GCC Website Criticism of Those Who Criticize! How ironic!

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.

[2xA Ron]

2xARon, if you're still reading here, I wonder if you might be willing to do something? Would you please ask John Hopler to publicly state, for the record:

1 - whether GC still stands by the doctrines of lifetime membership and submission to the elders in major life decisions?

2 - if yes, whether he and the rest of the leadership are open to changing their position on those topics?

I've tried to make it easy. These are Yes/No questions. In the open letter from John Hopler that you linked to earlier (http://issuu.com/aaduwall/docs/2013_reconciliation_letter__gcc), he specifically says he's willing to clarify what the church teaches today. (I'd copy and paste his exact words, but the electronic formatting of the letter is making that difficult. Is there a link somewhere to a plaintext or HTML version?) He claims that some of the accusations against GC are based on their former teachings rather than the church's current teachings, but he doesn't address specific accusations. If we're in error, and GC is not teaching these two things any more, is he willing to come out and state that they were false teachings, once and for all? Can he at least meet us that far?

Just two questions. Yes or no.

I will ask these.  I have been wanting to talk to him about these teachings, but just haven't gotten around to it.  Tonight he emailed me to say he'd shared my previous concerns and suggestions (mostly related to my own situation, so conflict resolution and gender relations) with leadership teams and at the Pastor's Conference, and asked if there was anything else--so I really have no excuse not to tell him now.

In answer to your parenthetical, unfortunately I'm unaware of any place where the letter is posted in plaintext or HTML.  A PDF of it is now available on the GCC site (here)...linked to through the article in the original post.

Hopler does read this forum, though I have no idea how much.  He has repeatedly said that it is against his personal policy to respond to anything posted here.  I cannot blame him for rigid adherence to such a policy when even someone sympathetic to and in agreement with this forum can get the impression (right or wrong) that it's twisting leadership's words and out for their blood.  No one sane would want to post on such a forum run by their critics, nor would they think anything good could come of it if they did.  If we honestly want Hopler or other members of GCC leadership to post here, we'll need to make sure we post in such a way that they realize we won't tear them apart the moment they say anything.  Until then, if we want to reach them and engage with them, the only way is probably to contact them ourselves.

[Linda]

He has repeatedly said that it is against his personal policy to respond to anything posted here.

So then why did he ask you to post a letter from him here? Makes no sense. It was from him. It matters not how it got here. If it was written by him and posted here at his request, he has responded.

I assume he is not interested in a public dialogue and hence is using a middleman. I think that speaks volumes.

[2xA Ron]

I assume he is not interested in a public dialogue and hence is using a middleman. I think that speaks volumes.

Excuse me for pointing this out, but that assumption, and your implied conclusions about his character, would themselves speak volumes to him.  If indeed we do take his letter as him "responding" then the very negative reception it received again would speak volumes to him.  Both of these would tell him that, if he were to actually post here it would not make two cent's difference what he said, we would just twist his words and cut him apart.  While I hope such a conclusion on his part would be wrong, I have to honestly say that it's presently a plausible and justified conclusion.

If I were him, I would never post here or expect anything I said to be well received here.  Since I personally am unsure whether or not his words would receive a fair hearing here, I cannot recommend that he or any other member of leadership attempt to contact this forum directly.  I see nothing that could accomplish anyway that would not be better done through the official GCC website or private communication.

[Linda]

Sigh.

[Huldah]

Thanks for your willingness to ask him these questions, 2xA Ron. I do appreciate your making the effort.

No one sane would want to post on such a forum run by their critics, nor would they think anything good could come of it if they did.  If we honestly want Hopler or other members of GCC leadership to post here, we'll need to make sure we post in such a way that they realize we won't tear them apart the moment they say anything.  Until then, if we want to reach them and engage with them, the only way is probably to contact them ourselves.

Okay, fair enough. But I hope it's understandable that I, on the other side, have the same apprehensions about contacting him through means other than this forum. I didn't exactly persuade him to my way of thinking the first time I tried it. If anything, I simply succeeded in making myself a target. As nearly as I can discern from their own materials, the church is no more open to correction now than it was my day. My sincere fear and opinion, based on their materials, is that I cannot receive a fair hearing. So it seems we are at an impasse. But I do thank you for your efforts.

[Linda]

Huldah,

Great questions.

Since Hopler is reading this forum, it seems silly to have to use a "middleman" to get answers. Assuming he cares about not misleading people, it makes no sense to me why the leader of the movement would not want to personally and publicly clarify or correct teaching that was misunderstood or incorrect.

My questions would be:

1. Does he stand by the teaching of "commitment for life to the local church/Great Commission Movement" as taught at national conferences (HSLTs and Faithwalkers) by men who sit on the national board? Follow up: Why was the 2005 HSLT talk removed without correction? Why was the 2008 Faithwalkers Commitment for Life talk removed without correction?

2. Does Great Commission stand by the Faithwalkers talks that promote the idea of "swerver" whereby men get permission from their elders to ask women to marry them? Where do parents fit in the lives of their adult children?

3. Why does Great Commission continue to diminish the honest theological issues people have by comments like this: "Because Great Commission was a new movement that was not well known, unfair and exaggerated statements about our movement were published that were based on ignorance or false reports." It doesn't help clarify doctrine when words like "unfair" and "false reports" are used to attack those asking the questions. Addressing the beliefs of the group helps. Diminishing the character of those asking the questions does not.

4. As Huldah phrased it so well, does Great Commission still stand by its belief that members should submit to leaders in matters of major life decisions?

[araignee19]

1. Does he stand by the teaching of "commitment for life to the local church/Great Commission Movement" as taught at national conferences (HSLTs and Faithwalkers) by men who sit on the national board? Follow up: Why was the 2005 HSLT talk removed without correction? Why was the 2008 Faithwalkers Commitment for Life talk removed without correction?

Well that explains why I can't find it! I was there that year, and thought for sure I heard them give a talk on the topic. I have spent the last two days listening to old recordings looking for it, and was starting to think maybe it had been one small comment during a different talk I blew out of proportion. I would have been sad to know it wasn't a whole talk, because it would mean I really am making a mountain out of a molehill.

Again, don't hide bad history (if that's what they think it is). Proclaim it and learn from it.

[Linda]

I have it. Here is a quote. First, a couple of thoughts.

The part about minor children being under the authority of their parents was recently added. In 2005, at an HSLT in Colorado, our 17 year old daughter was asked by Mark Darling (on the national board) to make a lifetime commitment to her local GC church. Parents were unaware this was being asked. It caused the "kerfuffle" that lead to our immediate departure from our GC church, Evergreen. (Of course, the same pastor had recently called the local church his--the pastor's--bride, so our confidence in their theology was already on shaky ground). Since then, they now seem to add the "minors are under the authority of their parents" disclaimer, but may I point out, they NEVER corrected the original teaching. Never wrote the students who attended that HSLT to inform them that Mr. Darling has misspoken. After Hopler saw comments I had made about this in 2012, they removed that teaching from the web. It is still available here:

http://www.gcxweb.org/Audio/Comm9and10-HSLT-07-24-2005.aspx

Again, the it's the old "apologize", but don't change trick. They never publicly corrected this teaching.

Note how Whitney implies that commitment to the group for life is the same thing as commitment to God for life. My thought is, how dare a pastor get between a student and God by suggesting that he/she make a commitment to a specific church for life. How could a pastor ever know what a 20 year old should be doing in even 5 years, let alone FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE.

Anyway, here is a quote:


Rick Whitney Faithwalkers 2008 talk on Commitment for life to the local church:

Look, I recognize you can find good churches like you can find a good meal. You might even find a better church down the street. It's kind of like a meal, you find a good meal, or even a better meal down the street, but there's just something about eating supper at home with your own family. There's a joy and a fulfillment that cannot be experienced anywhere else.

God wants loyalty, God wants us committed to our home church and to its people, and I mean this, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE...

...You say, "Well, what do you mean? I'm gonna be stuck in this church for the rest of my life?" Stay with us. You will grow and learn and you will experience--I'm gonna say this again--God's blessing and glory and you will be involved in heroic enterprises and you will be involved in church planting and travel and visiting and a lot of us here will be around the world in the years to come.

You're never stuck with God, my goodness, but you first need someone or something to which you must be loyal if you're ever going to reach your potential.

A side point, just a quick one and I have to say this for parents and younger men and women here. A heart of commitment and loyalty to your fellow believer is something that only adults can offer God. Children offer their commitment and loyalty to their parents. A 16 year old needs to follow their parents. Rightly so.

But listen, this is my transition. But a 20 year old is asked by God to commit to Him first. It's not a throw away verse when our Lord said, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." That's not a throw away verse with God and his audience was 20 years old. 21, 22, 23.

Listen to me Christian. I love God, but I can get between God and my children--even with the best of intentions. I can hinder my son's or my daughter's own commitment to their Savior. I can get in the way. I can easily be interference between them and God and I don't want to be, but I can be interference. Sometimes with the best of intentions. Even Christian parents can be afraid for our kids and keep them from really standing on their own. Don't go down that road of fear parent...

...There will be a time, even in Great Commission where 20 year olds and 21 year olds and 22 year olds will stand and say, "Dad, I love you, but I'm convinced of this, you've got to believe this...I believe that one of the single biggest decisions we will make as a Christian that will determine our success as a believer is whether we will commit to our brothers and sisters for life. Almost every major life lesson I have ever learned as a Christian was taught to me in my local church. It is in community that our life and our mission are worked out. And it’s in our local church where we can achieve greatness...

[Huldah]

Strange as it sounds, it's almost a step up that they were publicly teaching this. When I was there, 30+ years ago, no one asked me if I wanted to commit for life. No one taught it openly, at least not in any public teaching I can remember. At one point after I had begun to seriously struggle with my place in the church, a brother warned me privately, "God put you in this church, and only God can remove you," with the implied threat that removal only came through excommunication. That was the first I ever heard of the doctrine. But I had chosen to join, of my own free will, so why couldn't I leave of my own free will? I was just a college student looking for a good church to attend until I got my degree and moved on. How had the elders suddenly acquired the place of God in my decision-making?

[EverAStudent]

I hesitate to say all leaders who ever taught error in the GCC should resign.  I know that teaching and holding heresy is a sin, and that the pattern for addressing pastoral sin is for the pastor to resign, but I have to be honest and say I don't see that in the Bible.  What I see in the Bible is elders being publicly rebuked for public sin (1 Timothy 5:20, no mention of removing them), even the sin of leading others astray into false teaching or practice (Peter, by his actions, led Messianic Jews into the false belief and practice that they needed to keep themselves separate from Gentile Christians, but he did not resign his apostleship and later called himself an elder--Galatians 2:11-14 and 1 Peter 5:1).

Frankly I found the above set of statements shocking.

"the pattern for addressing pastoral sin is for the pastor to resign, but I have to be honest and say I don't see that in the Bible"

Wow.  This statement assumes that if a real life EXAMPLE of something is not recorded in the New Testament then we have no guidance for what to do, and so we can simply ignore all the direct teaching that the Word gives us on that very issue because we have no historical examples.

Ummm...NO!  

Regardless of whether any pastor in the Bible was disciplined for heresy or had to leave the pastorate for having taught heresy the New Testament gives us ABUNDANT verbal instructions.  In other words, a live example may not be in the Bible on removing a man from ministry but the instructions on who may be a ministering pastor IS in the Bible.

1 Timothy 3 (and Titus) instructs that only men who meet certain criteria may BE pastors.  If a man became a pastor anyway and is later found to no longer meet the 1 Timothy 3 criteria there is no grandfather clause which reads, "well, since he flew in under the radar and is already a pastor he gets to remain one for life."  Qualifications are "yes" or "no" and do not have grandfather clauses.

When a man is no longer qualified because he has shown he cannot protect the flock from heresy (Ephesians 4:11-16) or has taught heresy for years or is caught being unrepentant for teaching heresy (and is no longer "above reproach") he must leave the pastorate.  Unqualified is unqualified.  Remember, these GC pastors NEVER repented of their having taught apostleship and are STILL in reproach!

"Peter, by his actions, led Messianic Jews into the false belief and practice that they needed to keep themselves separate from Gentile Christians, but he did not resign his apostleship and later called himself an elder"

Apostleship is NOT the equivalent to the pastorate.  Apostles were personally appointed by Christ alone and only Christ could remove them from that appointment.  Pastors are given the role (though not the gifting) by men in the church.  Peter's sin was hypocritical bigotry (and led others into sin by being a bad example) but to our knowledge he did not verbally TEACH heresy.  Nonetheless, his apostleship was beyond the reach of men to challenge because it was bestowed by Christ in the flesh and not by any human organization.  To cite the apostleship of repentant Peter as if he what he had done was similar to unrepentant pastors having taught the heresy of Clark's and McCotter's apostleship doctrine for years, well, that is simply a gross distortion of logic and scriptural definitions.

Yes, I found the above quote to be shocking in that it appeals to Scripture for its validity yet it is bankrupt in correctly interpreting and accurately applying the Scriptures.  Is this an example of the theological shallowness to which GC is still holding its adherents?  Shocking.

---
Note: if it is bewildering to anyone why we refer to Dennis Clark's and McCotter's apostleship doctrine as heresy, I might suggest they try reading this online book written by an ex-GC'er: http://thefaithfulword.org/apostlepageone.html

[EverAStudent]

When I was there, 30+ years ago, no one asked me if I wanted to commit for life. No one taught it openly, at least not in any public teaching I can remember.

The first time I encountered this teaching was at an all-church weekend-long retreat in the mid 1980's (this is consistent with how the national leaders also rolled out the teaching to the HSLT in the mid 1980's: http://gcxweb.org/Audio/Comm9and10-HSLT-07-24-2005.aspx).  In truth, the retreat was only for our church's "core group" and not for the fringe attendees because "deep things" were going to be taught there that the fringe members were not yet ready to hear.  We were told that the GC leadership had asked the individual church pastors/elders to make two challenges to their congregations: 1) commit for life to GC, and 2) pledge to give 10% of their income from then on.  

To that end there were pledge cards distributed for the 10% giving and a special "worship" time in one of the meetings was dedicated for everyone to verbally commit for life, one-by-one.  I did not, and refused to permit my wife (still loyal to GC to the end) to do it either.  Of course we also did not sign the 10% pledge cards.  (Note: after the retreat I discovered that the pledge cards came from the last page of McCotter's legalistic booklet on tithing which implied that elements of the Old Testament Covenant were still in force today, and thus so was tithing.)

Needless to say my refusal to commit for life caused quite a little conversation and eventually helped (though did not cause) our slide toward freedom.  In a conversation with one of the elders at the retreat I asked him if he would remain with GC for life even if the national leadership fell into gross heresy.  He replied, "Yes, that is what a lifelong commitment is."  And so, he did, and a year later was teaching the apostleship heresy to that same church, though we were gone by then.  A year later he was excommunicated by the national elders for allowing his church to be split by the other elder who tried to grab control for himself.  

That is ironic, is it not?  The elder was so committed that he would embrace heresy for the sake of loyalty to the national elders, but the national elders had no such committment or loyalty toward him.  

[Linda]

Here's a curiosity. If GCC is trying to be so upfront with who they are and what they teach, why do you suppose the only church that is not linked on their web page is the one that Dennis Clark is the pastor of? Prairie View Community Church.

http://www.gccweb.org/about/find-a-church/

[2xA Ron]

Yes, I found the above quote to be shocking in that it appeals to Scripture for its validity yet it is bankrupt in correctly interpreting and accurately applying the Scriptures.  Is this an example of the theological shallowness to which GC is still holding its adherents?  Shocking.

Oookay  Let's just get one thing straight: I am not an adherent to the GC any more than you are.  That being said, maybe we can cool off a bit and discuss this rationally?

"the pattern for addressing pastoral sin is for the pastor to resign, but I have to be honest and say I don't see that in the Bible"

Wow.  This statement assumes that if a real life EXAMPLE of something is not recorded in the New Testament then we have no guidance for what to do, and so we can simply ignore all the direct teaching that the Word gives us on that very issue because we have no historical examples.

Alright, I'll take part of the blame for this, assuming it was a misunderstanding on your part, but I was not actually arguing from silence (as you seemed to realize later when you addressed my statement on Peter).  To be more accurate, I should have said not "I don't see this in the Bible" but "I see something different in the Bible."  There is actually a command in the Bible which tells us what to do with elders when we catch them in sin.  It's 1 Timothy 5:20.  If you read it, you'll notice it says to publicly rebuke them.  It does not say to remove them.  The Bible is even so good as to provide us with a historical example, when Peter was publicly rebuked by Paul for his sin.  Peter was an elder (1 Peter 5:1) and was not removed from that office.  In light of these things which scripture does say, I think the Bible's guidance for what to do in the case of an elder who has sinned is pretty clear, and it is not removing them from office.

That being said, I should qualify that this applies only to elders who have sinned, and repent.  Elsewhere, the Bible outlines a process whereby unrepentant sinners are expelled from the church.  It even gives us some historical examples of this process in action.  False teachers (definitely portrayed as unrepentant) are also referred to a number of times in the Bible.  I think the nicest thing the Bible ever has to say about them is "they went out from us, but they were not of us"--though admittedly if you read the whole context, John calls them antichrists right before that (so...not so nice after all).  Seeing all the wonderfully nasty things the Bible has to say about people who spread heresy, simply removing them from office seems bizarrely lenient.  So based on what the Bible does say, I think that leaders in the GCC who've taught heresy should either be publicly rebuked or, if they are unrepentant, put through a process of excommunication.  They may resign, of course (supposing they repent), but resignation is not a part of the process for dealing with sins in leaders that the Bible outlines.

Now of course, if you can show me how I am mistaken about 1 Timothy 5:20 and it does not actually apply to an elder who has sinned in such a way as to violate his qualifications, I would be interested to hear that.  I would also be interested to hear how that passage can, at the same time still apply to Peter, in his role as elder, since Paul said "he was to be blamed" or "he stood condemned" when he was rebuked, which would seem to violate the qualification that an elder be "blameless" or "above reproach"--a very important qualification to your argument, since it is the one under which you place teaching heresy.  I am interested to see how Peter can retain the office of an elder, while leaders who have taught heresy must be removed, even though (it seems to me) they have broken exactly the same qualification as Peter did.  I would, however, appreciate it if we could turn the volume down on the emotional rhetoric, since being shocked and appalled by someone else's "bankrupt" interpretation does exactly nothing to show why the interpretation is incorrect and gets no one any closer to rightly interpreting God's word.

[2xA Ron]

Okay, fair enough. But I hope it's understandable that I, on the other side, have the same apprehensions about contacting him through means other than this forum. I didn't exactly persuade him to my way of thinking the first time I tried it. If anything, I simply succeeded in making myself a target. As nearly as I can discern from their own materials, the church is no more open to correction now than it was my day. My sincere fear and opinion, based on their materials, is that I cannot receive a fair hearing. So it seems we are at an impasse. But I do thank you for your efforts.

It is completely understandable.  I just point out that this fear and lack of trust is a two way street, since some seem to be of the opinion that, if the leaders cared, they'd pop on here any time they liked and expect to have a pleasant chat with us, without first considering how hostile this forum would look to them.

I do have an answer to your questions, by the way...sort of (I did not ask for yes or no, and I didn't repeat your questions exactly, so I have myself to blame--I will be talking with Hopler more later, though, on other questions, so I can try to clarify).  When I asked about commitment-for-life, I was directed to this page.  The second part (after all the silly asterisk that think they're bullets) explicitly denies that the GCC believes one should commit either to the same local church for life or to the GCC for life.  The rest of that paragraph and the next one that follows it seem to be pretty mainline in their views...but that leaves me wondering where the first half of the article fits in, which seems to take a much stronger stand on and view of membership, stopping just shy of lifelong commitment (the part about asking for the local church's blessing before you leave particularly leads me in that direction).  Maybe it's just bad editing, adding the second part without looking at the first, or maybe they really try to make those statements pull together.  So, official answer is definitely, "no"--but I'll keep looking to see if that's the practical answer or not.


On a completely unrelated note, I think the GCC may have too many pages that are statements on this, that, or the other.  How is one even supposed to find them all?

[2xA Ron]

My questions would be:

1. Does he stand by the teaching of "commitment for life to the local church/Great Commission Movement" as taught at national conferences (HSLTs and Faithwalkers) by men who sit on the national board? Follow up: Why was the 2005 HSLT talk removed without correction? Why was the 2008 Faithwalkers Commitment for Life talk removed without correction?

2. Does Great Commission stand by the Faithwalkers talks that promote the idea of "swerver" whereby men get permission from their elders to ask women to marry them? Where do parents fit in the lives of their adult children?

3. Why does Great Commission continue to diminish the honest theological issues people have by comments like this: "Because Great Commission was a new movement that was not well known, unfair and exaggerated statements about our movement were published that were based on ignorance or false reports." It doesn't help clarify doctrine when words like "unfair" and "false reports" are used to attack those asking the questions. Addressing the beliefs of the group helps. Diminishing the character of those asking the questions does not.

4. As Huldah phrased it so well, does Great Commission still stand by its belief that members should submit to leaders in matters of major life decisions?

I will try to get answers to these, too.

[Linda]

2xA Ron,
Thanks for you post and the link. I will begin my comment with a question. Have you ever been deceived by what someone didn't say or do? Well, I have. The people who deceived me by misrepresenting their group/movement/whatever have been Great Commission elders. Two of these elders sit on the national board. I post as a person who wasted a lot of time meeting with many Great Commission elders in honest search of answers to troubling teaching and practice. By a lot of time I mean a few months shy of 2 years. Once or twice a month.

We left Evergreen Community Church in September of 2005. The "straw that broke the camel's back" for us was Mark Darling's teaching on commitment to Great Commission for life. He asked our 17 year old daughter, attending a national retreat in Colorado with 300+ other high school students to make 10 commitments. Commitment for life to Great Commission was one of the commitments. The last day of the conference, the students were asked to make all 10 commitments and indicate they had by standing. My daughter and one other girl did not stand because they knew that commitment was wrong.

Here are Mark Darling's words.

Make the commitment to devote yourself to your local church for the rest of your life. This is going to be controversial, I will explain it...
I made a determination as a young man to not leave my church in Ames until and only when I was sent. I was sent. Now, there is, of course, maybe a unique exception within "our movement" and it's a beautiful thing it's why some of us moved to different cities, big metropolitan areas. One, you may need a job and you can still stay linked with Great Commission Churches because you can find one in that city. Secondly, you may be leaving your local church to go to college to join another Great Commission Church that's like minded and I think that will equally accomplish the same thing. I'm here for life. You're not getting rid of me. I'm here...I'm here. I'm with these Christians. I'm with Great Commission. That's where I'll stay. That's where they'll bury me and that's where I'm going to make my stand...because this is where God supernaturally led me.

This talk came on the heels of a talk that Mr. Darling gave to 1000+ Evergreeners the Winter before. The event was called "Fanning the Flame" and Mr. Darling said that leaving your local church was the equivalent to divorcing your wife. (I still have that CD). He also referred to the gathered congregation as his, the pastor's bride and said we were borrowing the home of another man's bride (we were renting a mega-church facility). Mr. Darling sits on the national board. He is not some newbie pastor in Podunk, Iowa, he is a head honcho responsible for national leadership.

The Faithwalkers before that (Faithwalkers 2004--I have that one, as well), Rick Whitney spoke on joining Great Commission and used the analogy of cutting arms like Native Americans did and becoming blood brothers, together for life. Mr. Whitney sits on the national board. Again, these are top dogs who are teaching commitment for life.

Our final meeting, the one where it was evident that this was not a mere misunderstanding, but a sharp disagreement over some pretty significant flaws in Great Commission theology, Mark Darling handed us a letter on Evergreen Stationery. He knew that we were troubled by his talk. The letter was well written. In it he mentioned that he had perhaps misspoken at HSLT and he certainly didn't mean to get between parents and their minor children. For a moment there, I was taken in. Then my husband asked a question that settled it for us.

He said, "This is great. How are you going to make this correction available to all the high schoolers who attended the conference?" Mark's reply was, "You are free to show it to anyone you wish." We called his bluff. He had the addresses of the 300+ students. The event had been less than a month earlier. If he truly cared about correcting a misunderstanding, he would have sent the letter to each student.

(It was oddly reminiscent of the Statement of Error and Hopler's letter to Internet posters last Spring. Put something on paper, don't really change, but at least you can tell people you "apologized".)

Instead, they taught this same commitment to the local church for life at the next HSLT and finally at Faithwalkers in 2008 (I still have that one, as well, but it has been mysteriously removed from the Faithwalker's site without correction or explanation). I think it was that talk where Rick Whitney showed a photo of some of the old guard (McCotter era people) and said, "We have lost a few," and by that he meant they left Great Commission. He referenced one who had died, I believe, but the rest was in response to losing people from the movement.

Whitney's web page ( gcnwdads.com ) still has notes on his commitment talks, 127 and 130.

If Hopler is sincere, and I really hope he is, he will not just post a "disclaimer" out of the blue on the gcc web page, he will have all those who taught commitment to the group for life issue a public correction as often as necessary and to the groups that were taught this. If they still have HSLT mailing lists and Faithwalkers lists, that would be a good place to start. A beginning to the restoration of trust for all of us would be if they acknowledged that they had taught this and didn't just brush it over with words that redefined what they meant.

It would also be helpful if they stopped suggesting that Internet posters were dishonorable, misrepresented them, hostile to the Gospel, etc., but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

[EverAStudent]

That being said, maybe we can cool off a bit and discuss this rationally?

What specifically have I said that is literally irrational?  Simply not liking what I have said or how I have said it does not make my comments irrational.

I would, however, appreciate it if we could turn the volume down on the emotional rhetoric, since being shocked and appalled by someone else's "bankrupt" interpretation does exactly nothing to show why the interpretation is incorrect and gets no one any closer to rightly interpreting God's word.

1) I am a human, a being comprised of both cool logic and ordinary emotions.  Even the communication of cool logic can be effectively enhanced when combined with the expression of one's genuine emotions.
2) If not "shock" then exactly what was the politically correct prescribed emotion I should have been programmed to have felt when I read those statements?  ?  ?  It is improper for one human to tell another human not to experience emotions, as if one person could in any way act as such a judge over such things for another; I do not recognize anyone's ability or authority to tell me how to feel when I read doctrinal errors. 
3) I was legitimately shocked to see such incorrect theology described as "biblical," and I do not think it improper or sinful to actually say so.
4) My exposition did in fact "show why the interpretation was incorrect" and was thus shocking to me, at least, in my opinion.

I should have said not "I don't see this in the Bible" but "I see something different in the Bible." There is actually a command in the Bible which tells us what to do with elders when we catch them in sin. It's 1 Timothy 5:20.

Two Scriptures Covering Similar Topics Do NOT Cancel Each Other
Two passages of Scripture do not trump or cancel out each other, they work in concert.  1 Timothy 5:20 is merely permission or encouragement for the church to take a sinning pastor through Matthew 18, not some kind of bizzare rule which implies "once a pastor always a pastor so you cannot ask an unqualified pastor to resign."  Obviously a pastor who fails to repent will be unable to continue to be a pastor anyway, as they SHOULD be removed from the church. 

GC Did Not Implement 1 Timothy 5:20  OR  Matthew 18
The above paragraph is merely academic with regard to GC's apostleship heresy because GC did not implement 1 Timothy 5:20 or Matthew 18 with regard to any of its pastors in relation to the Clark/McCotter apostleship heresy.  No one was corrected, no one was asked to repent, no one repented.  The sin of heresy remains uncorrected and stands as a reproach against all GC pastors who taught it.

Above Reproach Does Not Mean Sinless, It Means Unrepentant
Nothing in 1 Timothy 5 trumps or supersedes the requirements of 1 Timothy 3.  Once a pastor goes through two years of teaching heresy and then never repents he is still open to reproach for a sin of which he never repented.  "Above reproach" (the requirement of any pastor to hold office from 1 Timothy 3) means that the man has no present sin charged against him for which he has not repented. 

Unlike Peter who repented of the charge of bigotry the GC pastors never repented of the sin of teaching apostolic heresy to us, the congregations to whom they taught it.  Even having confronted numerous GC leaders personally at the time about the heresy they continued right on teaching it.  In short, a majority of the men who are presently GC pastors remain "under reproach" for never having publicly confessed and repented of the sin of teaching that heresy; and this repentance needs to be both to the Lord and before the church members (us) to whom they taught this heresy. 

The Current Tense
In other words, those GC pastors are still under reproach because they have remained unrepentant for 30 years on this very heresy.  Since they have been unrepentant and under reproach for 30 years they are no longer qualified to be pastors according to 1 Timothy 3.

"An overseer, then, must be above reproach."  The  pastor must be above reproach right now, in the current time, not just when he is being considered for his first ministry role.  It is an ongoing and current "above reproach."  It is an ongoing requirement just like "husband of only one wife" is an ongoing and ever-current requirement.

Once again I will say it is shocking that you continue to equate Peter's short-lived bigotry, of which he quickly repented, to a GC pastor's 30 year unrepentant attitude toward the heresy he actively taught and endorsed.  How are those two situations even remotely similar?

Logical Conclusion
If GC actually wanted to finally set it's sinful past right with regard to the Clark/McCotter apostleship heresy that it taught, then biblically it would be necessary to:

1) have the National Board publish a confession that they once did teach that the Holy Spirit was making their national pastors into modern apostles with the same authorities as Paul once had;
2) have the National Board publish a statement of sorrow and regret over having taught that heresy;
3) have the National Board publish a statement teaching the biblically correct doctrine of apostleship;
4) have every GC pastor who ever taught or endorsed the apostleship heresy communicate to every person they can reach who was ever under their pastoral authority that they had taught heresy, that they are sorrowful over that heresy, and explain what the correct biblical doctrine of apostleship actually means;
5) have every GC pastor confess and apologize for having waited 30 years to repent of this sin.

Again, logically such men are not now above reproach for this sinful conduct and are presently unfit to be pastors. 

"An overseer, then, must be above reproach [right now]." 

[Linda]

I just noticed. Whitney's article #130 (hopefully it won't disappear before you get there, I have a copy) says at the top:

A GCLI Paper!!!

In the body of the article it says, among other things:

What about the statement, “Loyal, committed, to our local church, for the rest of our life?”  A statement like this needs to be lifted up and examined, probably as a ‘lightning rod’ kind of statement, but taught, never the less.  
It was taught at a recent HSLT Colorado and God used it to challenge hearts and deeply encourage the hundreds of teens and parents that were there.  Very noble words.  
I believe God wants us to be committed to this degree, for this amount of time.  


A significant problem with Great Commission for me is all the doublespeak. In his statement, Hopler says:

At times pastors in our association have used the phrase “life-long commitment” when referring to local church involvement.  This phrase has been used in order to urge people to be involved in a local church the rest of their lives.  For the record, it is not the position of GCC that it is God’s will that every person be in the same local church their whole lives or that it is God’s will that a person should never leave a GCC church.

In light of the fact that a GCLI paper written by a man on their national board is a bit more bold and does not offer the "nuanced" approach of the apparently rather new "statement of clarification" and also in light of the fact that a different GC national board elder told hundreds of adults (at the ECC event) and youth (at HSLT)  to commit to their local church for life, or they could go to a different GC church if their elders sent them, and that leaving your local church was the equivalent to divorcing your spouse, I can only come up with a few thoughts about the GCC/Hopler statement:

1. Mr. Hopler is out of touch with what national board members are teaching at national events (and isn't familiar with all the GCLI papers). However, that seems unlikely since he reads this forum and we have talked about this ad nauseam.

2. Mr. Hopler changed his mind on the teaching, but didn't mention that in the statement.

3. Mr. Hopler likes the teaching, but didn't like the heat that it was getting publicly, so tried to temper it via the paper.

4. Mr. Hopler knows that some GC elders on the national board are "thinking correctly", but unable to communicate their thoughts accurately verbally or on paper, so he "overlooks" what they say and write because "he knows their heart". Isn't "able to teach" a qualification for an elder?

5. Mr. Hopler...fill in the blank...I'm sure there are more reasons.

It boils down to this:

IF I ever see a bold confession of error (that is humble enough to not mention critics or how great GC is) that simply states the error they taught, what they truly believe, and how they are going to reach those who possibly sat under the bad teaching to correct it, I will sit up and take notice. I will trust, yet verify. I'm not there yet.

[Linda]

2xA Ron,

I have a question about this.

http://www.gccweb.org/statement-on-commitment-to-the-local-church

Is this page available to "normal" people who just go to the gcc site? Where is it?

[askingquestionsaboutGCI]

I haven't found that link yet, but I did find this one:

http://www.gccweb.org/about/relationships-partnerships/jim-mccotter-statement