Elitism in GCM, and having a "single eye"

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.

[Anonymous]

..surely you have noticed that GCM tends to hear almost exclusively from its own

Heh. In two years, although there were multiple guest speakers at my GCM church, all of them but one was from GCM. The one exception, a missionary from India, was allowed to speak once. A few weeks later a pastor commented on it at a Sunday service, saying something like (sorry, but I have to paraphrase from memory): “A few weeks ago we allowed a missionary to speak who was not affiliated with our group, and took an offering for his ministry. Normally we don’t do this, because he may have areas in his life that he needs to work on, and since we aren’t involved in speaking into his life we just don’t know. And that is why…”– and then went on to announce a brand new missionary giving program, where the church would be able to donate to GCM missionaries. There was to be no more “mystery” about the missionaries on stage, since they would all be monitored by GCM’s strict discipling system!

[Samuel Lopez De Victoria]

Brothers and Sisters,



I wonder if there is too much stock being put into the issue that GC churches don’t invite outside folks.



Can they benefit from more diversity from outside. Of course. Are they “bad” because they don’t. I say “be careful.” GC tends to be ingrown.



First all the churches are not this way. I did not have this attitude in my churches. When I was in National Leadership, we constantly talked about getting the likes of Rick Warren, John Maxwell, and others to come in. In some regions, some folks from Fuller Seminary were brought in (Ohio region). Bob Logan was hired as a consultant while I did my stint. Olan Hendrix also came on board. Another point is that many churches used materials and videos made by other Evangelicals. Most went to church growth conferences.



I did bring up to Hopler and Co. that our National Conferences were getting boring and same-ole/same-ole. I then was gone.



Basically, I would be careful to not come down so hard on this area. I can show you many non-GC churches, especially where there are insecure pastors where they are so protective that they hardly ever have outside sources or leaders come in. I wonder if this one has the element of straining knats.



Samuel Lopez De Victoria, Ph.D.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Sam, I agree it seems to be a small point. But I think it speaks to a greater issue, that of not being subject to any real authority (not just a figurehead counsel of reference) outside of the movement. I sort of lump this together with the seminary issue.
As you said a little diversity would be good.

[Anonymous]

Sam said,

First all the churches are not this way. I did not have this attitude in my churches.

Well, I’m glad to hear this then, but I wonder if your church (A) is still like this and (B) is the rule or the exception. Beyond not inviting outside speakers, in the church I attended you were rebuked if you were attending small group/church functions while at the same time visiting another church. Reason given was that you were not being of a “single eye.” You were then asked to make a choice, the GCM church or the other. Outside counseling was also greatly discouraged, even on issues where special training may be needed, such as depression and eating disorders. Instead you would be referred to a GCM pastor whose advice would basically consist of “pray more.” The belief of my former GCM church leaders was that all of your life needs could be met through that church. I will say that they did implement the 40 Days Of Purpose material, but it was presented in small groups alongside a life-with-GCM type message. Oh, and the attitude some of my small group leaders held about other churches was quite belittling, and came out in jokes they made occasionally. I didn’t appreciate this, having been baptised in town at a non-GCM non-denom. church.

Basically, I would be careful to not come down so hard on this area. I can show you many non-GC churches, especially where there are insecure pastors where they are so protective that they hardly ever have outside sources or leaders come in. I wonder if this one has the element of straining knats.

You are right, this is a common thing even outside of GCM. But I did attend what I would consider several healthy Christian churches before I attended GCM, and the frequency of missionaries and speakers from outside organizations was at least more than one every two years. And also, I mentioned my previous story because following that India missionary’s visit (the only outside visitor in two years) the church set up a system that would prevent them having to have missionaries from outside of their organization on stage again in the future. The way it was done made it seem like they felt bad for allowing a non-GCM person on stage.

[Anonymous]

…I had forgotten all about the “single eye” phrase…..

[nateswinton]

“single eye”?

what’s it a refrence to?

[sistanchrist]

sheep stealing…. anyone up for that convorsationa again. even setting foot in another ministry(not even a church) got me rebuked. The thought of a member working together with other believers form other chruches to host a campus wide event was an unspeakable offense against the small group, the individuals I was discipling and against the church. My church failed to even show up to the extent of schedualing another more important event on a day that was previously free. The fear of some one outside of GCM having the ability to speak into a members life was to terrifying for the leadership to allow the members of my home church to go.

I remember in a printed LTC material for GCM that highlighted the responsiblility of small group leaders to force decisiions on what ministry or church a small group goer would commit to if they were going to a campus ministry or other church(including their parents churches if they visited on weekends).

sorry Sam, as I usually support your comments, but a huge issue is the complete and total unwillingness to allow speakers from other denom. or movements speak. I have heard about this from to many churches with in GCM having the same policy. It is a very effective means to keeping the members of GCM churches ignorant as to other aspects of a Christian walk, of the validity of other churches, of even their own gifts, of doctrinal issues including leadership structure. It is also effective in preventing other Christian leaders from having access to GCM leaders that may allow for correction, rebuke, and outside influences that may promote the changes that need to happen.

An illustration of this,I am generally speaking blind to some of my faults, without other people correcting me on them those faults thrive and grow and become nightmarish problems that become habbits, lead to sin, etc. When people call me on them it helps me to see them for what they are. I have a good idea of what i do, but not always its effect. When I am told by some one outside of my life of the effect of an action I have made I am able to change the behavior and make amends to the people that it has hurt. Apply this concept to the church level, if a church is in error and has no one other then itself to speak that freeing truth into it, of course things are going to seem okay when they may be completly wrong. GCM needs people outside of GCM to speak into it, guest speakers from outside of GCM would be a small start at moving in that direction. Yes I realize that GCM has a board of reference that is not consisting of GCM members, but i don’t think that any of thos individuals have had the chance to see the day to day workings of anything other then headquarters, the mission statement, and what doctrine is in print.

I also know that not all GCM churches fall into this trap, some in Iowa I have heard stories of working with other ministries to reach their city. Even small group to small group their was inconsistencies in many of these things we have been discussing on this blog at my church. I learned that on the small groups you could trace the “geneolgies” of them and get an idea about how strict, abusive, etc. they were goign to be or how open and supportive they would be off of who was the founding leader of that family of small groups. So yes, not all GCM churches share all that is being described to the same degree, but in some degree even a minor one, I would be willing to bet that these concerns are present.

Just my rant for the day.

[Anonymous]

“single eye”? what’s it a refrence to?



That going to more than one church is not having a ’single’ eye and not being committed to a single place. The only verse I know of that mentions having a single eye is Matthew 6:22, but that has (as far as I can tell) nothing to do with the GCM interpretation. Someone please speak up if you know more details on the origin of this saying. I do know that that phrase has come up many when somebody is attending other churches while attending GCM in some manner.



The way GCM does their stuff is very clever. They tell you that you need to be dedicated to one body of believers, one church, and tell you to make your choice and dedicate yourself to that group (followed by the whole loyalty speel)– the funny thing is that you can go to other Christian churches and (generally) nobody would even think of asking you where else you go, what other believers you fellowship with, etc. It’s not an issue. So since other churches are okay with you attending GCM, but not the other way around, only GCM benefits from this sermon. That’s how it’s designed. It’s the same way with the loyalty-to-GCM-for-life sermon. On the outside it sounds like they are being fair to all churches. “We don’t care what group of believers you commit your life to, but pick ONE and stay with them for LIFE!” Yet, since other churches don’t preach this (because it’s not biblical to promise yourself to a single section of the body for the rest of your life, rather than to whatever Christ may call you to go and do) it’s basically just a GCM Is The Only Way sermon wrapped up in a pretty package.



I’ve also witnessed sermons where they mix in the idea that God has control of your life, which is presented as evidence that he wanted you to be there, in that particular church, at the very moment this sermon was being preached. Sounds biblical, but read between the lines and these two messages equate to: God put you in this GCM church, and therefore you need to commit yourself to GCM for the rest of your life. As has been said before, the way things work is often very subtle, but you pick up on them after enough time.



sista in christ said,



I remember in a printed LTC material for GCM that highlighted the responsiblility of small group leaders to force decisiions on what ministry or church a small group goer would commit to if they were going to a campus ministry or other church(including their parents churches if they visited on weekends).



Ooh. Happen to have any of this material laying around?

[AgathaL'Orange]

We had a lot of material around, but we went through a purging phase where we got rid of all that stuff including GCLI, the GCM Workbook, and lots and lots of Bible Study books and other literature.

Now I wish I had them, because I think I can read them more clearly now. But at the time, it felt like we couldn’t get rid of GCM fast enough.

[snoopy]

Corporate breathes a sigh of relief when they realize that Agatha no longer has a copy of the GCLI materials.

[Anonymous]

“Angry” here - We still have some of the LTC %$#@!%#$ laying around. Mrs Angry knows where they are. I think we even have some of the begger manuals that talk about sucking money from your family, friends, and acquaintances for sponsorship funds.

We get those out when friends tell us “You guys were in a cult? NO WAY.”

[Anonymous]

Angry, do you have a scanner? Or would you be willing to xerox and send me copies if I paid for the cost?

- Non-Angry Anonymous

[Anonymous]

No scanner, but I would be more than happy to fax or xerox some of the funnier pages (in hindsight) and send them to you.

[AgathaL'Orange]

What does LTC stand for? Is that for summer LT or is that GCLI stuff? We never went to LT only HSLT with our youth group as leaders. And by the way, on that topic– I noticed at HSLT that when we went to one that mixed regions, it was way less extreme than when we just had the NW region. Anyone else experience that?

[nateswinton]

Man alive…

Hey, how about this, I have LTC this Saturday morning. Why don’t I record and post the whole thing somewhere?! Kidding. Everyone laugh! Yay!

Sorry ’bout that.

I want to say LTC stands for Leadership Training Course(s) but I could be wrong. I’m sure I’ll hear in a few hours if I am. Some of my friends at my church read this now. I think it’s similar to the GCLI materials (which I’m going through now as well). I’m not sure what differentiates them or what the overarching vision for LTC is. I know the GCLI materials are open to anyone, but are basically required to be gone through to become an elder. It’s going to take us 2 years to go through all the GCLI stuff.

About regions, they’re generally different. The upper midwest is even teased about being by far the most strict and hardcore.

One of the guys that did training at staff training who was not from the midwest completely expected me to be reading my Bible for hours on end, taking prayer walks and speaking eloquently and intelligently on the most conservative topics. When he found out my favorite band is Rage Against the Machine, I struggle with habitual sins and I’m moderate to liberal on politics he was blown away. He said most people they train from my region fit the first description and he was surprised I could be a leader at my church. He was half joking.

I know from conversations with other staffers that different regions have very different “DNA”, and it’s clearly passed down by the regional director. When I say clearly, I mean it was taught during one of my training sessions that we’re a “tribal” association and the “DNA” of the regional leaders (”chiefs”) affecting the regional churches is just fine. The assumption, of course, is that the DNA is “just fine”. If it is, we don’t have a problem.

I think this blog is here posing the idea that it isn’t.

[G_Prince]

Nate,

I think your right about the regional thing. It’s true for any church denomination. Each place has a local flair and sometimes tremendous variety. It’s defiantly true of my current church.

In some GCM churches leaders recognize certain problematic traits within the movement and ignore or discourage them. However in others, leaders openly preach and emphasize the same thing. It’s like Sam said in another post. He would let his kids attend GCM churches with certain leaders but not others.

Yet the problem ultimately is the DNA. I think the Bovenmyerists such as your self are constantly fighting an uphill battle against deeply engrained dogma. You are attempting to change the core concepts of this group which may prove to be untouchable.

[nateswinton]

Remember what the power of this movement *was*?

Youthful zeal and a conviction of truth.

I remember almost a year ago… man, maybe it was over a year ago now… sitting at an Admin meeting and yelling through tears that several people in the room had lost the vision of the founders. I still believe that and hold fast to it, but for the sake of not getting rebuked again I haven’t brought it up at the meeting again.

I think the original vision of the movement was dead on. It was the growing pride from success, and the pain of losing close friendships that lead to alot of what we see today. At least that’s what I’m gathering. Satan used those two things to poison some minds. No one went totally off the deep end, they just added a slight twist to their thinking. That was enough.

Why would someone want to push loyalty to the local church so badly? Because it feels like they’re getting rejected when people leave. Alot of people leaving also cripples the movement toward certain goals of the leadership. To someone who gets hurt when people leave, *and* sees their hopes and dreams get farther away, it makes ALOT of sense to push loyalty hard.

When your goals are things like church planting and salvations it seems totally reasonable to back up the loyalty thing with Biblical principles. But the subtle twist is that the deeper driving force is that it hurts to lose friends - people you trusted to stay. You want to control them so that you can keep them. You love them. But it’s a selfish love. It’s not agape.

It’s not healthy, but like I said in either this thread or another one - I’m not excusing things, I’m explaining them. Just so I’m understood.

Actually, I can’t find the teaching now on our website, but I remember our pastor teaching about a year ago about loyalty. Brace yourselves, because you won’t expect what’s coming. I remember crying because he was so right on.

He was talking first about people’s responses to problems in other churches, doctrines, immorality, bickering, etc. Then he talked about how the church is God’s bride. And the thing that I remember, and will probably always remember, was the quote toward the end: He was talking about other churches and how sometimes we can look down on other christians and be condescending or proud, or just demeaning. He said “That’s *MY* church - don’t you talk bad about those catholics, those methodists, those baptists! I’m related to them! I’m part of that body! That’s GOD’S WIFE!!! That’s my church. You should love them.”

There was nothing even remotely elitist. He was actively breaking down the lines between our church and other churches and showing how wrong those lines were. It was one of the most encouraging, edifying messages I’ve ever heard. He’s been around for about 20 years.

[Anonymous]

He was talking about other churches and how sometimes we can look down on other christians and be condescending or proud, or just demeaning. He said “That’s *MY* church - don’t you talk bad about those catholics, those methodists, those baptists! I’m related to them! I’m part of that body! That’s GOD’S WIFE!!! That’s my church. You should love them.”

I would love to see GCM embrace this idea. I hope someday leaders realize that loyalty needs to be directed towards God, not man, towards the body of Christ, not an organization. I’m glad at least one GCM pastor has seen it that way. It’s too bad there’s so many people with stories of the opposite kind. Thanks for posting that, Nate.

[namaste]

“single eye”? what’s it a refrence to?

That going to more than one church is not having a ’single’ eye and not being committed to a single place. The only verse I know of that mentions having a single eye is Matthew 6:22, but that has (as far as I can tell) nothing to do with the GCM interpretation. Someone please speak up if you know more details on the origin of this saying. I do know that that phrase has come up many when somebody is attending other churches while attending GCM in some manner.

I've heard gcm-ers give messages to the effect of referencing the more mystical/transcendental ideologies' concept of the "third eye."  The goal of the talk was to discredit any notion of the idea that Jesus may have ever been exposed to mystical ideologies ( :roll: ), and that Jesus most certainly could not have been referencing the Hindu concept of the third eye/7th chakra/1000 petal lotus/or whatever you want to call it.

For reference, the "third eye" is located in the auric field above the head.  The third eye represents complete awareness of one's own aura, and the auras of others.  It is associated with intense perception and ability to commune with the divine.

A christian parallel might be intense awareness of whether others' "porch lights" are on (ie, are they faking it, or are they genuine?).  Or perhaps consider that really deep place you get to when you're meditating on a verse, or are in a very relaxed state where you can almost get the sensation of talking/having a conversation with God (as opposed to other times, where you're just talking at God).

All I have to say, is that you'd better believe that I keep my third eye wiiiiide open whenever I have anything to do with anyone/anything remotely related to gc-whatever.   :lol:

[GD]

I agree that most outside speakers are from GCM.  The exceptions are usually topic experts such as financial people, travel related, Power Team, etc...

I never had issues associating with other Christians: campus-wide prayer events, Easter cross-christian group events/promotions, and I even went to a prayer group with leaders of IV, Navigators, and a few other para-church orgs.  Many from my church went to Campus Crusade Friday nights, when we dropped a similar style meeting.  I believe my GCM pastors always were part of some city-wide pastor meetings.

I have seen it expressed that "all needs" "should" be met within the local church, and that GCM teaches that the local church is the proper conduit for meeting all a believer's spiritual needs.  It is irrational to believing that each (if any) GCM church is equipped for this, and I think this is an attempt to put God into a box.  This also can cross into dangerous ground regarding control issues.

There is a point about people that never commit.  An anology:  I think people should all have a primary physician they trust and that know all of the issues a person is facing.  As needed, specialists can be consulted and treatments can come from a variety of sources.  People that just go to emergency rooms aren't likely to have the same quality care.  
People need a home church where people will care about their lives and help them get what they need.  People that only want to self-treat or get emergency room care, should be encouraged to develop long-term spiritual relationships to help them.  This shouldn't be arm-twisting, but is the point I agree that should be made.