GCC Frequently Asked Questions

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.

[Linda]

A relative who was doing some research into GCC (at the request of her pastor) mentioned the FAQ section on the GCC web page. I didn't remember ever going there. She thought they had some really odd frequently asked questions--"not the normal questions you would think to ask" was the phrase she used.

Here's the link:
http://www.gccweb.org/about/faq/

I especially like question number 13. It was reminiscent of the "online detractors" part of the GCM web page. As I read it, I had a "wait a minute" moment.

Here is my thought.

I started attending a GC church in 1995. I never heard of "Project Care" or the "Errors and Weaknesses Paper" that was written in 1991. In 2005, when we asked our pastor (who was a national head honcho at the time and still is), he couldn't seem to remember the statement...thought there may have been a "statement of clarification". We requested a copy. He never found one for us. The statement was not available on the GCC web page until after this forum posted a copy.

And, about "Project Care". Just how did the statement get distributed? Was there a big meeting at the churches where they apologized and went over it? Or, did they just write it and send it to selected groups? Groups like the NAE that had originally refused them membership? Also, did they "undo" the excommunications, apologize, and welcome those fellow saints back? And, why was the statement signed by only one pastor? It says it was ratified by all the pastors and national leaders as of July 1991, but none of them put their John Hancock on it. Why is this do you suppose?

[AgathaL'Orange]

I forgot about those.  But honestly since so many churches are minimizing (online only) their connection with GCC, no one is ever going to find those.  I've been poking around online, and I've niticed that there appears to be an effort to whitewash GC involvement.

[EverAStudent]

I just read John Hopler's Explanation of Negative Criticisms dated September of 2010 on the GCCWEB.  Wow!  How often did he state overtly or indirectly that critcisms of GCC were and are "invalid"? 

Particularly interesting was this statement, "These critics overstate Jim's influence in our movement, both in the past and in the present."  Some one please tell me how the importance of the founder of GCC, its first Pauline apostle, could possibly be overstated?  Did Jim not personally train and disciple all the founding leaders, many of whom are still running GCC today?  Overstate?  How??

Whoever said that John Hopler's statements were a whitewashing of GCC was being exceedlingly kind. 

One final statement I found amusing, "Jim’s vision, passion, personality, and strong leadership style tended to make him
a lighting rod for accusation."     Sure, his "strong leadership style" made him a lightening rod, since most of us saw his "strength" flowed from the ability to singlehandedly have detractors excommunicated on command, pastors installed or removed on whim, and entire families relocated by edict simply because "the Lord said to me..." 

[Linda]

Great points EAS.

Certainly saying things like this doesn't make someone a lightening rod for accusation:

On the tape, McCotter says, "When you discipline, this verse indicates, as others do, that you want to do it so it wounds. Now, when you say 'wounds,' it doesn't mean that you have a bloody mess on your hands necessarily. It doesn't mean that you have a child 'wounding' like he has a broken leg."

McCotter added in his taped sermon that this means you have been severe enough that the child's attitude at that point has been reversed.

"And he may, and often will be, black and blue," McCotter continued. "My children have been many times. And it cleans evil from them."

I still keep thinking about the Error Statement and wonder about how widely it was distributed.

Since we couldn't find a copy of the Error Statement and our pastor couldn't quite remember it, it makes me wonder if it really was distributed at all. We had to call Larry Pile to get one. Did anyone posting go to a GC church when it came out? It would be interesting to hear how the statement was presented to the church members.

Since they never made the statement available to the public until after this forum posted it, I can't help but wonder whether or not it was part of a big PR scheme. After all, putting the statement up has the appearance of "humility" in that it looks like they are upfront with their past.

I had never seen the statement until after we started getting red flags. When I did finally see the statement, the thing that struck me was that everything that they listed as an error that they were going to correct was exactly what we were experiencing. In other words, they are still doing all that stuff.

They talk about "humility", but when hundreds of people have gently come to them over the years and said, "Hey, guys, remember all that stuff that you apologized for in 1991? Well, guess what, you're still doing it," they ask you to leave (or in the early days excommunicated you) rather than try to stay and help them change. This is not humility.

When they tell you, "If you leave and then go around telling people that we are wrong, we will defend ourselves," this is not humility. Vague threats are not humility.

Anyway, I would be very much interested in hearing how the statement was presented to the churches.

[askingquestionsaboutGCI]

We started attending around 1991 or 1992, and I know I never heard anything about this until joining this group.

[Linda]

EAS, I just read the Explanations of Negative Criticisms paper. If you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have seen it. It was just added this month.

Here is the link. Scroll down the page half way and it is right after the Weakness Paper (which should read Error and Weaknesses Paper, but it's sounds better to be weak than in error, I guess).

http://www.gccweb.org/about/history/chronology

This is priceless. Full of ad hominem attacks on all of us. Here's my interpretation of the first question.

First question. Why are there negative criticisms of GCC?
Answer. Three reasons. 1. Issues from the past that were invalid or corrected many years ago. 2. Some people are blogging personal relationship conflicts which is unbiblical. 3. People who oppose God are criticizing Christians who are just trying to share their faith with others.

Simpler translation. People who criticize us are either wrong or bad. Choose one.

Why does he assume that there are only 3 reasons? I could think of a few more. Here's one. I will call it reason number 4. Feel free to add to the list of reasons for criticisms.

4. There are negative criticisms of GCC because GCC is teaching things that are not in line with sound doctrine. People have taken the time to point this out to those in leadership who have the power to correct unsound teaching. Unfortunately, those in leadership sat at the feet of Jim McCotter when they were new believers. While they got much of the Gospel right, they have some very twisted teaching involving things like commitment to your church for life & giving the controls of your life to your pastor. In addition, they say that the criticisms of the past have been taken care of in the Error Statement, but a whole bunch of believers are still excommunicated...from the worldwide body of Christ. In addition, the churches are still doing and teaching the very things they apologized for.

They obviously do not comprehend that they are undermining the Lordship of Christ. We have tried to warn them privately. They did not understand. All we can do now is publicly give a warning so others are not misled.

Interestingly enough, I view people taking the time to post here as "actively sharing the Gospel". Sound doctrine is part of the Gospel. Pointing out false teaching is a worthy endeavor. God bless all of you who care enough to put your reputation on the line to do it.

[Innerlight]

I see Herschel Martindale is coming to speak in Iowa.  Wasn't he a co-founder of the GCC movement.  That is how he is being presented.

http://focus-conference.com/

I read some of "Marching to Zion". I would say, given people I know in the GC Church, not much has changed since the old days.

I listened to "Lay it All Down" as well.  The child obedience thing was kind of weird/frightening. 

[G_Prince]

I am not surprised that the current leaders still have Jim's back. Many of these guys became Christians because of Jim and learned everything they know about their faith from him (scary right!). Many of these leaders act as if they "owe" their salvation to him. That's a pretty powerful feeling. He may have done some aweful things but they won't ever throw him under the bus.

[newcreature]

A relative who was doing some research into GCC...

Speaking of doing research, I called Larry Pile this week. He is working with Wellspring again. He said, "Even though Wellspring is without a director, we aren't without direction."

Larry spoke fondly of Dr. Paul Martin, the former director, as many of you know (I didn't, until finding this site). Larry also told me he is currently working on a 3-volume set concerning abusive and authoritian groups and practices. Can you think of any groups that might be examined in his treatise? 

After reading several portions of M2Z for the first time last week, I wanted to personally thank Larry for his dedication and objectivity while compiling all that informantion. We talked for half an hour or longer, and I really enjoyed his encouraging spirit and insightful comments.

His contact information from four years ago is still current. He welcomes all calls and told me it was quite alright to repost his info if anyone wants to contact him. If you call, the best time for him is between 8 to 9 pm eastern time. You can also leave a message:

Larry Pile
32438 McGinnis Rd.
Albany, OH  45710-9028
ph# 740-698-2800

[Linda]

That's great that you talked with Larry, newcreature. He was very helpful to us back in 2005 when we were leaving. Also, very calm and measured in his speech. Plus, he is extremely well informed on the people, places, and events. Your post reminded me that we did have a section entitled "Ask Larry" where Larry took on some of our questions. Here's the link:
http://forum.gcmwarning.com/ask-larry-pile/

On a whim I went to the topic "Some McCotter Questions". I thought this comment from Larry was something to take note of in that Herschel Martindale is the speaker at the Alive Conference. It seems to me that some day, Mr. Martindale and Mr. Clark need to stand up and publicly apologize for their part in the phony excommunications, and "undo" them before they will get this monkey off their back.

One more thing. At the July 1991 meeting Herschel Martindale said something I will never forget — it was burned into my brain, I was so flabbergasted by it. He said, “Jim McCotter is the most godly man I’ve ever met.” How he could say such a thing is beyond me. If any of you have ever had the misfortune to work for Jim you know how callously he treats those under his authority. Some of this is brought out in “Marching to Zion” in the sections entitled “_Today’s Student_: The Rest of the Story,” “Slick 50 and L.E.I.” and “Back to the Future” (about Profit Group’s departure from the radio business and into the suburban tabloid business — till it went bust). It was also detailed in an article entitled “The Mysterious Citizen,” published in the New Zealand magazine _North & South_, and further in e-mails I’ve received from former employees of his ill-fated media empire in New Zealand, and also former employees of his Maverick Jets aircraft company (that’s another sorry tale!).

Bovenmyer, Hopler and company kept asking us what we thought they needed to do to convince us that GCAC has changed and is now a healthy organization. One thing I’ve repeated to them is that they need to make some sort of public or semi-public statement acknowledging the errors in Jim’s teaching and his abusive handling of people. Even though Bovenmyer, Hopler and Co. have said as much to us in our private meetings, they have consistently been unwilling to say so publicly. Could it be that they still revere Jim as Herschel does? Which also makes me wonder how far they have really distanced themselves in teaching and practice from Jim’s errors. The fact that Jim’s books are being republished, his tapes are being distributed, etc., seems to support the notion that GC has not really moved all that far from “the bad old days.” Either that, or it is moving back to those days and Jim is being “rehabilitated,” to borrow a term from the Communism of old.

[LucyB]

From the Explanation of Criticisms by John Hopler

"What saddens me most is the mistreatment of innocent people. There are many wonderful Christian men and women in GCC churches who serve their communities in the name of Jesus Christ, and do so with humility and compassion. It is unfortunate that they are unfairly labeled through false characterizations."

    Seriously?  I think I'll call him today to discuss my "invalid" concerns. 

[EverAStudent]

"What saddens me most is the mistreatment of innocent people. There are many wonderful Christian men and women in GCC churches who serve their communities in the name of Jesus Christ, and do so with humility and compassion. It is unfortunate that they are unfairly labeled through false characterizations."

After having been innocent myself but being subjected to GC's hybrid discipline anyway (as opposed to biblical discipline) simply for pointing out a doctrincal error, I am aghast at John Hopler's new-found "concern" for the innocent.  Really?  Where has it been hiding all these years?  (Everyone save your breath, I know, the concern is only for those persons still favored by GC leadership, not for the rank-and-file or for those who have left.)

[Linda]

Therefore, my hope is that we evaluate each GCC church—not on the basis of some alleged problem with a different church in the past—but on the basis of the marvelous work Jesus Christ is doing through that church in the present.

Shucks, I guess Mr. Hopler doesn't read our forum or he would know that we are not talking about a "different church in the past" long ago and in a galaxy far, far away, we are talking about him and his association.

Faithwalkers is a perfect case in point. Although Jim McCotter showed up there in 2004 or so and was joyfully welcomed, as far as I know he didn't speak. What Jim did was therefore in the past, this is true. The question is: Does GC still teach the same error that they learned from Jim and that they apologized for in 1991. The answer is yes. The error that Jim taught continues to be taught by current leaders. It is now their responsibility to stop teaching it and correct it. They can't blame Jim anymore. He's gone. They are still there.

All anyone has to do is listen to Faithwalkers messages and other national conferences. You will find out what is being taught on a national level. This isn't about one "bad" church. This is about an association of churches who have many things right, but the things they have wrong are very bad. Those wrong things misrepresent Christ and damage people.

A little starter list of "alleged" problems with GC TODAY on a national level:

-Teaching Commitment for Life to them
-Telling people to give the controls of their life to their pastor
-Telling people that unity matters more than truth
-"Slandering" forum and blog posters by telling others that those of us who are trying to point out unsound doctrine are slanderers or "slanter-ers"  , or in one case they actually said that the person who started this forum had some sin in his life (although they admitted that they didn't really know who this person was)
-Not undoing the "excommunications" that were done to "innocent" believers--Martindale and Clark signed on to those

That said, this Hopler paper is priceless. Astonishing, sad, illogical, "unfair" (they like to use that word, so I thought I'd throw it in this list), strange, full of assumptions...

[EverAStudent]

  Very good Linda! 

One more "alleged" problem with today's GC church also relates back to the early movement: elder-ruled churches misleading university officials into thinking that they are student-led organizations. 

There was a whole thread on that:  http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/pretense-the-church-as-student-organization/80/

[Linda]

You mentioned that some Christians have unresolved personal conflicts that they make public on a blog. What are your thoughts on this?
Many criticisms are from anonymous bloggers who have a conflict with an individual, which they have not resolved in a constructive, God-honoring way. Instead of privately pursuing personal reconciliation, they paint an unfair, negative picture of GCC as a whole. It is tragic that professing Christians spend time criticizing other believers through blogs, rather than using their time to win people to Christ and serve the church.

Does anyone know of anyone who has made "unresolved personal conflicts" public on a blog? The only blog post I can think of is my husband's back in 2006, and he did not post anonymously. Also, in his post he states that we didn't have any unresolved personal conflicts.

We did not find a new church that we liked better, we weren’t church shopping. We weren’t in conflict with anybody. It has been interesting to notice how many people have assumed that we were “hurt” in some way by the church. It’s as if personal conflict, not substance and content, is the only reason people might come to a parting of the ways. We were not hurt, but the decision was painful. We did not want to part in any way with friends. Moving our younger kids one notch away from their friends and familiar church surroundings was heartbreaking. So why did we do it?

It was a sharp disagreement over underlying principles, with what we now see as pretty significant flaws in what Evergreen pastors and GCAC/GCM believe about the nature of the Church and the leadership of it.

Assuming that he is calling this forum a blog, I would like to address the issues he brings up.

First, anonymity. Whenever anyone says, "I won't listen to anonymous comments," my immediate thought is, "That is a pretty proud person." To discredit what someone is saying because of who they are, is profoundly unwise. It is also called ad hominem. Discredit the message by attacking the messenger. Remember, God speaks through donkeys if he wants. A wise leader will listen to what is being said and if he disagrees will clearly state his reasons. He will not call the messenger names.

Second point, and I assume he is calling this forum a blog. He mentions, many of the criticisms are from "bloggers who have a conflict with an individual, which they have not resolved in a constructive, God-honoring way." First of all, if the "bloggers" are anonymous, how does he know anything about their situations? How does he know that they haven't gone dozens of times to their pastors to try to come to an understanding before posting on this forum? In our case we spent nearly 2 years and 40 hours meeting with pastors to try to understand the theology of GC. There just may come a time when the "God honoring way" is to publicly expose false teaching so others are not misled after trying hard to point it out to the people teaching it so they could correct it first.

Third point. About this statement, "It is tragic that professing Christians spend time criticizing other believers through blogs, rather than using their time to win people to Christ and serve the church." First, pointing out false teaching is serving the church. Second, we are not criticizing other believers, we are pointing out error in what they teach so that people will not have a flawed concept of the Lordship of Christ. Third, this is obviously a general attack on the character of those posters. More ad hominem. (Where are all these blogs he is talking about, BTW?)

I want to back up to the anonymity thing and recommend that all of you posting anonymously, stay anonymous. We, as you know, did not post our concerns anonymously. Here's what we got for it. Just a reminder, this all happened ONE YEAR AFTER WE LEFT THE CHURCH.

1) A sermon preached against us.
http://gcxweb.org/Audio/Titus-08-27-2006.aspx

2) A shunning (immediate pull out of some from the homeschool co-op I direct).
Titus 3:10, the classic GC excommunication text, but now they shun ("have nothing to do with") instead of excommunicate.

4) An e-mail rebuke from another pastor who said we should have gone to John Hopler with our concerns which was really amusing since we had no idea who the man was. We thought we belonged to a church that was independent and did not realize that there was a national hierarchy. We knew we were part of two associations, Great Commission and Willow Creek. Perhaps we should have gone to Bill Hybels, as well.

5) This is my personal favorite because it is so old school, back in the day, GC. One year after we left, about noon when my husband was not home, a red car pulled up in front of the house. It was a pastor, hand delivering a letter of rebuke!

So, everyone who is anonymous, don't be intimidated. Stay anonymous if you like. It will make your life easier. In my experience, giving our name didn't make us more credible, it just made our life more miserable.

[newcreature]

Linda,

Today I did something I haven't done for several years, I listened to a GCx sermon. The speaker had a smooth and pleasant delivery; it even caused me to let down my guard. But then it reminded me of the old joke: "Don't let him pat you on the back, he is just feeling for a soft spot to stab you." It also reminded me of this classic song from the 70s: Smiling Faces Sometimes (Don't Tell Truth!)
The pictures simply need to be updated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wKyXA_nMVQ

I was not surprised when he focused on the GCx one-trick pony (Titus 3:10) and compared your serious grievance with ECC leadership to disliking his raggedy jeans he wears while preaching. When I was in GCx, it was a common practice to totally rephrase and minimize another Christian's concerns. I see there is "nothing new under the sun" in regard to the imperious judgments made by GCx leaders. The scepter has been passed down from Jim to Mark to this new elder.

Knowing the shameful way GCx leaders treated you and your family makes this sermon even more sinister to me. If I was simply visiting ECC that day, or if I were a "non-lifer" at GCx, I would not have understood the "inside joke" when several people laughed at his comment about the blog. It was truly masterful manipulation on his part to weave his story together the way he did, and then stab you in the back.

The "Errors and Weaknesses" (and distortions of the truth) continue to be propagated.
 

[Linda]

An hour after that message was delivered, Terry received an e-mail from that pastor asking him to take down his blog post. If you have read Terry's post you will understand that Terry did this in the interest of keeping peace. The e-mailed letter of rebuke and the hand delivered letter of rebuke from two other pastors were delivered after the blog post was removed, so in spite of trying to make peace by removing the post, we were still "shunned". I guess because we didn't publicly issue a retraction, but I'm not exactly sure. Of course, the oddest thing is that we had been gone from our church for one year when all this happened.

Terry put the blogpost back up around Christmas time because it had accomplished nothing to take it down.

The scepter has been passed down from Jim to Mark to this new elder.

This is the saddest thing to me. I have no doubt that this man loves the Lord. I have no doubt that this man thinks we are just awful for posting our concerns about their teaching. The scepter has truly been passed and those receiving it have no idea.

Ironically, the pastor who delivered this message was the first pastor we went to after Mark Darling preached an all church message telling us among other things:

You see, God, He put me in this church. He didn't put me in the church down the street. Do I hate the church down the street? No, because they are also the bride of Christ. But that's another man's bride. You're mine..."

Where do you begin when your pastor tells you there are multiple brides and you are his? I really don't think he was saying he was the groom, but you can't get away with saying stuff like that when you are a pastor.

The next day, we met with the pastor you listened to. He told us that message "didn't set right" with him either. At our next meeting he said words to the effect that Mr. Darling is an evangelist and gets carried away sometimes when he preaches, but that doesn't matter because he "knows his heart".

It was at one of our meetings with that pastor that we mentioned there was a "weird" Ames connection. Seriously, 10 years at the place and we had NO IDEA. At the end of one of our conversations we said something like, "Do you think we are crazy?" His answer is etched in my memory. He said, "I don't think you're crazy, and I'm not from Ames."

A year and a half later, he preached that sermon.

Truly sad. The scepter has been passed.

[blonde]

Linda-whatever we say, write or think, on blogs or not, ECC and GCx at large will never ever see the wrong they do and continue to do.  All those hours you spent trying to figure it out.  You were not the only ones that did that, spending hours trying to see where they were coming from.

Once the leadership has blacklisted you, in their minds, it's a no-win game, and whatever you say, it's a pointless argument.

I knew another named Doug Edwardson, at ECC, you might know the name, that spent years trying to be a pastor, asked to be pastor, went to leadership prayer meetings, and even months and months trying to see where the pastors were coming from as he was leaving.  Doug even shared at the State of the Church in downtown Minneapolis before they moved to Bethel University.  He left like you, had his direct conversations.  Like you said, what they accuse of us is false.  We approach them and say it plainly and now they accuse the blog and us as in hiding and being deceptive.

They are the deceptive ones.  I am glad we left.

-Blonde