GCM "Partners" as posted on the Wikipedia article

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]

The Council of Reference List I was referring to was here:
http://kairos.la/about/buzz

I assumed it was accurate since the pastor oh, I'm sorry, I meant the "dream awakener" of that church is listed as being on the board of directors of GCM.

As far as calling us detractors goes, you can tell me I haven't healed and want heads on a platter, you can call me bitter and divisive, you can tell people I am a slanderer and that they shouldn't talk with me or ask me why I left my church (just ran into someone at the grocery store a month ago who informed me that people had been instructed to not ask us why we left), you can call me whatever you want (except late for dinner) and I really don't care. I am here to warn people that GC has a history of shepherding and error, that GC leaders in recent years have told people to give the controls of their lives to the men God works through, and that GC leaders personally tried to insert themselves between me and my children--even to the extent of sending them a copy of a personal letter written to my husband and me that contained negative opinions of us.

The thing I realize is that GC has to resort to the ad hominem attack because they can not defend their actions. All they have left to do is attack the people, who oddly enough, are trying to help them see the error of their ways and keep others from stumbling because of that error.

[bothered]

hey Randomous,

Not sure where I ever said or even implied it was "unreasonable" to expect someone on this forum to know the answer to my question. I just realized as my thread went on, specifically through my discussions with you, that it may not be the best place to get those specifics. (That to me, is different than saying it was "unreasonable.") But, actually, this may have ended up being a good place to post that question, right?  Because had I not posted on this site, Linda may not have gone ahead and contacted Oxford. So, it may in the end really work out (though obviously not in the way I initially expected) and I may end up getting not only the clarification I wanted, but clarification from arguably the best source to comment on this discussion. Oxford, themselves.

But, when I set out to ask this question, I thought maybe someone would know something tangible about this relationship. If it really is happening on a consistent basis like you say it is, then someone out there must have some recent, active, current information on it. That was my thinking.

I am not sure where I ever used the word "definite" or implied or said that I have absolute proof that this is not taking place today. And, that though I have this irrefutable and absolute proof, I am not going to show it.

What I have consistently tried to communicate is that I know things about this relationship that has led me to believe that nothing is happening today with it. But, I am not spending day and not tracking this stuff down and making phone calls and what not. So, I wanted to throw the question out there and see if someone knew something about it that went farther than my own knowledge and that would help me clarify the situation. I am simply asking a question about a topic I have some knowledge about already. That doesn't imply that I know 100% every detail about this partnership, nor does it imply that I know "absolutely nothing" as you put it before.

That being said, I don't feel like I need to defend that specific point anymore. This has been a sincere request by me and I feel like I have been fair in it.

You said that I might be, "picking an area where there isn't likely to be much information available so that I can use that as a way to back up my accusation that GCM is being dishonest."

I find this confusing and, again, I feel like you are accusing me something or implying something negative about my motives. I have already listed my reasons for pursuing this issue (see my post On October 16 at around 2 p.m.). You can follow my posts as I have outlined very clearly and sincerely my concerns over this. I agree too with Agatha's recent post on this thread. It too communicates why I feel this is an important issue.

I also find it odd that one would say this might be an area where there is likely no information. If there is no information, the question is why? If this stuff is happening there has to be something out there and someone out there organizing it within both GCx and within Wycliffe Hall. Things don't just get planned or just happen.

I think it is reasonable and appropriate to assume that someone at Wycliffe Hall will know something about this partnership and about the retreats, courses, etc (you mentioned these things as examples) that are happening, supposedly on a consistent basis, today.

------

Linda that is really unusual about Kairos still having Ray Ortlund as a reference! Councils of Reference are usually there to be just that; a reference that someone can contact if they need or want to - Organizations change and shift, so it is important that organizations stay up to date with their references, for the sake of both. It opens up a whole new way of doing references though! It is also odd that each independent GCM church uses the overall references for the GCM organization as a whole too.

P.S.:

GCM Warning totally rocks out!

[Linda]

Here is the list of Partners according to the Wycliffe Hall web page:
http://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/content.asp?id=669

[AgathaL'Orange]

Randomous said:

There are a lot of partners, and people on the council of reference, who have said that very thing by endorsing GCM through those relationships.  

Prove it.  That's what we're asking.  If their name is just going on a list, but they won't vouch for HOW they are related, then how is that helpful?  I want to know that they know the bad stuff and that they think it's better now.

Also, I hate to be nitpicky, but this is some serious circular reasoning.

We're supposed to feel better because GCx is "endorsed" by good people on a council of reference and through partnerships.  When we ask to know the nature of those relationships, we hit a brick wall every time.  So I'm just saying, I would back off if you had a nice, real council of people who knew what happened and were working to address it.  Instead we are supposed feel better because they are endorsed by these people.  So to continue the circle, we just want to know HOW they endorsed GCx.

And specifically, the Wycliffe Hall claim is what people are interested in at this moment. 

A partnership should be easy to trace.  If there are no formal relationships but perhaps one person went to a training once or took a class or if Wycliffe Hall said, "If any GCM employee were to apply here, we would read through their application and upon payment of fees would admit this student," that isn't a partnership, but is instead the same privelege any person might have if they wanted to go there.

[TerryD]

A little late to the party, but on the subject of warning and detracting...some definitions.

Just to reiterate, a central purpose of the website has always been to warn people new to GCx of the hidden side of these organizations—history, current beliefs and practices that are questionable and possibly dangerous for themselves or their children.

GCx is a Christian sect with a fairly orthodox and conventional published doctrinal statement, yet with a high-control structure and culture, and significant misunderstandings of the nature of Christian leadership and Christian commitment.

warn
 –verb (used with object)
1. to give notice, advice, or intimation to (a person, group, etc.) of danger, impending evil, possible harm, or anything else unfavorable.
2. to urge or advise to be careful; caution.

de⋅tract
  –verb (used without object)
1. to take away a part, as from quality, value, or reputation (usually fol. by from).

To expose the sometimes camouflaged history, doctrine and practice of GCX and indeed warn the researching reader is inevitably to detract. Of course.

To characterize ex-members and critics as "detractors" only is to connote a sort of capricious, irresponsible tearing down of something, and to suggest that it is their first or only purpose. It is not.

Randomous, that's what's wrong with Tom Mauriello's description and your understanding of this website.

Incidentally, careful observers will note that GCM and GCAC are related when it's convenient for them (for GCAC to enhance their numbers and ministry footprint) and unrelated when that's convenient (when GCM seeks to distance itself from it's troubling past and its "detractors"). New readers here are wise to note this phenomemon.

If you are a new reader researching GC, the forum portion can be helpful but is sometimes (as internet forums usually are) all over the map. And there are always a few die-hard and occasional drive-by defenders of all things GC! They are all welcome too. The main material at gcmwarning.com is the most helpful. I wish it had been available when we were researching.

[Linda]

In case anyone is wondering, no word from Wycliffe Hall yet. You'll be the first to know when I hear! 

[shame_on_them]

5 reflections on my experience with MSU Bible Study in East Lansing, Michigan during the period 1977-1982.


1) The doctrine was sound and very much mainstream pre-millenial dispensationalism. Think Moody Bible Church, Dallas Theological Seminary, or Charles Ryrie, and you have a pretty good handle on what they professed.

2) The leaders, formal and casual, were dreadfully weak and inexperienced. 20-25 year olds leading churches is a recipe for disaster, the youth of John and Timothy (who they often referenced in answering questions about their youth) notwithstanding. They could not possibly deal with the social and emotional problems of young men and women in their late teens to early 20s. The leaders were ambitious and, I believe, secretly power hungry. They loved the praise of men and women, albeit men and women in the fellowship.

3) The leaders (formal and casual) were governed by 'the ends justifies the means'. That led to dishonesty that I found pervasive in virtually every aspect of life. I'm not talking about what we might commonly call big lies. But deceptions in the cause of Christ were routine and commonplace. Example - Q: How many members are in your church? A: Oh, 300. (when they knew that once, around Easter, 300 people came to a bible teaching that normally hosted 100)

4) There was a widespread demeanor among the fellowship members to isolate, ostracize, and manipulate by giving and withholding love and acceptance. And to what ends? Well, it depended on the situation. Usually it was to enforce the rules. I mean, I was chastised for watching the news. And because I did not go out evangelizing twice a week (on specified days), I was regarded as one who didn't have a heart for God.

5) The leaders, for all their talk, did not live respectable lives in the eyes of the world. They worked as little as they needed in order to survive and sleep late in the morning, quit jobs with no notice to go on retreats, and gave little, outside of lip service, to the care of their flocks. I recall one retreat in which this young woman had a dental infection. Now this woman was only 20ish, if even that. Their idea of kindness was to take her to an oral surgeon who extracted the tooth. It makes me sick to think of the money that was available to help this young woman with perhaps an antibiotic and a scheduled appointment with a dentist back home (it was only a 3 day retreat and this occurred on day 2), thus saving the tooth. But, you see, these leaders saw only evangelizing the world and not the plight of this young woman. In most ways, they were cheap and heartless.

Why did I stay for 5 years? For the same reason I entered. I came from a broken home. I wanted love and acceptance. When they proselytized me, I was the most important person in the world to them. When they had me, every bit of kindness was conditional.

I look back on those days and I am left with a dirty taste in my mouth. Without question, the worst days of my life. But the shame is on them.

[bothered]

Dear Shame On Them -

Well summarized and said. 

I can relate to this too:

"Why did I stay for 5 years? For the same reason I entered. I came from a broken home. I wanted love and acceptance. When they proselytized me, I was the most important person in the world to them. When they had me, every bit of kindness was conditional."

Thanks for posting Shame on Them. And though it may seem contrived, you are absolutely right: shame on them. And, on that point, I think that is what the wikipedia article and GCM Warning are helping to do. It is helping to expose these things. The church I left had many people, including many GCM staffers, waking up to the issues of the organization and many of them have been encouraged by this forum.

[notwithstanding]

I am not sure that the original question is still active in people's minds, but I believe the idea behind using a word like "partner" is that it takes advantage of the sort of intentional generality that might be employed in a resume-like application.  Thus, the idea being to give credence to a certain implicit value (education) and thus drawing on an otherwise, and perhaps preferably, and normally unspoken relationship to exemplify that value-( "name dropping" would perhaps be considered to be in the same vein.)  Yet, we are all capable of these sort of tactics when we seek to impress- one might ask why they feel they need to impress- but this is a whole other discussion. All that being said, in this case, "partner" actually can mean certain financial help that a seminary gives to partnering (and even perhaps non-partnering) campus workers... I know for a fact this is often the case with one of the one's mentioned.  I suppose they do this as a means to encourage a steady flow of eager young workers to follow each other into seminary... (maybe also because they know how much they really need it). I also know that this same help is available to multiple organizations of campus workers.  Do those other organizations find it necessary to call attention to it... not so much.  

[Linda]

Interesting you should re-open this thread. I was recently listening to the history of Great Commission on the GCx site and was reminded immediately of some of the things mentioned on this thread. I was interested to hear this part of the history as told by Rick Whitney:

We had several churches at one time, we planted Ohio State, planted a number of other churches in the Ohio Valley and all through the midwest. Eventually we had maybe 25 churches in the late 80's I was down in Florida…I remember Jim and some of the guys said, "You know, we need to organize, we've got this loose federation of Bible Studies scattered across the country and we need some kind of cohesion, a little tighter cohesion. Maybe a game plan that would involve us all. And they invited about 10, 15 of us or so to come together and spend the summer in Maryland. Summer led to several years in Maryland. We formed our national association. A way to help us get back on campuses and help us coordinate when it comes to overseas missions. That was the genesis of GCM. And GCM with Dave Bovenmyer's help and others help. We decided to pattern some of our GCM fundraising plans after Cursade.

Of course that reminded me of the GCM web page "What Others Say" and it's very bizarre question"

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

.

First of all, have we ever said that all GCC churches are GCM churches? I don't think so. All we are saying it the two are connected. GCC started GCM as a way to organize the Bible studies across the country, and form a game plan, and do fundraising. Like it or not, GCC is connected to GCM.

It seems like GCM is trying to distance themselves from GCC and in doing so calls us a bunch of detractors to discredit the points we are trying to make.

The fact is, by their own admission GCC IS connected to GCM. Perhaps Tom Mauriello didn't get the memo.

This is yet again an example of the frustration of trying to get accurate information from GC leaders. It seems that they mislead on purpose, or are clueless themselves.