, I dunno, YOU?  Before we moved the forum over here, one lady came forward with a story of having had 16 such meetings.  I'm assuming maybe falsely that you can read the Gregg Walters letter and can see quite plainly that even another pastor has his work cut out for him with the gentlest bit of criticism.

If you're here to cast shadows on all the things we know to be true and faced with outrageous examples of misconduct still sit there with your hands over your ears crying out "It isn't true!  It isn't true!" then I suppose it will do no good to discuss the matter with you.  I'm starting to think examples of 'humble elder service' and 'attentiveness to the needs of an affirming congregation' might also be found at Gator Christian Fellowship or at least some host church in the vicinity of Florida State University or somesuch.  Surely John Travolta isn't the only charismatic cult or ahem sect figure the State of Florida has to offer.  Gainesville might be a fine place to be a religious seeker.  Then again maybe not....

[Escape From Summitview]

The thought process should be "Okay, my elder thinks that this would be the wrong decision. I don't see it. I can either ignore them and go do my own thing, or I can choose to be a blessing to them and respect their character and position." If I ignore the elder's counsel, consider what that may reveal about my core beliefs. Could it be that I believe that foremost God is going to speak to and use me as an individual? Could it be that I don't really belive God wants to use the church in community?

I can't believe you're suggesting that the thought "God is going to speak to and use me as an individual" is rebellious and contrary to the Scripture. Are you really suggesting that God's plan for using the church as a "community" is that a small handful of leaders would be trusted to hear from God, and the rest of the "body" would go to these people to discern God's will for their lives? That doesn't sound like much of a "body" to me.

God does not want men taking the place of a relationship with him, it is an affront to everything He did on Calvary. "Teacher" is just another role in the Body of Christ, another spiritual gift. A inappropriate amount of respect and weight has been applied in GComm to this position, to the point where somebody can suggest leaders hear first from God regarding the PERSONAL LIVES OF THE CONGREGATION and nobody even flinches. That is scary.

My GComm church was the only church I've ever attended where if you tell a leader that you believe God is telling you to do something, instead of encouraging you and helping you fulfill God's will in your life, the leaders will actually have the gall to argue with you about it. Not because they think God is telling them otherwise, but simply because "God hasn't told me anything about that" or "You didn't seek enough counsel!" Last I heard, one of the names for the Holy Spirit was "Counselor." GComm needs to wake up and realize that being higher on the leadership hierarchy does not make you "closer" to God. We are all PRIESTS according to my bible. The whole purpose of a teacher is supposed to be to teach us how to develop our relationship with God so that we can better follow Him, not so we can follow them.

This belief that leaders are somehow standing in between God and us, and that in order for God to work in our lives he will speak to those leaders specifically about our lives first, is NOT BIBLICAL SUBMISSION. It is usurping the role of the Holy Spirit. Anything that usurps the Holy Spirit's role in our lives is crossing the line where "submission" ends.

______________________

 1 Corinthians 3:16
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

Acts 1:8
“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.”

Romans 8:14
“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

John 10:27
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me ”

[MamaD]

In a message entitled "The Authority & Nature of the Gift of Prophecy", John Piper says:

Now the point is this: Today the New Testament stands where the apostles stood. Their authority is exercised today through their writings and the writings of their close associates like Luke and Mark and James (the Lord's brother). So, in the same way Paul made apostolic teaching the final authority in those days, so we make the apostolic teaching the final authority in our day. That means the New Testament is our authority.

The entire message may be found on the desiringgod.org blog. It's on the March 23 entry entitled Does God Speak Outside the Bible.

[randomous]

Now you've really got me curious.  It isn't fair, you knowing who I am and not the other way around.  I really don't see how you could know me based on my limited posting here; I've never used this name before (randomous is random plus anonymous - guess I'm just random now) and hadn't intended on revealing any personal info at this time.  
The reason I had trouble believing you earlier was because you seemed to indicate that you were a part of the same congregation as me, which now seems not so much, so now I have no more trouble believing you than anyone else.  The problem with a story with only one witness and with only one side is that there's only one witness and only one side.  There's no way i can accept anyone's testimony here, biblically even.  Plus the fact that many details are inherently left out, and that some people disagree with the philosophy of GC and mix the two.  I, along with any other observer, can't say that the things here are true or not, righteously, when it comes to peoples' experiences.  
What I'm saying is that this forum is not very useful in ascertaining truth - specific details have only one side of an instance, and when it comes to discussing scripture, well that has been frowned upon in the past.  
What exactly are "all the things we know to be true".  Let me guess "GCM is an evil, controlling, deceptive, fake church parachurch cult TACO."  Right, of course we all know all that to be true.  The synthesis of our dialogue has made it quite clear. (sarcasm)
A note: why do people keep objecting to the military lingo/symbolism?  It's all over Scripture.  If you'll recall, Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace but a sword.  This is a wartime operation we're a part of people.  The kingdom of God is at war, there's no time for games.
Escapist, please don't misquote me.  I "suggested" that the belief that "FOREMOST God is going to speak to and use me as an individual" might not be quite right.  In fact it's quite wrong to put yourself above everyone else, including the church.  It's a matter of priority as I said earlier.  Americans sadly think of themselves primarily as individuals.  There are some positive parts of that for our country, but it's a very destructive priority spiritually.  Also, please note that "teacher" is not the same as elder.  Teaching is a gift.  Elder is a position of authority granted by .... wait for it ... the Holy Spirit.  Could it be that God has a plan and that it doesn't include "rogue Christians"?  Could it be that he wants to use others in our lives and that he puts community at such a high level of priority for that reason?  BTW, how do you handle the biblical analogy of pastors as shepherds?  That's a pretty involved metaphor God chose - Jesus is the chief shepherd, but he's also got a human shepherd for your good.  Without that, as TerryD said, we have chaos.
We're not talking about leaders hearing first from God.  We're talking about authority, about learnign to submit to the authorities God has in our lives and not exalting ourselves such that we assume what we think we hear from God is right.
I thank God for my elders, and for other men in my life more wise than I.  There have been plenty of examples where I thought I had something all figured out, went ahead without seeking any counsel, and ended up regretting it.  I remember one time I was convinced something was right for about three days.  Then a staffer sat me down and showed me the error of my ways.  Best rebuke I've ever gotten.  If I'd gone to him or someone else first, I could have avoided that.  It was a foolish thing to do.  
Nobody in GC is trying to replace the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit has ordained these roles, and one ignores them to their own peril.  It's amazing to me how some people can just focus on one means of the Holy Spirit working an ignore another one that He makes it clear he's set up in scripture.  It's like someone who says (this is a real situation) "The Holy Spirit told me I'm free to buy and smoke pot."  He honestly believed it.  If he'd read the Scripture or sought counsel, he would have realized that wasn't the Holy Spirit.  God never goes against His word, and something he tells you to do is going to be in line with His character.  Therefore it will be confirmed.  Counsel is one of those avenues by which we're supposed to seek confirmation.  
Contrary to what some people might tell you, becoming a Christian and getting the Holy Spirit doesn't automatically make you wise or mature.  Hebrews 5:14 says "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."  It takes constant use to be able to discern.  Elders have developed a certain level of character per the scriptural requirements, so if they discern something isn't right that I think is, it should make me step back and rethink.  Because the fact is, if I'm humble and honest, that the elders I know have trained themselves by constant use to distinguish good from evil, and are simply better at it than I am.  It's pretty arrogant of me to just disregard something they say, even if I ignore the fact that God has put them in authority over me.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Yeah, I believe in submission too.  But the overuse of the word by GC would be laughable if it weren't so sad.  I really think that submission is more about what a person does personally and less about making sure other people are in their places.

I would go so far as to say, anyone who frequently points out how and why others aren't submitting has a serious pride issue.  It isn't our place to put others in their places (unless they are our kids, and even then that's somewhat debatable).  Christianity is about freewill not about making sure others submit.  So Randomous, I have to say... when you first mentioned the word submit... I had a hard time following anything else you said after that.

I asked it before and I will ask it again:

Why are GC people so obsessed with putting others in their supposed places?  It's weird, weird, weird.

[Escape From Summitview]

I "suggested" that the belief that "FOREMOST God is going to speak to and use me as an individual" might not be quite right. ... Nobody in GC is trying to replace the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has ordained these roles, and one ignores them to their own peril.

The people God has placed in positions of authority in the church are there to teach and guide ("pastor") the flock into developing a better relationship with God. It is not the pastor's place to come down and attempt to micromanage the lives of the congregation, or attempt to tell people how to personally apply the biblical principals they are supposed to be teaching. It's not a bad idea to get advice, but trying to discern God's will for your life continuously through other people rather than through the development of your own relationship with God is a dead end road.

I agree that, should somebody say "The Holy Spirit told me to sin" they need to be corrected in light of the Bible. The Holy Spirit would not contradict the Word. But, when somebody says to an elder, "God told me to start saving up money to become a missionary in (some place without a GC church)" the response should not be, "Well, wait a minute! What about your loyalty to GC? Who exactly have you sought counsel from?" That is exactly the kind of stuff that goes on. A lack of faith that God actually does speak to non-leaders. That's what I mean when I say GComm needs to wake up and realize being in "leadership" does not put you closer to the voice of God. As Jesus says, those who follow him will hear his voice.

Submission has been overextended in GComm. Unhealthy submission takes on the form of "micromanagement" as described above, a type of leader/follower control that, whether you admit it or not, usurps much of what God wants in the relationship we are supposed to have with him. The Jews in the Old Testament had to appeal to God through priests, and there is a level of submission that was taught in GComm that is simply reinstating this sort of go-between system.

You might ask, what is the role of submission supposed to be then? I would say that healthy submission is...

..Listening to a sermon with an open mind, and the belief that God wants to teach me through the people teaching me. This requires a level of trust and submission to God, while also being balanced and checked against the Word of God. If a pastor's message does not line up with the Word of God, I will not submit to it.

..Giving regularly to a specific church, knowing full well the elders of that church will be the one's to decide what they think is best to do with my finances. This again requires trust and submission. I would have to be convinced these were men following God, otherwise I would not submit my finances to them.

Even just participating in a church requires some level of submission. I won't like every sermon, every song choice, etc. but I am choosing to stay, because I believe the men and women leading are following and hearing from God. If I didn't, I would not submit.

Notice that in my examples I did not mention:

..Asking my pastor for permission to change jobs
..Asking my pastor to give me permission to go to seminary out of state, because I feel God is leading me there
..Asking my pastor to allow me to go visit another church because my friend invited me
..Asking my pastor for permission to date somebody

There is an important difference between submission and micromanagement. A pastor replaces the Holy Spirit when he becomes the answer to the question "how do I apply this sermon specifically to MY life." That is the Holy Spirit's role. Again, it's okay to ask advice, but if we are convinced through our own prayers and personal time with God about something, that should be enough for any pastor. He should be glad that his flock is learning how to become followers of Christ. That should be his goal.

[TerryD]

Well said, Escape.

[banished]

Contrary to what some people might tell you, becoming a Christian and getting the Holy Spirit doesn't automatically make you wise or mature. Hebrews 5:14 says "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." It takes constant use to be able to discern. Elders have developed a certain level of character per the scriptural requirements, so if they discern something isn't right that I think is, it should make me step back and rethink. Because the fact is, if I'm humble and honest, that the elders I know have trained themselves by constant use to distinguish good from evil, and are simply better at it than I am. It's pretty arrogant of me to just disregard something they say, even if I ignore the fact that God has put them in authority over me.

Contrary to what some people might tell you, becoming a small group leader or a pastor in a GC* Church doesn't automatically make you wise or mature. Personally I am not convinced that the GC pastors I have come in contact with are better at distinguishing good from evil then I am. Some are quite lacking in discernment.  

I have a hypothetical situation,
What if a pastor (pastor x) in resolving a conflict misuses a scripture and makes a decision based on this misuse of scripture. A member of this pastors church asks other men knowledgable of the bible about their interpretation of this passage, none of them come to the conclusion of pastor x. The member finds other verses that disagree with pastor x's interpritation of pastor x's verse. Should the member agree with the pastors misuse of scripture since this pastor is better able to discern good from evil?

[jehu]

GCM is an evil, controlling, deceptive, fake church parachurch cult TACO.

Gee, I was talking about the things we know to be true for ourselves in our own situations... but if you want to make a blanket statement like that then be my guest.  You forgot to say "Barabara Streisand".  I never at all insinuated I was part of your church, nor did I intend to.  The fact that anything remotely resembling what happened at my former church (mental mousetrap that it is) could be construed to be an exaggeration of what it seems could and does occur at yours is a direct contradiction to statements you've made to me in personal correspondence.

Again, based on what we already know (from our own individual experiences about our own particular ex-churches) plausible deniability ought no longer be taken at face value, nor even given the assumption of innocence.  Once bitten twice shy, or as Dear Abby used to say, "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  I'm going to step back and let the other folks address the things you've pieced together from the Bible like 'respecting elders as authorities God has placed over you' and various beliefs you have about discernment and the person of the Holy Spirit.  It's obvious what your convictions are and I would be foolish to attempt to change them.  In theory, and much less rigidly, I even agree to a certain extent that one ought take to heart the guidance of pastors.  Just not GC's self-appointed self-serving entrenched, blind, and hard-hearted pastors.  I can't go for that.  No can do.