Corporate Pride

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.

[theresearchpersona]

So I remember around here the original members talking about McCotter (and hence his trainees) teachings. I found a little article that might be relevant, seeing as he and others made claims (either explicitly or implicitly I don't know) that there wasn't any NT Christianity. It's not the best "answers" site I've ever seen[1], but it has some decent observations and considerations, and I respect that, they are brothers and sisters after all.

Anyone think about the implications of McCotter & Co. claiming what they did? It basically groups GC's roots (and that's the problem, its very roots: if the roots are no good...) with other Restorationisms: Armonstrongism (WWCG, etc.), Mormonism, etc., though a little more Classically Christian: there's the obvious groups (like Mormonism) and then the not-so-obvious ones (Armstrong's followers, "Church of Christ/Disciples of Christ type groups), but very often what set these apart from other Christians was the mishandling and warping the terms, and studying their histories gives eery parallels. Using the same words don't indicate agreement (the same meaning): my issue was always that...GC's meanings weren't in accord with the Bible's.

Enough rant, here's that article, which, I think, is quite helpful since it regards things very similar or alike to what GC started as, and which seems to keep it strangled:

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


[1] A "four point Calvinist" one; I know it's arguable, but it really is difficult to be Calvinist with only 4 points or less: and often when people do, they do so by poorly reading proof texts; usually it's the "L" people have a problem with.

[MidnightRider]

I was not taught in GCx that real Christianity disappeared from the earth sometime between the 1st century and the 20th. I think GCx took had the attitude (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) that other churches had gone liberal or lost focus. GCx was supposed to be unique in its emphasis on reaching every nation with the gospel in one generation.  

It is hard to re-invent Christianity. As one author said, you think you are reinventing first century Christianity, and you end up reinventing some third century heresy.

There are some places where I think large portions of Christendom have made mistakes or missed the point in figuring out their doctrine and practice. Where possible, I try not to be too condemning. I am sure I have my own mistakes, too.

[Linda]

I was not taught in GCx that real Christianity disappeared from the earth sometime between the 1st century and the 20th.

In the McCotter/Clark book on Leaders, they pretty much say this. I'll try to find the quote in the near future. As I remember, they pretty much dismissed all movements, and all missions and really thought they were getting back to something that had been lost for 2000 years. Kinda pathetic, kinda funny, and kinda scary if you ask me.

[EverAStudent]

Yes, the leadership book states that only the first century church "succeeded" in its mission to reach the world for Christ, and that each successive generation did not.  I was just reading this the other day by request of Linda.  The book is not in front of me at that moment.  I recall on two pages alone they mention the ideal of the "first century church model" more than five times.  Perhaps over the weekend I can dig back into it.

[theresearchpersona]

the "first century church model"

I remember a very wise comment by a brother, a pastor (not GC), who was examining the claims of those telling us that "we need to return to be like the first century Church"; his comment was "why, why not to what we're told in the New Testament"; this had to do, of course, with the fact that the "first century Church" was more than imperfect: it was downright error ridden, just as it is today; far more than just encouragement or teaching, the NT itself is corrective, the Christian sense of "warfare" as an adjective applies to it: some of the most blunt, unapologetic propositions I've ever seen among Christians are therein; stuff few would dare say these days (can be good or bad, depending...).

At points even the apostles themselves were being rejected, including Paul (not too uncommon today, I guess) who writes of abandonment by some of them. In Revelation Jesus tells six of the Churches (of seven addressed) that he has something against them, and that he'll put out their lampstand if they don't turn from those things; the only Church he commends is small and poor, was likely uninfluential even, where it was, and was actually persecuted for truth (rather than persecuting sheep for the truth as GC has practiced).

Amazing that GC thinks if it does 1, 2, 3 that it'll grow, prevent goats from leaving, be rich in God's eyes, be blessed, etc...the only Church given only consolation by God, without stain, was nothing like any of the popular Churches of our day, which have more in common with the others.

[lone gone]

GC churches, like many others, want it both ways.

They want the glory of the Victor , and they glory in the Victim's role as well.  

They can sum it up by saying, " when we advance and succeed, that is proof we are in God's will, and when we are opposed and are mistreated,that is also proof we are in God's will."

This is all too common. Many a self help, business success or political strategy analysis book will teach you this.

"What doesn't kill me makes me stronger. Pain is weakness leaving the body.True genius is mis-understood and opposed. Lead,follow, or get out of the way."

How many more cliche's can you add.

Besides, the first century church rode on donkeys or walked, wrote on parchment with quills, shared one Bible scroll per church, and dressed funny. Do we want to be truly authentic and be like them?
 :roll:  :?:

[MidnightRider]

Besides, the first century church [...] shared one Bible scroll per church, [...]

To really be like the early church, you would have to discard your New Testament, at least for a while. The NT wasn't dropped from heaven when Jesus ascended. It was written over the next few decades as the Holy Spirit guided the disciples to write what Jesus had told them. During that time, the church had to get by on the apostles (the real ones) teaching from the OT.

In a way, that might not be a bad idea. It might get us to understand the OT better. Sometimes we miss the significance of a NT passage if we don't know about the OT background.

Just as an example, if the average Christian were asked for the Biblical basis for the resurrection, he might cite 1 Corinthians 15 or 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul didn't cite those passages because he hadn't written them yet.    He referred to Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13.

Another example - In Acts 2, Peter quoted at length from Joel and two of the Psalms in his gospel presentation. I wonder how many evangelism training classes tell you to do that.    :?

[theresearchpersona]

I remember reading about that there was an old protestant exercise where young men trained as if they would be witnessing to the Jews; they had to (accurately) take the OT and from that demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ.

Pretty cool. : )

There's some advice I've heard people give: to read the OT first, which, if we remember, leaves a lot unsaid, incomplete, unrevealed, "the shadows"; after that the NT, and then return to the OT and read it in that light.

Now, the problem with this, is that too many people are just too foreign to the OT and they'll get bogged-down and lost: and it's especially helpful to people to first instruct them in the NT (which is a help, blessing, and today essential to Christians as the very words to believe upon from the apostles (see John 17) and also the light that shines upon the OT).

The OT is also full of "problems" due to our...inadequate understanding of history and chronology, and culture, etc., of those times: which makes the NT interesting because being a semitic book, the more they uncover of ancient Jewish stuff, the more even the Jews are having to recognize "okay, we can't actually accuse the NT of necessarily twisting our Scriptures"; the "interesting" part is that the NT clears-up a lot of unknowns and such that highly skeptical scholars etc. miss entirely with the prejudice that using this "Christian" (used in the sense of "gentile") book to shine light on the "Jewish" (read "semitic") OT would be anachronistic.

But it's really not: and it's very clarifying, and for that I think that, at least for young believers, that they read the NT cross-referencing with the OT, but also the OT cross-referencing the NT (near simultaneously, perhaps paced out), and only when truly grounded in the teachings/details to some extent to start perhaps reading the OT without the lens of the NT, and after that re-visiting the NT and after that the OT to re-read it with that "lens".

Sorry if this seems a bit verbose: just don't know how else (yet) to express it with the necessary points.

Speaking of not throwing people out onto limbs in understanding the Bible, (like trying to understand the OT without the NT's completing it), the same could often be said of Romans with the NT: Romans is the most complete setting forth and elucidation of the apostolic gospel and of the scriptures. Not a few people have noticed this over time...though I notice it seems people like to cut-out certain details that don't make them comfortable (a Christian friend of mine the other day kept trying to argue a point against the context and some points of Romans just yesterday: I wanted to bang my head against the wall! But I love the guy too, so, ?).

[lone gone]

Oh, I forgot about the Greek, Latin,Hebrew and Aramaic we'd be speaking... English would be a second language and not used for Biblical scholarship.

[theresearchpersona]

Oh, I forgot about the Greek, Latin,Hebrew and Aramaic we'd be speaking... English would be a second language and not used for Biblical scholarship.

These days a lot of Biblical Scholarship is done in German and French, actually; I think English is starting to steal a lot of spotlight, though.

The German is used so much because the rise of German rationalism brought attention to it; it was also one of the languages in which a lot of text criticism was being done (and still is). Speaking of that, "Editio Critico Major Maior" of the NT is supposed to be coming out anytime now, which is a bound NT with every NT manuscript variant, at least in Greek (I don't know if they're going to do the outside quotes etc. that exist, though I think they may be citing the ancient translations in the work).

With that amount of information I'm sure it'll be taken up sensationally, but will likely be one of the least useful (or trustworthy) editions ever to come out, and that it will be years before some heavy evaluation is done to vet the choices made for the main text; it also doesn't help how proud (and therefore blind) the practitioners in that field often are today (reference: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/ricoblog/2007/04/16/IsNestleAlandReallyThatGreat.aspx). Something interesting is what's called the "Byzantine" text (miniscules that are the majority family of manuscripts) is the one most unappreciated and denigrated family in text criticism today, but what's interesting is two of the big-wigs/authorities in the arena have begun writing about how it's likely that this text, the only family with lots of exemplars and history, is the one they're probably going to have to take a look at, evaluate (fairly), and rely upon because it could be used to actually reconstruct the NT manuscript history (which the oldest manuscripts that are not Byzantine, being much more sparse, could never be used to do).

Sorry to digress from the topic: that a quicky on languages of scholarship and Text Criticism: out there I know, but hopefully interesting to you. : )

This, though, is not a digression: if GC wanted to be like the first century Church they would not be sending anyone as a missionary who is not basically qualified (BIBLICALLY) to be an elder, nor would they send someone without also supporting them (Paul was one of the exceptions, but the evangelists[1] are described as being supported either by those who sent them, or if in a city with a Church, by that Church; or if that Church couldn't, then generally by somebody: long hours of study and preaching would likely destroy prospects for such men to actually work: it's not kidding when it tells those who preach/teach to devote themselves to their teaching); when GC does support people, it's usually by "raising support" among random people, rather than actually themselves supporting whom they've sent (or received).

As for being a "tentmaker", it's not that it isn't noble, but it sure can interfere with someone's duties if what his is is an evangelist; it's not like most would also have the advantages of Paul, an entire childhood dedicated to learning Scripture, rigorously, and also constant exposure to the language he'd have to be preaching in (today's missionaries are often secondary to the language they go to preach in, and have maybe several years in Biblical studies, probably not even Greek or Hebrew, so they're preparation is much less, and their need for study is much greater).

--

[1] Note the way we use "missionary" is the way the Bible uses "evangelist", whereas the way we use "evangelist" (televangelists, "Crusade" style gathers like Billy Graham, etc.) is not a use found in the Bible.

[lone gone]

Good information TRP.

We have a cultural set of blinders that makes us think in English and makes us think that everyone else does as well. We can only understand and appreciate the issues and content of anything if it is in English.

Also English is a vague language, it being a mixture of other languages and meanings so that pinning something down can be difficult.

I knew one woman who insisted that you could only be saved if you called on JESUS.... that word, that pronunciation.  Jesu, Yeshua, Jesus ( soft J), none of them counted. This was a college educated, highly successful, highly intelligent person who was completely involved in her local Baptist church.

I do not think anyone posting here is that blind but there are many out there that are.

I only share this as an example of how we are influenced to think that they way we do things is the only way.

[theresearchpersona]

You might appreicate this lone: "a man doesn't know his own language until he's learned another". That's an inexact quote of an old parable I read from some old book/source once.

Also English is a vague language, it being a mixture of other languages and meanings so that pinning something down can be difficult.

I knew one woman who insisted that you could only be saved if you called on JESUS.... that word, that pronunciation.  Jesu, Yeshua, Jesus ( soft J), none of them counted. This was a college educated, highly successful, highly intelligent person who was completely involved in her local Baptist church.

English is strange; I think that, really, they're just as vague as people use them; if one needs more specificity, it can be invoked: but even if intended on the author's part, the reader may/not understand it.

Like every language, English has had periods where people strived to be very specific, and others vague; also, there's always mixes in between; in the Bible, for instance, there's lots of "high register" speech (contrary to people thinking it's all colloquial), but that doesn't mean it's never colloquial, and even speaking colloquially, one can be specific. Grammar can also matter: English is an oddball for having the ability to invoke more germanic-like grammar, or latin-like grammar; in some cases it has orders of words that, in one configuration means this, in another it's "Anglo-Norman" (very imprecise, but useable, label for the language)-derived technical terminology (a lot of our courtroom terminology)!

I think in practically every age and nation, at least in societies with complexities of thought and need for it, the use of language and speech just depends. Specificities depend; vagueties depend; in some instances the way English speakers use the words (not necessarily because of the words) means that the translation in the Bible is too specific, whereas the original is more vague; it may even be a literal association but the original could be calling-up notions more broad or narrow than we do...just depends. Also, traditionally, writers and scholars used language totally differently from the populaces surrounding them! This is still true in specialization, but as far as it goes with writing and literature, these days it has levelled-off more (unfortunately; in some respects good, but really not in the overall picture, at least in everything).

Personally I'm glad for the variety in English, historically and current: it makes increasingly better translation possible (unless a single philosophy becomes dominant to the extent to put blinders on the demograhpics most interested in translation) if we work hard to keep its variety within living memory: I like to write little oddities in my writing, actually, just to keep certain things alive in others' minds (like when turning-in papers, or writing little stories, or poetry, or blogging, etc.).

Just for fun, I heard of a good example of non-correspondence between language from someone writing about  Russian: in English we say "light blue" or "dark blue", but, (he said), Russian doesn't distinguish, it's just "blue"; in English we have red, yellow, orange, etc., but in Russian those labels just don't correspond: something we call orange they may call red: it's not that we're seeing different things, but rather than the way we're thinking about them just don't correspond. This even applies to English: I remember reading some Professor of English writing about how old English commonly describes gold the metal as "red"!

That's a good concrete example, but then think about when the non-correspondences are in terms of abstractions; I notice that when people strive to read versions that aim to keep the form and patterns of speech, words, and formulaions, in the Bible, that with some outside input (reading, teaching by those who know about it and who're careful, etc.) that a lot of Biblical thought, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, become discernible to us in English: so someone familiar with "biblish" will understand when it says "remember" (rather than "keep") "the sabbath" or to "observe" something (rather than "obey"); to us these other uses, with different associations and connotations ("observe" means to take notice, watch, carefully consider, etc... and not just obey...as far as I know, that is, caveat is "subject to review") of words and phrases seem "deep", and they may very well be: but at times I think it might really seem "deep" just because if, when we learn it, it deepens the semantic range of our own words (and perhaps changing and shortening some too!). [There is, in a sense, a bible way of speaking.]

"a man doesn't know his own language until he's learned another".

[lone gone]

Regarding language and it's use I'll add this....

Robert McCrum, William Cran, & Robert MacNeil. The Story of English. New York: Penguin, 1992: 1

 "The statistics of English are astonishing. Of all the world's languages (which now number some 2,700), it is arguably the richest in vocabulary. The compendious Oxford English Dictionary lists about 500,000 words; and a further half-million technical and scientific terms remain uncatalogued. According to traditional estimates, neighboring German has a vocabulary of about 185,000 and French fewer than 100,000, including such Franglais as le snacque-barre and le hit-parade."

Elsewhere I was able to find this info.We have  anywhere from 450,000 to 1,000,000 words or word forms in the English language. An average educated person knows about 20,000 words and uses about 2,000 words in a week.

So while we have a complex word list, and some words or terms with very precise meanings, the vast majority of people do not have a working use of those terms. Specific theological terms are not commonly used in everyday language, or if they are, they are not used with the same meanings as would be applied in a theological discussion.

Similarly, our translations of scripture struggle to convey the correct,precise meaning of the writer.. and consequently the original intent of the writer is clouded by unintended shades of meaning supplied by the reader.

Is it any wonder that educated people find it difficult to understand each other, let alone the average Joe.

[saved]

Regarding language and it's use I'll add this....

Robert McCrum, William Cran, & Robert MacNeil. The Story of English. New York: Penguin, 1992: 1

 "The statistics of English are astonishing. Of all the world's languages (which now number some 2,700), it is arguably the richest in vocabulary. The compendious Oxford English Dictionary lists about 500,000 words; and a further half-million technical and scientific terms remain uncatalogued. According to traditional estimates, neighboring German has a vocabulary of about 185,000 and French fewer than 100,000, including such Franglais as le snacque-barre and le hit-parade."

I love that book!  And I've quoted that quote!

And my new quote (unknown source):  "English does not borrow from other languages.  English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and rummages through their pockets for loose grammar."

 

[theresearchpersona]

I also like that quote. : )

English can be precise, but few know how; it also isn't helpful that there are so many speakers: one notices historically (and currently) that as a language's user-base expands, its specificity gets harder to express; this happened to classical Greek when it expanded to become the koine, though unlike Dynamic-Equivalent [indoctrinated] linguists, the koine is often not as colloquial as people wish it was. (I just have to keep throwing that in there to race all the number of times people online post, or offline trumpet, "the Bible is all easy and common...".)

The same happened to the English of that little island that came to conquer nearly the entire surface area of the globe, and with it, spread its language; and that English of America when immigrants from around the world stepped onto its shores and inflated the tongue not with just vocabulary, but their grammatical gibberish (now incorporated and systematized wherever it's in use!); America really does have an uneducated populace (even its college graduates: we teach skills, not thinking; and those who trumpet "we teaching thinking" really brainwash, and dissuade brain use: as evidenced as they emphasize that facts and propositions are not important) because of those imports, whereas even if one was not once educated, all your exemplars of use (in writing, etc.) probably were.

What happens is each little locale of use of any language has its own irregularities of grammar and instabilities which eventually stabilize and form a dialect; because we're mobile, however, rather than tied to one or another area, our language remains unstable, and therefore imprecise; this is why I detest those who complain about "uncolloquial" or "biblish" or "uncommon" translations, because we really do need to construct grammar and word-use to do that job properly: and teach it; and frankly those people are those typically who think there's little difference between written and oral speech: this is true in some languages...not of English; and those languages that it's not true of quickly mutate into other languages that quickly become mutually unintelligible: spanish, being phonetically spelled, is actually doing this worldwise, and that's why they need academies of language and such; in English we maintain old, nonphonetic, spelling, and literary vs. oral distinctions, and prescriptive (well, we used to) grammar vs. descriptive (which is very very important to study as well: we need to know how people communicate, but if we fail to assign prescriptives the language really will mutate or become gibberish evoking of feelings and impressions rather than communication thoughts (with evoking of feelings subject thereto)).

Anyway, precise communication is these days reserved to certain scientific disciplines (specialized outside of the realm of ordinary life that actually matter: and I'm no opponent of the sciences!) and technical vocabularies; these can maintain precision because they're isolated from popular use: whereas we're constantly subjected to (affected by and affecting) it.

Also, I'm also guilty of seeking what to ransack from other languages....

p.s. there's an actual rating scale for how able a language is to absorb words from other languages, and English pretty much tops the scale, I forget the name though.

As for grammar; English is hybrid german-latinate/romantic/other, able to choose either form, so it's really versatile; and because of its enormous vocabulary it's suitable for international adoption; I'd also argue it's  complexities (which  arises not so much from just disorderliness, but rather that it can do the same things many many many different ways) are its strength for wide adoption, not its weakness: simplistic languages (or constructed languages) are a hindrance, not a help, to people, and if you bound them...they will push the walls down; English often has forms comparable to someone's native language which can help transition a learner in some way or another, at least I think.

I'd take a language that can beat-up another over another anyday!  It's just cooler. : )