GC Seeking "Reconciliation"

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]

Thought some readers here might find this interesting.

In March we received a letter from two local GC leaders. It appears to be part of an initiative originating in national headquarters, and being carried out by local leaders, to belatedly work on some bad PR, at least quiet some of the ongoing negative commentary here and elsewhere about the group. The words being used are "reconciliation" and "understanding," that's the way they're characterizing their purpose.

In spite of the oddness of having this letter show up out of the blue, nearly seven years after we left a GC church(!), in fairness a couple of things in it should be noted:

1. An apology from one man for his teaching about lifetime commitment to GC at a youth event in 2005 that was particularly egregious, and the indication that he has now removed the recording from resource libraries;
2. From the other leader, no apology particularly, but again the indication that his series talking about "giving the controls of your life" to your pastors (from 2006 and often referred to in posts here) would also be coming down. I didn't get the sense that he felt his teaching was wrong, but that he regretted some word choices.

We did respond briefly, expressing our appreciation for the apology, giving them credit for making a start by removing some of their material, and encouraging them to continue making steps in the right direction. We reminded them that of course the GC distinctives in those removed talks (authoritarian leadership and "loyalty to GC for life" cult-like sectarianism) were not limited to a few poor word choices in a few recordings, but pervasive and widespread within their organization. A short follow-up back to us indicated that the writer was "unaware" of any unhealthy teaching pervasive or widespread in GC . So there you go.

Between the lines:

1. Apparently GC headquarters is reading this site, as John Hopler (GC President?) was described as passing info about "concerns" expressed here down to the regional and local leaders...and...
2. Although this forum and gcmwarning has always seemed to me primarily about warning people of the hidden dangers of groups like GC, not engaging or impacting the group, it seems to have gotten their attention, for whatever that's worth.
3. Obviously we got a letter because we haven't posted very anonymously. Not sure that was the wisest decision:).

Anyway, although I'm aware of no evidence that anything has changed significantly in the doctrine, practice and structure of GCC and it's affiliates, it seems appropriate (since people on this forum have identified the errors in these specific messages) to pass along the fact that at least some correction has taken place, and some items removed from public availability.

To those within the higher echelons of GC who apparently are reading here, please consider that your core issues are not about "reconciliation," they have to do with doctrine, structure and practice. And on that front, some of us who post have no further desire to dialogue privately or to explain any more to you. Been there, done that, long ago. The material online and elsewhere is voluminous. Digest it. Deal with it. Disagree with it, that's fine. If you were ever able to move past a purely defensive, status quo position and embrace a serious desire to reevaluate what you teach and do—and consider substantial change—I suppose there would be ex-members willing to add their perspectives.

[EverAStudent]

TerryD, that was well and thoughtfully stated. 

It is an interesting clue that the leadership thinks their error is limited to poor word choices here and there instead of admitting to, embracing the existance of a root error, and weeding out the ubiquitous doctrinal error of having taught that the elders alone know and communicate the secret will of God for the congregation. 

TerryD, as you say, this is not about "reconciling" with those who have left but about GC improving their doctrine, theology, and practice of servant leadership.

Great caution must be taken in saying, "I forgive you" prematurely and for the wrong "offenses."  A quasi-pastor once told numerous lies and stole thousands of dollars in donated money and got caught (by me).  When confronted he said, "I am sorry I have hurt you, I see I have caused you great pain."  A senior pastor in attendance said, "Well I am glad that ugly business is over, now, forgive him and let's get on with the business of ministry."

No.  I can offer forgiveness for the confessed sin of hurting my feelings, but not for the theft and lying.  Forgiveness means to hand out a pardon for the release of all future penalties, restitutions, and obligations.  This quasi-pastor still owed thousands in restitution and public confessions for the sins of lying and stealing.  Yet, the senior pastor insisted that since the quasi-pastor had been "forgiven" for causing hurt feelings the matter was closed and the parties were "reconciled."  (Only later did I find out the senior pastor was in on the theft which helps explain his desire for a quick pardon.)

Forgiveness and reconciliation are dependent on specific and timely confessions followed by full restitution if needed (or desired).  In the case of GC they need to make restitution by repenting (changing their minds and actions) about their faulty doctrine, theology, and practices.  Offering forgiveness too soon and for superficial "offenses" instead of for the root sins will only facilitate the sinner in continuing his unrighteous ways and will actually prevent him from needing to repent.

[Linda]

About the letters we received. I agree with everything my husband said.

Just to reiterate.

1. We did not leave our church because we were in personal conflict with anyone. We spent many hours, over many months (nearly 2 years), meeting with many pastors (at least 5, 2 of whom sit on the National Board of GC) expressing our concerns over their teaching and practice. Been there, done that. No need for further discussion.

2. If anyone reading this has been told by a GC pastor that our problem is that we do not believe in elder led churches, please know that every church we have ever been a member of has been elder led. We believe in elder led churches. If you have been told otherwise, someone is misleading you.

3. John Hopler is reading this forum. Keep your concerns over teaching and practice coming.

4. Stay anonymous!

5. An offer was made in the second letter to have a conference call with Larry Pile and John Hopler. A private conference call would be of no interest or value to anyone. Our concerns are not personal. Public teaching/practice/doctrine should be discussed publicly. It might, however, be helpful to have Larry and John address concerns and explain/defend teaching on this forum in an open manner for all to read.

6. I applaud ECC for taking down the bad teaching. I hope that in addition to removing the tapes from the message library that they will also publicly correct the bad teaching as clearly as possible and as often as necessary.

[AgathaL'Orange]

This group is such a small fraction of the people on this planet.  It bothers you because you care and are nice people.  Praying absolute freedom from GC for you.  FWIW, I'm jealous of you NOT being anonymous.  It's a gift (and a curse, lol), but to be who you are with no hiding... that's a treasure.  Blessings, dear friend.  Time to collectively shake the GC dust from our feet?  I think yes.  I can't wait.   

[Linda]

Thanks for your kind and encouraging words, Agatha. No need to feel there is anything wrong with using a pseudonym. Frankly, it keeps the discussion focused when you remove "personal" accusations from the mix. Plus, you are in good & interesting company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_constitutional_debates

I think we all agree that GC is something to "get over". It's hard to do when 7 years after you leave, you receive letters in your mailbox. Do yourself a favor. Stay anonymous!

[FeministRebel]

I appreciate folks who are fighting for a true rectification of GCx's actions. I don't think I see myself as ever reaching a "reconciliation," though. As a young adult, I lost many years of my life that were CRITICAL to learning about myself, and my purpose in life... to this church and it's cultish grip, and we only have ONE life. I will NEVER get those years of my life back... so I can't see myself reconciling with that any time soon. I am trying to recoup those years, and figure out my life while I'm still somewhat young, but it's a lot harder now. I just want my 'mistakes' (aka, their brainwashing) to be an example and a wake up call to others... to help others walk away from this while they can, even though it seems awesome, and wonderful. It's not. There are healthier places to grow close, or closer to God without compromising our identities, and being made to believe convictions from a few elders (I don't even feel comfortable referring to people who are NOT formally ordained as "pastors") need to be commandments for our lives...

The confusion and hurt this church brought into my life is very real... And I'd almost see it as reconciling with an abuser. It will never happen, for me. God can deal with me as he wishes, but I can't just forgive and forget.

[Linda]

The confusion and hurt this church brought into my life is very real.

I am so sorry. I just re-read your introduction.

My husband and I are in the unique position of not being "hurt" by our church. By that I mean things like, he did not turn down job promotions in the hopes of being an elder one day. Some we know did. He did not change education goals in order to serve the elders/movement. Some did. There is nothing they need to apologize to us for. I realize that is not the case with many. Many have been hurt for decades by this group's bad teaching and practice.

In our case, even though we haven't been "hurt", I do believe false teaching has been damaging to me. I have had to spend a lot of time rethinking what I believe, undoing the bad teaching, and replacing it with solid teaching (which is a good thing!). Anyone who knows me, knows that my experience in leaving a GC church was a defining and difficult one in my life that I am still working through. I had been a Christian for 20 years when I began attending a GC church which perhaps made my departure a little bit easier. I had many other Christian friends. Most of my GC friends disappeared. Most didn't even bother to ask why we left. They just stopped communicating. Others, wrote letters of shunning. It's a bad deal. It's why I post here.

The bad teaching in GC is one that diminishes the Lordship of Christ and puts an emphasis on the local church and what they perceive as their unique and much better view of eldership which they are very proud of. It's God and the local church. Or God and the elders. And, whenever you have "God and something", that something is an idol.

Should they see their error, repent of it, and humbly and very publicly correct it, I think many would find a bit of comfort and be able to move on more easily. It would certainly be a start.

[blonde]

Linda: you said that,

6. I applaud ECC for taking down the bad teaching.

I have a concern about that in your assumptions.  Mark Darling STILL has the mind-set of whatever he took down, it's still in the brain of the core leadership.  You might have slapped their corporate leadership hand, but Mark Darling and Brent Knox still believe everything they took down.  They are just tipping their hat to you, as in a PR stunt.  It has nothing to do with what their real long term goals are.  They are just censoring what they believe and not exposing the truth. 

Can I get some thoughts from you about that, or even from John Hopler.

-Blonde

[Linda]

I hear ya, Blonde. I do have more thoughts, and when I feel so led will share them. In the meantime, I still do applaud them for taking the talks down (everything has to start somewhere) and, at the same time, agree with you that there needs to be a very public correction of the teaching if they mean this to be more than a PR stunt.

Also, they still don't seem to realize that bad teaching isn't a matter of private apology, but a matter of public correction (it might sometimes involve private apology, in addition to public correction).

More thoughts later, but you make some valid points.

[blonde]

I guess my additional thought is that if they did the 1991 Statement of Weakness, the current leadership rejects even talking or citing it in any manner YET they still do what the Statement suggests, what will change.  It's been going on since way before 1991.  Changing the church at a core level seems like an impossible task to me.

[theresearchpersona]

Changing the church at a core level seems like an impossible task to me.

To build in-place without removing what comes before is usually impossible, whether we speak of a literal building or a spiritual one. If the tree is no good...

[margaret]

And then on the other side of the country, John Hopler turns a deaf ear to charges of "This pastor is still operating this church according to pre-Weakness paper practices." In practice, the problem got swept under the rug.

Reconciliation, my ass.

I agree with blonde; it's a PR stunt to quell negative comments about their organization.  They don't want opposition, plain and simple.