Downtown Walnut Creek Pastors Control Methods

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.

[DevastatedTC]

A few weeks ago, a blog was brought to my attention by a person who recently left Walnut Creek's downtown location in Des Moines. I believe I can post it here as it was a public blog. I would also like to add that I am in full agreement with what was shared and would like to say that when I left the church, the same issues were brought up and others had done so as well. I also applaud the way that the person brought the issue forward. When I tried, years ago, I was told I was being divisive and that I was the one with the issues and that I was alone in my opinions (or I was being influenced by others who were complaining). I'm so thankful that somebody is calling them out!

Link is here:
https://tjlyttle.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/how-to-kill-your-church/

I recently spoke with another person who has been contemplating leaving the church and they said (and not surprisingly so) that the church leadership has gone into damage control mode over the blog. I also heard that 10 minutes were allocated at the beginning of their service last week to do damage control and speak out against the blog and the blogger. I wasn't there and didn't hear anything online, but can anyone confirm this or have more information on what was said? My experience when I was there was that many people were called out from the pulpit after they had left.

[tjlyttle]

Hello friends,

As my username would suggest, I am the author of the aforementioned blog post. Feel free to share it far and wide, that is why I wrote it and published it.

A little background on me and the blog post:

I started attending Walnut Creek in the summer of 2010. I was already aware of GCM's history but at first glance WCC seemed "normal". After 2 years I became a community group leader (aka bible study leader). I began to develop more and more angst over several issues (the lack of emphasis on spiritual gifts and the sovereignty of God being my biggest concerns) and had attempted several times to start conversations with other leaders. Over the course of the last year or so I attempted to have several meetings with Dan & Luke (pastors of the downtown location) in order to try and bring about change. It became incredibly obvious that any opposing views were simply ignored, and when they could no longer be ignored were castigated as "divisive". I became convinced that if Walnut Creek was ever going to have a legitimate shot of becoming healthy, the culture of secrecy and control had to be destroyed. Hence the blog post. My goal was to get people in the church talking so that Dan & Luke couldn't control the conversation. I believe that is exactly what is happening, and their attempts last weekend to spin the blog as an attack will only hurt WCC more in the end. Anyways, my intent in posting the blog was to shed light on what is going on at WCC and so many other churches across our country and to encourage those who have been crushed by churches to find a healthy church and plug in again. I appreciate the kind words and hope that the blog continues to convict and encourage.

-TJ

[Linda]

Thank you so much tjlyttle for your courage.

I just began reading your blog, but got no further than this and had to post.

I must also address the issue of unity. I have no doubt that some will see this entry as divisive. That is honestly not my intent. I really do want to see Walnut Creek Church thrive and to be a major influence in Des Moines and the world beyond for many years to come. However, we should never sacrifice truth for the sake of unity.

Perhaps you are aware of this, but the very first elder excommunicated from a GC church was excommunicated for saying that unity was important, but it should not be at the expense of truth.

Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark taught that unity was the cardinal doctrine. They said it like this in their book Marching to Zion. (Dennis Clark, btw, had been a GC elder in recent years and now is listed as "elder emeritus"): "May God give us a driving spirit of unity, a spirit that consistently burns brighter and hotter than all jealousy, envy and selfish ambition put together! There must be unity at all cost. When believers divide over so-called doctrine, they are always trampling under foot the cardinal doctrine — UNITY." –McCotter & Clark, Leadership: Elders and Apostles

[DevastatedTC]

tjlyttle, I am glad you got out. Something is really weird over there. I just saw the website and 23 deacons were appointed and 6 pastors recently. It really doesn't make any sense to me.

[Outtathere]

Excerpt from the website (and WCC in a nutshell): http://www.batteredsheep.com/abusive.html

In his book Churches That Abuse, Dr. Ronald Enroth carefully examines several of these churches throughout the United States. He reveals the cultic methods these groups use and points out several distinguishing marks of abusive churches. At this point I will briefly introduce each of these characteristics and some of my own. Later, I'll discuss all these characteristics in detail.

First, abusive churches have a control-oriented style of leadership. Second, the leaders of such churches often use manipulation to gain complete submission from their members. Third, there is a rigid, legalistic lifestyle involving numerous requirements and minute details for daily life. Fourth, these churches tend to change their names often, especially once they are exposed by the media. Fifth, denouncing other churches is common because they see themselves as superior to all other churches. Sixth, these churches have a persecution complex and view themselves as being persecuted by the world, the media, and other Christian churches. Seventh, abusive churches specifically target young adults between eighteen and twenty-five years of age. The eighth and final mark of abusive churches is the great difficulty members have in getting out of or leaving these churches, a process often marked by social, psychological, or emotional pain.

Those involved in a church that seems to reflect these characteristics would be wise to evaluate the situation thoroughly and leave the church if it is appropriate. Staying may increase the risks of damaging your family relationships and multiplies the likelihood of losing your perspective. Members of such churches often develop a distorted view of reality, distrust everyone, and suffer from stress, fear, and depression. Some former members even continue to experience these things after escaping from an abusing church. There are also several documented cases in which associating with an abusive church has led to the deaths of individuals or their relatives.

Some of these groups have networks of many sister churches. In some cases these groups have split off from more mainstream denominations. Occasionally the new groups have even been denounced by the founding denomination. Such groups often disguise themselves by frequently changing the name of their organization, especially following adverse publicity. This practice makes the true nature of these organizations more difficult to determine for the unsuspecting individual. Some abusive churches have college ministries all across the country. On some university campuses such student movements are among the largest groups on their respective campuses.

It is important that Christians today know the Bible and know how to recognize such churches so as not to fall into their traps. In order to help people become more aware of churches which may be abusing their members, I now want to go through in more detail the eight characteristics I mentioned earlier.

[tjlyttle]

Perhaps you are aware of this, but the very first elder excommunicated from a GC church was excommunicated for saying that unity was important, but it should not be at the expense of truth.

Linda, I wasn't aware of that, but it honestly doesn't surprise me. Like I said in my blog, unity without the truth is idolatry. That's why it's important to speak out and to shine a light on these issues, because they really are Gospel issues.

tjlyttle, I am glad you got out. Something is really weird over there. I just saw the website and 23 deacons were appointed and 6 pastors recently. It really doesn't make any sense to me.

DevastatedTC, I think it's the "fake it until you make it" strategy that is a hallmark of GCx. It's an attempt to weather the storm by projecting strength. I know several of the new deacons and "pastors". They're men I have a great amount of respect for. Unfortunately I think many of the new appointments are ceremonial at best. None of the "pastors" will be preaching from the pulpit, or be on equal footing with the main pastors. They're more like "glorified deacons/elders" than pastors. My concern is that it's an attempt to stack the deck with leadership that will continue to support WCC leadership and help silence legitimate concerns. I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything that would suggest that WCC leadership is on the path to humility and repentance.

[Linda]

tjlyttle,

Excellent points in your blog post on each Christian having unique gifts the church needs. When pastors (self-appointed ones might I add) make all the decisions in a church and demand that church members (I use that term loosely) obey them, they are assuming that the pastors have all the necessary gifts.

They truly believe they speak for God and everyone else is supposed to obey them.

I tell ya, it really isn't very easy to lead, but somebody's gotta do it. This is how God works. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to pray, to seek God about a particular decision, or particular- the direction that the church should go, and sense that God is.. um, putting an idea in our hearts. We confirm it then with other leaders and present it.. and have people say, "That's not what I wanna do." That's disheartening. You know, there's a bunch of stories in the Bible where leaders are trying to lead but people don't follow.

See this is how God does things. He puts his will in the heart of leaders lead, and then God asks people to follow. And sometimes people do, follow, and it's a blessing, and sometimes people don't follow, and it's a tragedy.
You know, you're not responsible for leading. You won't- You won't be the person standing before God and giving an account for the church. It's I and the other pastors, we're the ones that are on the hot seat. But not you. You can rest. And since pastors are on the hot seat, and'll stand some day and give an account before God, God I believe is also gonna give extra grace- extra wisdom to do what we need to do. Now I- I want to encourage you to continue bringing to us your ideas and your criticisms and your input, because we need that but it's what you do after that, it's just so important - just let it go. And rest. And understand that there's a sense of grace and accountability that falls on us but it doesn't fall on you, and you can trust God through it. Trust God that he's working through his design called authority and trust God that just maybe we have a bigger picture than you do.

[...]

And so even to give the controls over to God, that's hard, but the real kicker here is God is saying, "give the controls over to people that I work through, and these people are fallible, these people make mistakes, these people are weak at times. You-outta work through it anyway," that's what God says.

[/u]

Link to the audio where this is found.
http://www.gcxweb.org/Audio/TheSWord-08-13-2006.aspx

[tjlyttle]

Linda,

That quote makes me sick to my stomach. It's such a distortion of the Bible and ultimately of God's character. The verse that has been swimming around in my mind for the last 2-3 years and applies directly here is this:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

-Matthew 20:25-28 ESV

Submission when willingly and voluntarily offered is a beautiful thing. We see that clearly as Jesus submitted to God the Father throughout the Gospels. We also see that in healthy marriages. However, when submission is demanded it always leads to abuse. Instead of loving and serving the flock and giving people the opportunity to willingly submit, submission is demanded and is presented as a condition of loving Jesus. This is toxic and explains why this forum exists.

[Linda]

tjlyttle,

Picking up on point number 2 ("Spiritual Gifts") in your blog entry, one of the gifts of the Spirit is discernment. The GC system of pastors/elders making all decisions with no meaningful input from church members seems to make the assumption that all necessary gifts are given to the pastors. In fact, the message I quoted basically said that God gives special wisdom to pastors.

Also, in the message I quoted, he states a belief that God puts ideas in the minds of leaders and that the people are to follow. That was how things worked in the Old Testament. To obey Moses when he spoke for God, was to obey God. But that is not how things work now after Pentecost. We all have the Holy Spirit. God speaks directly to all Christians.

So, it could just be that the gift of discernment has been given to someone who has been a Christian for one month who is not a pastor. That person may have insight that the pastors can not see. A wise leader would take that into account.

I have often thought that while one reason this forum exists could very well be we are rebels who like to divide, another reason could be that a number of people posting here have the gift of discernment and are able to see error in GC teaching. We tried to help the leaders see their error, they refused to hear, we saw people being damaged by the bad teaching, and found a way to point out the error via this forum.

The DNA of GC has created a special group within the Church. There is an inner ring of pastors who sincerely believe they are spiritually above others. They believe that God speaks through them to "regular non-pastor" Christians. Then, when you consider that this group began with three guys (McCotter, Clark, and Martindale) who one day in 1970 or so declared themselves to be apostles, things get really wonky. Add to that the idea that every single elder's appointment can be traced back through a line of succession to these guys who one day declared themselves apostles and began appointing elders who have no real theological training apart from the group, but believe they are to be obeyed and you have quite the set up for some pretty bad things to happen.

[wisemind]

tjlyttle,

Picking up on point number 2 ("Spiritual Gifts") in your blog entry, one of the gifts of the Spirit is discernment. The GC system of pastors/elders making all decisions with no meaningful input from church members seems to make the assumption that all necessary gifts are given to the pastors. In fact, the message I quoted basically said that God gives special wisdom to pastors.

Also, in the message I quoted, he states a belief that God puts ideas in the minds of leaders and that the people are to follow. That was how things worked in the Old Testament. To obey Moses when he spoke for God, was to obey God. But that is not how things work now after Pentecost. We all have the Holy Spirit. God speaks directly to all Christians.

So, it could just be that the gift of discernment has been given to someone who has been a Christian for one month who is not a pastor. That person may have insight that the pastors can not see. A wise leader would take that into account.

I have often thought that while one reason this forum exists could very well be we are rebels who like to divide, another reason could be that a number of people posting here have the gift of discernment and are able to see error in GC teaching. We tried to help the leaders see their error, they refused to hear, we saw people being damaged by the bad teaching, and found a way to point out the error via this forum.

The DNA of GC has created a special group within the Church. There is an inner ring of pastors who sincerely believe they are spiritually above others. They believe that God speaks through them to "regular non-pastor" Christians. Then, when you consider that this group began with three guys (McCotter, Clark, and Martindale) who one day in 1970 or so declared themselves to be apostles, things get really wonky. Add to that the idea that every single elder's appointment can be traced back through a line of succession to these guys who one day declared themselves apostles and began appointing elders who have no real theological training apart from the group, but believe they are to be obeyed and you have quite the set up for some pretty bad things to happen.

Very true!

God has given us an amazing brain to use for thinking, evaluating, examining, questioning, and discerning.

Anyone can claim they are speaking for God. If a pastor tells you to "rest", "follow", and "obey" (in other words turn off your brain) and then says:

-Live where I say
-Give me your money
-Marry the person to whom I give permission
-Follow our parenting style (spank and homeschool your kids to teach them to obey without thinking)
-Leave your family - WE are your true family
-Stay within the Great Commission system for all your marriage, parenting, spiritual, and mental health needs (because we have the truth and our way is the best)

and manipulatively uses God and the Bible to control behavior through guilt and fear of losing God's favor or some "tragedy" occurring, my brain (and my gut) tells me to run the other way!

A leader who claims to hear from God and expects everyone who is "under his authority" to blindly obey whatever they say is a CULT LEADER.

Many of us have left the Great Commission movement (cult) and have found freedom from control and intimidation, guilt and fear, and are able to use our God given gifts and abilities in the ways we choose. We can have a real relationship with the true God (Jesus) who loves is and walks right beside us (and even carries us sometimes). HE is our Good Shepherd and there is no need to fear Him. Also, reach out to any of us on this forum. We will walk with you offering our support, encouragement, and strength. It might be the scariest thing you ever do, but take that first step toward healing, (mental and spiritual), hope, and freedom. And know you are not alone!

[margaret]

While not in Walnut Creek, I said on more than one occasion that our pastor doesn't trust the Holy Spirit in others. They way he tells people what to do, points out their sins, REMINDS THEM of past failures in order to 'keep them down', the list goes on.  Basically, he is being everyone's Holy Spirit. 
It's a big job, but hey, someone's got to do it.

[grandslam]

T.J.,

You noted that you had some angst over leadership's lack of emphasis on the sovereignty of God.  What do you mean by this?

Thanks.

[tjlyttle]

Grandslam,

That's a good question. I believe that from cover to cover that the Bible is clear that God's sovereignty and holiness is the most important thing about God. It's the only attribute that when spoken of is repeated three times in succession (i.e. holy, holy, holy). However, in my time at Walnut Creek the sovereignty of God was rarely talked about, and certainly never emphasized. I think there are probably several reasons for this, but it is well-known that Walnut Creek leadership has a low opinion of reformed theology. The main two negative results of avoiding the sovereignty of God is that it 1) doesn't prepare people for suffering and 2) leads to exhaustion and burnout. Regarding the first point, if we want to be biblical we have to talk about it because God is not shy about proclaiming his own sovereignty and glory. In terms of living the Christian life, I think that trusting in the sovereignty of God is our only firm foundation when suffering enters into our lives. If we only understand God in terms of His love, then it will lead us to question His love for us when we experience hard things that He obviously could have prevented. But if we understand the love of God through the lens of His sovereignty then we can walk through trials with our faith intact. Regarding my second point on exhaustion, our tendency (including mine for a couple of years) is to say that brothers can disagree on such matters and still live in unity. While that may be true to a degree, theology plays a massive role in how your approach your day-to-day life. The practical outworking of not emphasizing the sovereignty of God is that it leads to exhaustion. If someone else's salvation depends on what I do (or don't do) or say (or don't say) then I will be unable to rest. However, if I believe that God is sovereign over all things, that His purposes can not be thwarted then I will work hard to obey Him, but I will also rest. It was my experience that many attending WCC were not adequately prepared to face real suffering and were often exhausted and would blame themselves for not "bearing enough fruit". I think you can attribute all of this to a lack of grace that results from emphasizing man's obedience over God's sovereignty.

[grandslam]

T.J.,

Thanks for the explanation.  Hope you're up for a healthy discussion  

I believe that from cover to cover that the Bible is clear that God's sovereignty and holiness is the most important thing about God

While not denying the fundamental importance of those characteristics, I would challenge this notion, simply due to the relational (love) and self-giving aspects of God so prevalent in Scripture's depiction of God.  

However, in my time at Walnut Creek the sovereignty of God was rarely talked about, and certainly never emphasized

Based upon my knowledge of Walnut Creek (more limited now than it used to be) they can certainly be criticized for not being theologically minded enough.  But, they are likely not emphasizing the sovereignty of God in the manner that you embrace because they do not see the sovereignty of God the same way you do (is it that God is sovereign in a deterministic sense?)

...it is well-known that Walnut Creek leadership has a low opinion of reformed theology.

But the same could be said of folks from many Christian traditions.  Such an opinion is not unique to Walnut Creek.  It's probably not feasible to expect them to suddenly (or even gradually) change their opinion of reformed theology simply because of your newfound affinity for it.

The main two negative results of avoiding the sovereignty of God is that it 1) doesn't prepare people for suffering...I think that trusting in the sovereignty of God is our only firm foundation when suffering enters into our lives.

 
If you are working from a reformed view of suffering (that God decrees and determines all suffering for his purposes), how does that more readily prepare folks to suffer (or provide a firmer foundation to stand upon) over and against the view that God allows (but doesn't directly cause) suffering for His purposes, and can ultimately bring good out of any situation we encounter?

And if some think that God's love negates going through hard things in this life, well, they are just naive and not reading their bible.

If someone else's salvation depends on what I do (or don't do) or say (or don't say) then I will be unable to rest. However, if I believe that God is sovereign over all things, that His purposes can not be thwarted then I will work hard to obey Him, but I will also rest.

Regarding the first sentence, who teaches this?  Isn't every man accountable to God themselves (Romans 2)?  Your remedy in believing that God is somehow sovereign over salvation, and that this is supposed to lead more to resting, is sure is a great way of expressing a monergistic view of salvation (that God alone saves without any input or response whatsoever from man), but not a satisfactory answer to those who don't accept a unilateral kind of salvation.

It was my experience that many attending WCC were not adequately prepared to face real suffering and were often exhausted and would blame themselves for not "bearing enough fruit". I think you can attribute all of this to a lack of grace that results from emphasizing man's obedience over God's sovereignty.

If true, this is indeed a problem.  But it's certainly not alleviated with a simple change in emphasis (God's "sovereignty"--whatever you're implying it means as it operates in each believer's life-- instead of man's obedience).  After all, grace is said to teach us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously and godly (Titus 2).  Not sure how God's sovereignty can give us a "pass" on not striving to do just that.

Feel free to respond to and provide further clarification on anything I've written.

[tjlyttle]

Grandslam, appreciate the dialogue. Here's my attempt to clarify some things and address your questions/comments:

While not denying the fundamental importance of those characteristics, I would challenge this notion, simply due to the relational (love) and self-giving aspects of God so prevalent in Scripture's depiction of God.

I need to clarify what I really mean here. As Deuteronomy 6:4 states, God is one. His attributes are not at war with each other. God's sovereignty does not cause His love to diminish and vice versa. God is fully loving and fully sovereign. The better way for me to explain what I mean is that I believe that it's clear throughout scripture that God's primary motivation for everything He does is His own glory. When God acts in his sovereignty and when He loves us, He does this for His glory. Because He is God, and He is the best thing for us, we are, at the same time, perfectly loved by God because He is primarily motivated to glorify Himself.

Based upon my knowledge of Walnut Creek (more limited now than it used to be) they can certainly be criticized for not being theologically minded enough.  But, they are likely not emphasizing the sovereignty of God in the manner that you embrace because they do not see the sovereignty of God the same way you do (is it that God is sovereign in a deterministic sense?)

I think that's a valid point. And to be perfectly honest, I really didn't have much hope that WCC would switch to being a calvinistic, reformed community. And even if I did, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect that sort of transformation to happen with a couple of years. But, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to reformed theology, the fact that God is sovereign is clearly laid out in scripture, and if we are going to be faithful to the Bible and to God's character, we need to talk about it. I actually would have more respect for WCC if they would just clearly lay out their theological positions, even if I disagreed with them. If that were the case there would be real opportunity for healthy dialogue. I also think that would help members of WCC understand how the church is structured, and why they value the things that they do.

If you are working from a reformed view of suffering (that God decrees and determines all suffering for his purposes), how does that more readily prepare folks to suffer (or provide a firmer foundation to stand upon) over and against the view that God allows (but doesn't directly cause) suffering for His purposes, and can ultimately bring good out of any situation we encounter?

And if some think that God's love negates going through hard things in this life, well, they are just naive and not reading their bible.

 
This is a distinction without a difference. If God allows something to happen, He is still sovereign over that thing. To clarify, I'm not arguing between these two paradigms (I learn towards God decreeing all suffering for His purposes), but rather that while the love of God is immense and indelible, if we don't also understand the sovereignty of God, we will have a much harder time persevering in faith. It's great that God loves me, but if I'm going to suffer, there had better be a purpose to it. Being able to trust that God DOES love me, but that He also has a purpose, and is accomplishing that purpose is an anchor for my soul. In my experience, because we so rarely talked about God's sovereignty, and the fact that God is primarily motivated by/for His own glory, I don't think people were really prepared to face suffering/trials. This is why it's so important to preach the full counsel of God. So, the reason for my angst was not because God's sovereignty is all that matters, but that it matters just as much as His love does, and we were not really talking about it, even in spite of the times when the particular texts we were working through clearly speak to His sovereignty and holiness.

Regarding the first sentence, who teaches this?  Isn't every man accountable to God themselves (Romans 2)?  Your remedy in believing that God is somehow sovereign over salvation, and that this is supposed to lead more to resting, is sure is a great way of expressing a monergistic view of salvation (that God alone saves without any input or response whatsoever from man), but not a satisfactory answer to those who don't accept a unilateral kind of salvation.

As far as I'm aware this was not specifically taught, but it is the practical outworking of not resting in the truth that God is sovereign and our choices do not surprise/hinder/delay/thwart God's purposes. Once again, I didn't expect WCC to adopt reformed theology, but even if one finds themselves within the Arminian perspective, the sovereignty of God is still a biblical reality. If our theology (definitely including my theology here as well) leads us to ignore parts of the Bible, then our theology is terrible, and should be repented of.

If true, this is indeed a problem.  But it's certainly not alleviated with a simple change in emphasis (God's "sovereignty"--whatever you're implying it means as it operates in each believer's life-- instead of man's obedience).  After all, grace is said to teach us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously and godly (Titus 2).  Not sure how God's sovereignty can give us a "pass" on not striving to do just that.

Is the answer as simple as just emphasizing God's sovereignty more? Probably not. But I think that is a major part of it. The author of Hebrews tells us to "throw off every hindrance and look to Jesus...". Paul tells us that He works with "Christ's energy, which so powerfully works in me". The reason I think the sovereignty of God is so key is that it's clear that it is the triune God that is the operational element in our salvation and sanctification. I can't attain (more) holiness just by sheer effort, and even if I could that would be self-righteousness, which is sin. Do I have a role to play in my own sanctification? Yes, that is obvious. But my sanctification is not obtained by focusing on my behavior, its obtained through keeping my gaze fixed on Christ, and responding in obedience as He calls me to follow Him in the myriad of ways as outlined in Scripture.

Hope that helps clarify some things from my original response, and addresses your questions. Let me know if you have more questions, or if I just flat out ignored something important from your comments.