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.
De-Commissioned Forum
November 20, 2017, 11:06:59 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: GCC and GCM  (Read 59121 times)
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #60 on: February 25, 2008, 07:21:08 pm »

Related to Namaste's post, and a bit to the one I put up earlier...

Notice that when Paul, a real Apostle, worked, that he would (despite the local autonomy of the Churches) write them letters reasoning with them, and asking them to come into agreement...being berean, of course.

Notice also, however, that despite being a true apostle, he even says that the churches in asia abandoned him!

This is serious: Jesus's prayer in John 17 was for the Apostles, and those who would believe on Him through their word.

The point is, however, that congregations ARE the church: and they must be responsible for maintaining good doctrine, kicking-out real wolves, throwing off legalism but disallowing worldliness or lawlessness (the opposite of legalism). GC*'s fear, and I  get this from pastors' statements, is that they would go the way of mainline denominations and such...where often people don't believe the Bible is God's word, where it's all relative, and etc.: and in many cases this is the case, and very true; but those bodies will have to answer of it; many will be the false desciples going "Lord Lord" hearing "I never knew you"; notice, however, that faithful congregations within often disassociate from those groups, and go on strong. Take notice, for instance, of the Episcopal Dioceses voting to terminate all connection with the American headquarters of that group for rebellion against God's word in regards to homosexuality etc..

Notice, though, that Paul's example was: to confront problems head on: polemical, "stop their mouths", not soft spoken, not effeminizing his voice or writing...and he wrote to Timothy that even in his day a time would come where they wouldn't head sound doctrine: but he was to continue giving heed to his teaching and teaching it anyways, exposing false teachers, etc..

But what we see is not "local autonomy" in the Bible, so much as local responsibility for itself: and the Apostles had responsibility to confront and fight error, fight those who'd bring the sheep into bondage (as GC does), and etc...but those local congregtions still had to decide themselves to heed the apostles' (and not false apostles') voices and be obedient to the Word: which guys like Paul exhorted them to check even against his teaching.

Thus in the Word we see the Churches, though apart, checking one another, keeping teachers etc.  in check and fighting off wolves, fighting off even those who don't mean to be but are "deceiving and being deceived", but the choice of obeying the Lord and His Word came down to the congregation's choice.

It's sad, too, that GC has that fear...but then engages to utilize pragmatism, every wind of doctrine, and "relevantize" the Church to the world, centering it around evangelism rather than the Worship of God and our Savior Jesus the Christ! It's no wonder, then, that it's growing worldly, heretical, etc..

And GC uses "autonomy" for a cover: they'll tolerate hersesy...so long as it's not stepping on their authority; forget defending the gospel, "you say God doesn't know until subsequent our actions...okay, just don't challenge us".

You guys know all this, just bringnig "New Testament Christianity" to bear on the discussion with Paul's example, and recapping: writing it all out helps to sort it out. Thanks.
Logged
Linus
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #61 on: February 25, 2008, 07:25:18 pm »

For one, I feel the 'difference' between GCM and GCC/whatever is being overplayed here.  I know that Nate had a positive experience recently with GCM and I'm glad for that, but having been in the middle of it--I think that may have something to do with both 'sides' (GCM vs. whatever) being a little eager to hear negative things about each other right now.
Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #62 on: February 25, 2008, 07:49:34 pm »

Quote from: "Linus"
think that may have something to do with both 'sides' (GCM vs. whatever) being a little eager to hear negative things about each other right now.


I hope not...then it's just a game of to whom blame is to be assigned...personally I think marketing tactics/twisted-gospel stuff + cult-practices implemented by false self-appointed apostle(s) becoming replace/merged by/with worldly pragmatism depending on the flavor of the fad of the month leaves the whole thing on very week foundations, possibly not on Jesus;

for instance, you'll notice testimonies to the group, not Jesus; it always seems any testimony to God is experiential, not doctrinal; but God says "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (in the Word, not more programs implemented by other outside organizations, UGH!); which requires a rebirth in the first place (i.e. being relevant/cool doesn't so much matter as preaching the word faithfully and letting the Holy Spirit convince someone; all this other junk about methodology is just men stepping into the Holy Spirit's rightful place: tresspassers!). (Of course we don't want not to have "experience", but experience subject to the Word, to Christ: not emotional experience that upon evaluation amounts to little less than manipulation, or what is produced by the music (music is powerful stuff); and/or deceiving ourselves.          GC's foundations are even questionable...so when men start figuring this all out...and trying to determine what to do, no wonder they feel trapped: they can't turn to the un/mis-taught congregation; they can't turn to the pastors (or other pastors); they sure as heck can't turn to the head honchos (who seem to be a continuing source of the problems). )


But I do really hope it doesn't just turn into a blame-game...more inhumility demonstrated. : (  That wouldn't help much. Are there people to blame? Yes, most definitely: as the excess of the 2 or 3 witnesses against the leadership & company demonstrates. But then there's those who're letting it all continue...I'm starting to learn of others who're starting to notice things, so that's great! Maybe we'll have a shot as something (2 or 3, 2 or 3), but it's still a long one.

I for one wouldn't mind stamping out fires for 20 years: but I might take the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, and stick the fire starters till they stop twitching: people think it's just to build up...but the Lord says it's to tear down. GC wants to fix without that first step: and no wonder, it would annihilate many people personally themselves.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #63 on: March 31, 2008, 08:31:25 am »

Quote
I am looking at a deposition done on Bill Taylor, the first elder to be excommunicated. It was signed by Dennis Clark, Mike Keator, Fred Colvin, Brian Catalano, Dave Gumlia, Jim McCotter, Gary Kellogg, Mike Royal, Herschel Martindale, Rick Harvey, Rob Irving, Dave Bovenmyer, Larry Clemente, and Steve Schoenberg.


Since I wrote the above statement, I've realized that a number of the men who signed the original deposition left GCx. I just read an article on the GCx site that quotes Mike Royal and says he was involved in helping people get out of high control groups. I was wondering who else on the above list has left GCx and now regrets signing it. Anyone know?
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Left
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #64 on: April 24, 2008, 02:26:57 pm »

i made a new topic under a different section about the issue of gcm's new website.

it's so bizarre. i definitely went to a church that was associated with gcm directly and i was hurt in the same way many people at this site were. it's not so weird that they are distancing themselves though.

when i went to my gcm church they NEVER talked about gcm being part of a different organization. it was always just gcm. there was always foggy history about pre-1990 times, but it was always described as a "some people who were leading the church got caught up in some wrong beliefs many christians had during that time." it was never stated that the "wrong beliefs" were actually the blitz movement, and that they were actually part of a gc* church.

the pastor who was saved in a gc* church doesn't say that it was a gcm church nor did he ever say it was under a different name. as far as everyone there knows, gcm stands alone.

either way, what's more weird is that they have two different url's to the website (it doesn't automatically transfer links) as www.gcmweb.org and www.greatcommission.org the website is the same at both urls. With the clever way the site is changing, from a design point of view, it looks like they're about to change faces and names.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2008, 05:45:47 am »

Having two links to GCM is kind of weird.

Tom Mauriello, the head of GCM, was communicating on this forum about the web page. (A number of us were offended by the "slander" :-) involved in the comment about us being online detractors from the historical Great Commission movement, so he offered to answer some questions here, but apparently has been too busy to post anymore or answer the questions on the public forum that he said he would. He has e-mailed a few of us privately, but has not answered the questions posed to him on this forum.)

Interesting.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
exshep
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2008, 07:59:49 pm »

Quote from: "puff of purple smoke"
Here are the GCC and GCM ministry directories if anyone is interested:

GCC Church Directory

GCM Campus Directory

According to the directories, the Sunday morning portion of my church was GCC, with the campus ministry being listed in both the GCC and GCM directories. Does that mean that the campus ministry was a part of GCC, but had some staff members who were paid by GCM?

I don't have time now, but it'd be interesting to go through the directory list and figure out which churches are purely GCM and not GCC.



This is getting even more interesting. Grace Community Church, Plano, TX is off the list.  I got suspicious when it was not on the monthly prayer newsletter this past month.  I was  a member there, it was heavy on  Willow Creek  and Saddleback,  but decreasingly detached from GCM.  I knew the senior pastor was supportive of other GC churches, oddly enough Evergreen.   The  church was about as detached from the McCotter era milieu  as one can get.   A few months before I left the GCM missionary newsletters disappeared from the literature racks.  I  did not think anything of it.    Did Grace, Plano get kicked out for not playing the GC tun?  I am not the black helicopter conspiracy type, but I have to wonder.
Logged

Had friend in Columbus church 80's and 90s. Member left in 1993  Involved GC in Texas  2005-2007.  Empathy to both  with  positive and negative aspects.
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2008, 10:42:44 am »

Quote from: "Linda"
Having two links to GCM is kind of weird.

Tom Mauriello, the head of GCM, was communicating on this forum about the web page. (A number of us were offended by the "slander" :-) involved in the comment about us being online detractors from the historical Great Commission movement, so he offered to answer some questions here, but apparently has been too busy to post anymore or answer the questions on the public forum that he said he would. He has e-mailed a few of us privately, but has not answered the questions posed to him on this forum.)

Interesting.


When men can't answer questions that have rotten answers, but they're defending whatever those answers pertain to, they often run; I really do hope, Tom, that this isn't what you're doing: neigher GCM nor Acts 29 (from where you came) have very good track records with being ministerially biblical: more militant and abusive of whoever isn't with the program. If anyone would like to read about the abusive tendencies also in Acts 29 you can by reading some of Driscoll's books; as one pastor put it,
Quote

"He is also ruthless. Driscoll has a mission (to ultimately grow a church of 10,000 attendees – p. 164) and any who does not fit into that mission is dispensable (pp. 45, 63, 112, 131, 135, 148-150) or fired (pp. 146-147, 196). As Mars Hill grows to megachurch status, one has to wonder what has become of the multitude of people harmed in the process, especially as Driscoll admits his fits of anger when not pleased (pp 99, 128, 130)."


Driscoll and his organizations are examples of orthodoxy, at least in some areas, but without the orthopraxy: I believe a paper about GC actually has an almost identical title to that description. However the truth is, that your practice will evidence your teaching, your doxy; so that really isn't hte case...there's some kind of weird veneer of orthodoxy rather than true biblical concern.

Thus his organization partnering with GCM...is really disturbing; no offense Tom; what's also disturbing is the frequency with which Driscoll jokes-off criticism: because he never seems to differentiate between unbiblical "stop preaching unmainstream/non-comfortable" kind of criticism, and the kind of "thanks for preaching what's good, but stop compromising and running-over sheep": he just cracks jokes and his congregations laugh...a little like they do in GC.

Seriously, Tom, why'd you come here: to be answerable to the Church and get to the bottom of things? Or to just shut-up critics? Or hope to persuade them to be less examining and outspoken? When the "pastor" of the Greeley church realized he was caught--he slander the people HERE by making-up the now widely disseminated spin-story about the origins of this site (one person vs. it being several), which I do think the site might actually benefit from putting-up with the visible confirmation of its contributors for all to see; he was caught between many fact chackers...and the people who started GCMwarning (peopel PLURAL), so that he couldn't cause mischief: he could either repent and be truthful, or he had nothing that couldn't be rebuked...and he disappeared, of course with the veneer of "love", the feigned variety, of "I've tried so hard [insert here]"; all talk, just a show.

That's now what we wonder about here, Tom...at least I think that's what people are wondering, just as Mrs. Dugan's post intimates.

GC has already by its abuses created a slew of cult-researchers, harmed sheep, as well as (praise God) some very careful pastors  Cheesy  who avoid its, and by analogy Acts29's/Driscolll's, worldliness. It's creating them by driving them out...so that they have to examine the word. I would be, if I were you, warned that GCM isn't a far step from the bad tree which produced not good fruit, but rather by sheep leaving they became truly exceedingly, fruitful; and by extension neither is Acts 29 very far off, nor is even Driscoll's self-made vision to make a megachurch: all things we've seen...and repudiate.

Get biblical more than in just word, and get biblical in evangelism according to the bible rather than wordly systems: if you have any real fear of the Lord; GCM is already supporting emergING/ENTs (Driscoll tries to create a false distinction--men before him already defined those terms, and he was with them when they effected their move to wipe-out orthodoxy and careful handling of the scriptures) who are increasingly fallen from the truth and preaching other gospels: lucky for me they keep blogs. : )  I know of at least one who even comes very near to where I live at certain times of the year...might try to find him sometime, though I semi-sort-of doubt it.

Come on, Tom, give the answers, whether or not they're pleasant, and be open and truthful. Nate did and he's in GC too! [/b]
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 598



« Reply #68 on: December 16, 2008, 02:54:43 pm »

When this thread started I recall talk of changing the GCM website wording, specifically the phrase "detractors." It looks like they /did/ change the website wording since this thread started, but just barely, and not the controversial part of it. It still basically says the exact same thing.

It was:
Quote
I have read some criticisms of the Great Commission movement online.
There is a small but vocal group of online detractors of Great Commission Churches. They say they have complaints with GCM, but in actuality their concerns are with Great Commission Churches—not with GCM as a mission organization. They misrepresent GCM when they label any church associated with the historic Great Commission movement as a “GCM church.” As a mission agency and distinct 501c3, GCM is not under the authority of Great Commission Churches. We would direct those who desire more information to Great Commission Churches’ website.


It is now:
Quote
I have read some criticisms of the Great Commission movement online.
There is a group of online detractors of the Great Commission movement. They typically identify their complaints with GCM, but their concerns are actually with churches associated with the historic Great Commission movement or with GCM Churches—not with GCM as a mission organization. They misrepresent GCM when they label any church associated with the Great Commission movement as a “GCM church.” As a mission agency and distinct 501c3, GCM is not under the spiritual authority of any one group of churches. We would direct those who desire more information to Great Commission Churches’ website or ask them to contact us directly.


And whatever happened to Tom? I thought he was going to be continuing dialog with us, as well as providing information such as a complete list of GC churches?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #69 on: December 16, 2008, 04:44:54 pm »

A year after we left, we received an e-mail from an ECC pastor who didn't like Terry's blog post. He had consulted with John Hopler and wanted to let us know that we were wrong in judging and or questioning an entire movement.

I just reread that letter and noted that he used the word "detractors" in referring to us and people like us. It looks like they all got the memo!
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2008, 04:57:22 pm »

One other thing, that letter referenced the GCM Council of Reference (which is made up of some pretty impressive names who also probably have no idea about the history of this group) to defend the credibility of GCC. So, to the GCC board members GCM and GCC are the same thing.

Someone should tell Tom that.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2008, 09:12:29 am »

Quote from: "Linda"
One other thing, that letter referenced the GCM Council of Reference (which is made up of some pretty impressive names who also probably have no idea about the history of this group) to defend the credibility of GCC. So, to the GCC board members GCM and GCC are the same thing.


Impressive names only if one does not consider that it's a hodge-podge of men who give their endorsements to practically anything and everything that calls itself "Christian" (or, even, "unchristian" or "unchurch" and any other number number of names the represent a wide array of divergent and contradictory philosophies).
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2008, 09:37:48 am »

The lesson to be learned is NEVER put your name on a board of reference for anything you aren't directly involved with.

Also, last I checked, one of the men on the board of reference passed away a couple years ago. I won't say which one, I'll let them figure it out.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Angry
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103



« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2009, 09:41:56 am »

GCM is still claiming membership in the National Association of Evangelicals.  The following is from GCM's web site:
"...ations and church movements around the world.
In 2008, GCM became a member of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
We’re thankful for the lives......"

Still no mention of GCM on NAE's web page.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 598



« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2009, 09:49:20 am »

They might be by now, although somebody would probably have to call the NAE to confirm. See Tom Mauriello's post here where he admits they claimed membership before they had it. Since the NAE seems unwilling to investigate GCM and unconcerned about any possible issues it might have they will probably be allowed in eventually if they aren't now. Maybe if a bunch of us called them they might listen to our concerns, but I and a few others have had trouble getting anyone from there to respond to emails or requests on their contact form.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2009, 10:33:16 am »

About the NAE (as a side note, when I first saw the letters NAE, for some reason they translated in my brain as NRA and I was trying to figure out why GC would join the NRA, but I digress...), I did call their office in DC last February about this. I was told to call some "top" membership guy in Colorado Springs who would have more current information. So, I did.

He was a little terse with me. Wanted to know why I was calling and sort of interrogated me about my simple question which was, "Is GCM a part of the NAE?" It got a little tense and seemed to me as though he had been warned that some "detractors" might call...just my perception based on the fact that it seemed that a simple yes or no would have sufficed. The "Why are you asking?" seemed unnecessary.

Anyway, at the time I called, February 2008, GCM WAS NOT a member of the NAE. However, they were claiming membership on their web page.

I PM'd Tom Mauriello about this and was told (I have the e-mail, but am a little nervous about copying and pasting private messages, so I will paraphrase):
-They misunderstood the process

-They screwed up

-The GCM board voted on applying on December 7, 2007

-Tom thought the secretary and treasurer applied at this point

-They had not

-They applied in February 2008 (I think perhaps within a day or two of people questioning it on this forum)

-NAE would not meet till March 2008 to accept their membership

-Tom promised to correct the web page and contact NAE to apologize for claiming membership when they were not

I did not pursue this with NAE or Tom. I had learned what I wanted to learn which was that GCM was not careful in publicly making it's claim of membership. I guess I believed that the NAE membership thing would happen in March...it seems like the NAE guy I talked with told me that he had just gotten the application a day or so earlier and confirmed that they would vote in March.

I checked and never saw the promised correction on the web page. Perhaps Tom just forgot, but I can't help but think that it fits the GC pattern of when caught, apologize, promise to change or correct, and then do nothing. But, Tom is a busy guy, jetting about the planet and I suppose it could have just slipped his mind.

If someone else feels like calling the NAE to verify that membership was given, I'd be interested in knowing...just don't feel like calling again. Frankly, it was a little traumatic for me to be interrogated by the NAE guy about why I was asking.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 10:39:49 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 962



« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2009, 10:43:20 am »

Very peculiar.  I had been wondering what was going on currently.  Sleuthing would be a lot more fun if it didn't affect one personally, true?
Logged

Glad to be free.
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #77 on: January 06, 2009, 03:32:21 am »

When the Membership information page of the NAE says "Dear future member" to begin...that does not inspire confidence as to how careful they are.

Anymore the NAE is just about networking to pragmatically get things done, not guard doctrine and keep-out the heretics. Haggard was well-known a heretic and even part of the group claiming to be apostles even before his election; Keith-y boy (the interrim replacement for Haggard) has promoted and affiliated with New Age for some time (there's many ways to gloss over this, but nonetheless he recommend such books, affirmed such writers as "brothers", etc.). The VP of the organization just resigned because he's now a promoter and supporter of homosexuality. Even the NAE's organizational staff and leadership aren't checked before incoming anymore.

Here's their denominational page, by the way:
http://www.nae.net/index.cfm?FUSEACTION=nae.members


GCC is number 29 down.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #78 on: January 06, 2009, 08:38:38 am »

I'm not a fan of the NAE, either, so I really couldn't care less whether or not GCM is a member.

My issue is, that they claimed membership on a public web page when they weren't a member. They acknowledged that they weren't members, said they'd fix the page until membership was obtained, and they didn't. That is not being honest. But, again, maybe they just got too busy.....
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1648



« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2009, 10:22:18 am »

FYI, Great Commission Ministries is now listed as a member on the NAE "Organizations" page. Don't know when that happened. I had checked a few months ago and they were not listed, but now they are.

My point still stands that they claimed membership when they weren't members and didn't bother to take the time to correct the error while they waited for membership to be approved.

Whether or not it was intentional, this fits a pattern...MD tells us personally, face to face (and in writing) that he doesn't believe in asking students to commit to a church/association for life, but continues to teach it publicly and the talk where he says it remains available online for all to hear, GC writes a statement of error/apology in 1991 and then doesn't distribute it, a board member doesn't exactly "remember" it and tells us it was more a "statement of clarification", offers to get us a copy and never gets around to us (I guess he was too busy). GC meanwhile continues to do the things they apologized for with one leader even stating that the apology was "too self-deprecating".

At some point, a thinking person realizes that there is a pattern here of private "apology" and or "correction" without public change and suddenly the private apology/correction rings hollow.

If a pastor tells 1500 people they are his bride and he didn't mean it, the right thing to to is publicly make it clear that he misspoke. The wrong thing to do is make that tape available free for all to hear while privately telling the people questioning the teaching that he got carried away with imagery...

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1