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
March 29, 2024, 06:48:51 am *
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 Website Criticism of Those Who Criticize! How ironic!  (Read 83539 times)
askingquestionsaboutGCI
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80



« Reply #60 on: June 27, 2013, 06:19:25 pm »

Well, I found it, but boy, oh boy, is it buried......

Click on the FAQ's tab; scroll down to question #7; there you will see a link to "statement on commitment to the local church".  That was NOT an easy find.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #61 on: June 27, 2013, 07:25:07 pm »

Ahhhh, thanks.

I had checked the FAQs before I posted and hadn't caught it. Either I missed it (highly likely) or it was just placed there.

About the McCotter statement. No correction or even distancing from his teaching. Just glowing testimony.

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. Now and then some of these mischaracterizations of GCC from the 1970s appear on secular blogs and websites today.

Jim was a catalyst, a fruitful campus evangelist, a dynamic conference speaker and a visionary leader...Jim demonstrated a victorious and courageous faith that stirred Christians to make sacrifices for Jesus Christ and His mission.  As a result of Jim’s life and his teaching from God’s word there are many people who have been affected for Christ. At the same time, Jim and GCI were the subjects of criticism during the 1980s, including criticisms from some former pastors in the movement. The strongest criticisms were focused on Jim personally and on some of his leadership practices and teachings. Although we continue to believe that many of these criticisms were mischaracterizations of our church movement, some of them were accurate.Today, GCC appreciates Jim’s role in the foundational years of our movement but we presently have no working relationship with him and we do not anticipate Jim ever returning to GCC in the future.


The pattern continues. Discredit those who challenged his teaching, and brush over without correcting the fact that "some of them were accurate".

Are he and Dennis Clark still recognized as "apostles"? Is McCotter still on the payroll? His leadership book, after all says:

Nonetheless, the apostles’ financial support should not stop when they leave a church, any more than physical children should stop honoring their parents and grandparents by sharing with them (1 Timothy 5:4). Paul does not indicate that financial support should stop, even years later and countries away.

Here are some honest questions for Hopler.
Has McCotter received any payment from Great Commission (any church or any GC version...GCI, GCC, GCM, GCwhatever)? Was Hopler ever aware of McCotter and/or Hopler being appointed or recognized as "apostles"? Are McCotter and Hopler still considered apostles?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 07:21:34 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #62 on: June 27, 2013, 07:32:55 pm »

2xA Ron, thanks for making the effort to speak to Hopler. Between the link you gave, and the contradictory material Linda found, I don't know what to think. At best, there's confusion and miscommunication within the organization. I feel sorry for anyone who's still being pressured to make a profoundly restrictive, lifelong commitment that, according to Hopler, is no longer required.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #63 on: June 27, 2013, 07:45:27 pm »

Quote

Jim was a catalyst, a fruitful campus evangelist, a dynamic conference speaker and a visionary leader...Jim demonstrated a victorious and courageous faith that stirred Christians to make sacrifices for Jesus Christ and His mission.  As a result of Jim’s life and his teaching from God’s word there are many people who have been affected for Christ.

I can't read this glowing testimony about Jim McCotter without recalling the profoundly sad open letter to McCotter, written by a former employee of his in New Zealand, concerning the suicide of a co-worker.

Sometimes, the contrast between GC's benevolent portrayal of its history and motives, and what I and others actually experienced, seems absolutely surreal.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #64 on: June 29, 2013, 06:29:34 am »

Seriously, we are supposed to believe the commitment statement? The preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary. Either GC speakers are horrible communicators, or they believe in commitment for life to the group.

Rick Whitney, on the national board.
Faithwalkers 2004, a national convention

You might say to yourself, "Look, I'm loyal to my church," but have I told my leaders, my partners, my friends, my brothers, my sisters, "I will be with you to the end."

God wants us to be loyal forever, for the long haul, for the rest of our life, WITH OUR CHURCH.

Find the people of God that you are convinced God wants you to be with and stay and die with them forever.

I remember I was a young Christian. I remember why when someone left our assemblies, our families, our church. And someone will and someone has and someone may...God forbid, here. Well, when people have left, they've said things, and I remember Jim turning to me and he said, "Rick, you don't understand. Obviously you don't understand, Rick." "Understand what? I'm tired of people throwing pot shots at us." He said, "Rick, we're doing something incredibly noble and its of God and we're building families for our Savior. We're doing something unique. it should be painful, God forbid it is not painful when ones leave."

The single biggest decision you will make as a Christian that will determine your success as a believer is whether you will commit to your brothers and sisters for life.


Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 11:10:59 am by Linda » Logged

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

Posts: 75



« Reply #65 on: June 29, 2013, 12:07:01 pm »

From Rick Whitney's "On the Wall" 2006, p 30:

"Let me repeat again what one of our first church leaders once said, "Following the Lord and doing His will, will link you heart-to-heart and shoulder-to-shoulder with the highest quality of men and women upon the face of the earth." 
Logged
2xA Ron
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76



« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2013, 08:11:47 pm »

Quote from: 2xA Ron
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.

Quote from: 2xA Ron
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.

First of all, I want to say that I am not trying to tell you how you can or can't feel.  I am not sure how you even read that into my statements.  You are free to feel however you like, as am I.  Second, I say "irrational" in that "irrational" is defined as "not logical or reasonable," and that, further, rhetoric that appeals to emotions in an attempt to win the argument is defined as logically fallacious argument (not logical argument--or, in other words, irrational argument).  Third, I confess that I may have been spoiled by membership on a discussion forum where great importance is attached to discussing things logically.  Logical fallacies such as appeals to emotion and strawman attacks (both of which you demonstrated in your reply) are things to be avoided there.  However, this forum clearly has no such devotion to logical discourse, and I was wrong to expect a doctrinal discussion here to be free of these flaws, so I apologize for my unfair expectations.

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]." 

It would seem from this statement we are actually in agreement about what should happen to the GCx leadership, should they repent.  You do not say that they should, after step 5, resign.  I had assumed this was what you meant: that men who had repented should be made to resign.  My argument was aimed at proving this was not so.  It seems we can both agree that such a course of action would not be Biblical, though.  I apologize if I misunderstood you at first.
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #67 on: July 01, 2013, 08:57:47 am »

Quote from: 2xA Ron
I am not trying to tell you how you can or can't feel. I am not sure how you even read that into my statements.
Well, I guess I read these comments of yours and they gave me the idea that merely having experienced the emotion of being shocked is an irrational affront to you, "...maybe we can cool off a bit and discuss this rationally...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."

Then you introduced this diatribe which goes to extreme pains to try to taint a single word of emotional content as being literally irrational:

Quote from: 2xA Ron
Second, I say "irrational" in that "irrational" is defined as "not logical or reasonable," and that, further, rhetoric that appeals to emotions in an attempt to win the argument is defined as logically fallacious argument (not logical argument--or, in other words, irrational argument). Third, I confess that I may have been spoiled by membership on a discussion forum where great importance is attached to discussing things logically. Logical fallacies such as appeals to emotion and strawman attacks (both of which you demonstrated in your reply) are things to be avoided there.

You are wrong, of course.  I did not use the debating tactic of an "appeal to emotion fallacy" to prove my argument.  "The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion)

It is not the simple mention of an emotional reaction which is an invalid "appeal to emotion fallacy."  One's principle argument must be an emotional appeal without reference to other more concrete evidences and facts.  Your improper characterization of all emotions as "appeals to emotion fallacies" betrays your desire to control how others feel and think or to control how they talk about how they feel and think.

I used the Bible as the basis to build my entire case.  And the Bible is a work of beautiful logic in and of itself.  I did state my emotional response to your poor theology, but my arguments were neither built on my personal emotional statement nor do they depend upon it.

Quote from: 2xA Ron
I confess that I may have been spoiled by membership on [another] discussion forum where great importance is attached to discussing things logically. Logical fallacies such as appeals to emotion and strawman attacks (both of which you demonstrated in your reply) are things to be avoided there. However, this forum clearly has no such devotion to logical discourse, and I was wrong to expect a doctrinal discussion here to be free of these flaws, so I apologize for my unfair expectations.

In fact your ongoing insistence that any mention of emotion is "irrational" and "flawed" indicates that you do indeed wish to color me as irrational simply because I experienced an emotion.  For shame.  How often did God tell us His emotional response to poor theology?  How many times did Jesus express His shock that the Twelve still held to poor theology (i.e. "How long shall I put up with you?").  Neither the Father nor the Son were irrational for stating that they were shocked, grieved, enraged, or sorrowful over humanity's poor theology, so for you to color a single statement of emotion as irrational is itself invalid doctrine and an invalid debating tactic.

So, you are free to use ad hominem attacks such as this if you like, and you may continue to call the mention of any emotion "irrationality" if you desire, but such comments are mere insults and slander as they are not based on fact or reason.  I will take them in the spurious manner and nature in which they were generated.

Quote from: 2xA Ron
It would seem from this statement we are actually in agreement about what should happen to the GCx leadership, should they repent. You do not say that they should, after step 5, resign. I had assumed this was what you meant: that men who had repented should be made to resign. My argument was aimed at proving this was not so. It seems we can both agree that such a course of action would not be Biblical, though. I apologize if I misunderstood you at first.

In fact as I have oft repeated any man who has willfully remained unrepentant for having introduced and taught heresy to his flock for thirty years is unfit for ministry.  He has failed the test for being a man able to teach the Word in a sound fashion and he has failed the test of being able to demonstrate that he is able to live above reproach.  Moreover the church politic that has refused to take such heretical men through Matthew 18 falls under the condemnation of the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 5:12).  

Men who are unable to teach sound doctrine and who are not above reproach are unfit for pastoral ministry.  

« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 11:41:10 am by EverAStudent » Logged
IWishToRemainAnonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #68 on: July 01, 2013, 12:48:45 pm »

14 minutes. IF YOU GET ANYTHING OUT OF MY MESSAGE IS (sic) YOU STAY. YOU STAY. IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US COME BACK.

http://www.gccweb.org/podcasts/episode-800/a-great-commission-woman.mp3
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 284



« Reply #69 on: July 01, 2013, 04:56:12 pm »

14 minutes. IF YOU GET ANYTHING OUT OF MY MESSAGE IS (sic) YOU STAY. YOU STAY. IF YOU'RE NOT WITH US COME BACK.

http://www.gccweb.org/podcasts/episode-800/a-great-commission-woman.mp3

When/where was this?
Logged
IWishToRemainAnonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #70 on: July 01, 2013, 05:33:15 pm »

Faithwalkers 2009
Logged
IWishToRemainAnonymous
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35



« Reply #71 on: July 01, 2013, 05:37:47 pm »

Our churches, Great Commission churches, have a glorious testimony in this arena of service and then write this question, "DO I WANT TO JOIN 'EM?" You might say, "Well, Rick, I'm joined, but you're joined and you're under authority right now and there'll be a few years where it will be totally your choice. Right now, you're under mom and dad, you're under their authority and you say, "Well, I'm here, lock, stock, and barrel," but here's what's going to happen in your Christian life. Life is going to give you the opportunity to make that choice, He always does, our churches have a glorious in this area, this arena of service, DO YOU WANT TO JOIN US. That'll be your call. Boy, I plead with you, YOU CAN SEE THE WORLD WITH THIS BUNCH. You can experience things you can't even dream of. You can become men and women that you don't even have a clue on right now…it can become incredibly rich and rewarding if you join this company of servants and it will be your choice and God will give you an opportunity to say yes or no and I WOULD PLEAD WITH YOU JOIN THIS COMPANY. LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL. Throw in your towel. SAY I'M WITH THIS BUNCH.

You know, we've worked at the national leadership level…we're always trying to explain what is Great Commission, who is Great Commission, is this a sales organization, or something? so we always have a byline, we work on our bylines, and I've always thought "The Few, the Brave"  I didn't want to put in the proud…BUT YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO JOIN US. YOU REALLY DO.

Whitney, HSLT 2006
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #72 on: July 02, 2013, 10:43:17 am »

Listened to the first fifteen minutes of this, then gave up because there was nothing useful or edifying up to that point. What really stands out in this and other GC materials is the constant emphasis on the church, the leaders, and sometimes even the critics (3-minute mark, GC was criticized for thinking it was the best), but almost no one has anything to say in praise of the Lord Jesus Christ. The closest they come is when they're using His name to give themselves a pat on the back. Ugh.
Logged
2xA Ron
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76



« Reply #73 on: July 02, 2013, 11:43:39 am »

Your improper characterization of all emotions as "appeals to emotion fallacies" betrays your desire to control how others feel and think or to control how they talk about how they feel and think.
So, you are free to use ad hominem attacks such as this if you like, and you may continue to call the mention of any emotion "irrationality" if you desire, but such comments are mere insults and slander as they are not based on fact or reason.  I will take them in the spurious manner and nature in which they were generated.

Lol, so now I'm the bad guy here who uses horrible ad hominem attacks and tries to manipulate other people's emotions?  Let's do a brief recap, shall we?

First, you find it's not sufficient to tell me why my interpretation of scripture is wrong, you feel the need to shame me for it by saying, not once, but three times (in the first reply alone) how shocked you were by my error.
Is this an example of the theological shallowness to which GC is still holding its adherents?  Shocking.
Not satisfied, you proceed to attempt to link me to the GCx as an adherent of the same--on a forum where everyone (including me) has a justifiably negative image of this group.  The entire forum is devoted to speaking out about and relating negative experiences of the organization, so implying that I am an adherent of this group is not only extremely inaccurate but also, practically speaking, this forum's equivalent of a reductio ad hitlerum (a particularly egregious ad hominem) attack on me.  Please do note that at this point I had said nothing directly to you, I merely stated an opinion on a theological issue you had brought up, which opinion you did not agree with, and you proceeded to unload on me with emotional manipulation (shaming) and severe ad hominem.  Sure, you talked about the Bible, too--but I have to ask why were such attacks necessary if you felt you could prove your point without them?

Second, rather than responding in kind, I request a change of tone.  I request that you stop the attempts to shame me and engage me in a purely doctrinal discussion.  Not only do you refuse to honor this request, including further attempts to shame me by emphasizing how "shocking" my errors are, but you also strawman my request into an argument that I am attempting to manipulate your emotions!  You go on to defeat this strawman at length and in detail.

I think, Well, maybe I was unclear. So I proceed to show how I came to the conclusion that your attempts to manipulate my emotions (shame me) were not rational argument.  I use an exceedingly simple chain of logical definitions to do so.  I then apologize if my previous experiences have caused me to react to your rhetoric out of proportion.  In fact, I apologize a number of times in this exchange, humbly admitting that I may be wrong.  You don't apologize once or ever even allow for the possibility that your perceptions may be in error--even though (ex: saying I'm an adherent of the GCx) sometimes they are very erroneous and offensive indeed.  I end on a note where we can both drop it and walk away, calling it a misunderstanding (for which I volunteer to take the blame).

Your response takes the cake.  You continue to strawman me to try to make me the manipulative one, saying I want to make all mention of emotion or "one word" (try several sentences, growing into paragraphs) of emotion an appeal to emotion fallacy.  You then go on as if emotional rhetoric played no part in your arguments (why include it then?) or as if including factual arguments as well can somehow negate the logical fallacy of trying to win an argument by (in part) shaming someone (that is, manipulating their emotions).  You continue to try to shame me.  By now you are not satisfied by emphasizing how shocking my errors are to you, making false accusations, or using ad hominem attacks (all of which you are sure to include).  You actually say "For shame."--just in case I wasn't getting the message that I should be horribly ashamed of my shockingly terrible theology (please note: it's not my interpretation of a few passages, nor my stance on one issue--which is the substance of our actual disagreement--but my entire theology that is portrayed as appallingly wrong) and now my shockingly terrible logic as well.

Oh, and I have poor and invalid debating tactics because I object to heavy-handed emotional rhetoric.  Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?  Let's look back at these statements and see how effective this debate has been on clarifying whether or not the Bible says the leaders of the GCx need to resign.  The first reply, by me, was completely on topic.  Your reply to that was mostly on topic, despite spending several sentences trying to browbeat me with how shockingly wrong I was and implying I was an adherent to the GCx.  My reply wasted short sections at the beginning and end talking about the tone of your argument.  Your next reply spent maybe a fourth to a fifth of its length countering my objection to your tone rather than talking about what the Bible says about when/if leaders should resign.  By my next reply, only half of the length was addressing the original issue.  In your last reply, that's down to a fourth.  Here, I'm not even going to get to the original topic.  I see a pattern here.  Emotional rhetoric has completely derailed this debate from logically talking about the issue, to irrationally accusing the debaters.  It's gotten to the point where I won't even make any further responses in this debate because it's become pointless!  I objected to emotional rhetoric precisely because I feared it would lead to this, but you defend it as a valid approach.  Which of us has invalid debating tactics again?  Oh, sorry, that would be me: the one who tried to keep the debate on topic.  Silly me. Roll Eyes

Look, I'll admit (here I go, apologizing and admitting the possibility of error again) that I might be wrong: that you might not have intended to shame me, that you might have simply been trying to share your feelings.  I find it hard to believe, given the way you went about it seemed deliberately aimed at shaming me and your last reply definitely seems to be heading in that direction (and even trying to justify it from the Bible), but I'm willing to admit that I'm human and that I'm capable of misunderstanding someone and/or overreacting.  If I have done so, I apologize.  If not, please note that I have no desire to continue the rational discussion you've turned into a mud-slinging competition and that I will make no further replies to you on this topic.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #74 on: July 02, 2013, 03:17:20 pm »

All together now, everyone. Red Herring.

2xA Ron, I respectfully ask that you start a new thread to continue this discussion.

This is totally off topic. To bring it back to the original topic...

In 1991, GC issued the error/apology statement, which some refer to as a statement of "clarification". The first point was prideful attitude/improper response to criticism. Here is what they wrote:

We confess that we have too often responded defensively to those both within and outside of our churches who questioned or criticized us, and at times exhibited an unwillingness to listen to their perspective. Instead of too quickly concluding that these individuals were acting divisively or irresponsibly, we should have made a greater effort to carefully consider and respond to their views.

In reading many of the recent statements on the GCC site, I concluded that they continue to do precisely what they supposedly apologized for in 1991. They try to prove themselves "right" by saying those who have trouble with their teaching and practice are "unfair, have exaggerated claims, are ignorant, are giving false reports and mischaracterizations, are disrespectful". Those are all names that GC called bloggers and Internet posters. Those character criticisms were taken from their web page at 5:07 central time on July 2. That is what I was referring to when I started this thread.

They try to "win" people over to their side by trying to discredit the character of those who believe they are teaching error. I find that ironic. The proper response would be to refute the false teaching by giving Biblical reasons for their beliefs.

There is no denying they teach they have "something special" as an association, that they teach commitment to them for life (and at the same time deny that they do), and that they teach obedience to elders in personal matters (like who to marry and where to live).

People deserve to know the truth about what GC believes. Many have been deceived and harmed by their unorthodox views.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 09:27:00 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
2xA Ron
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76



« Reply #75 on: July 02, 2013, 04:57:56 pm »

I apologize if the interactions between myself and EverAStudent distracted from the topic of GCx's attitude toward its critics.  It was never my intention to get dragged so far off topic into personal bickering.  I have, however, already said I will not continue that discussion, not on this thread, nor another.  Sad

I would love to discuss the article from the original post.  As I stated in an earlier post, I am uncertain whether or not the negative attitude is directed toward internet critics like us in particular.  As I pointed out before, the quoted section (from paragraph three of the article) about "unfair and exaggerated statements" is actually directed at "secular newspapers" published in the 1970's and 80's, and those "secular blogs or websites" which reference these sources.  To my knowledge, nothing in that paragraph in the article applies to us.

I tried pointing this out before, but received no reply from anyone, except I think Linda said "sigh," which was not very informative to me.  Does anyone have an argument for why we should believe the negative things said in paragraph three are actually meant to apply to us here today?  I'd be interested to hear it.  Maybe I'm reading the whole thing wrong?  Undecided
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #76 on: July 02, 2013, 06:12:12 pm »

The sigh is because this discussion has happened many times over the years.

Here are a few examples you asked for:

In addition, because we were a new movement that was not well known, unfair and exaggerated statements were published that were based on ignorance or false reports. Now and then some of these mischaracterizations of GCC from the 1970s appear on secular blogs and websites today.

Now and then some of these mischaracterizations of GCC from the 1970s appear on secular blogs and websites today.

When conflicts occur, most Christians we know pursue a respectful reconciliation process privately.  Others, however, make anonymous posts on blogs.


Also, here is a link to the talk that was given right after this site came into existence. They told people not to come here. And, at that time, this forum didn't even exist, as I recall. When this talk was given, there was no ability to post comments. This forum used to be a wordpress blog started by Agatha, Bertrand, Genevieve, and Gene Prince. It moved to this site in 2007 or so, I believe, and became this forum. Clearly, they are talking about this site when they refer to Internet criticisms.

http://www.gcxweb.org/Audio/SlanderAndTheChristian-05-07-2006.aspx
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 09:28:03 pm by Linda » Logged

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

Posts: 2520



« Reply #77 on: July 02, 2013, 06:13:12 pm »

BTW, that Nelson talk is very cult-like. If you don't think so, I can't help you.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
2xA Ron
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76



« Reply #78 on: July 02, 2013, 06:39:23 pm »

Okay.  Thanks for your reply.
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 284



« Reply #79 on: July 02, 2013, 08:52:32 pm »

Is it common knowledge who Steve Nelson was referring to? And what actually did happen? I would love to know, unless it's something that individual wouldn't want shared.
Logged
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