GCx is not a movement

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.

[observer]

One thing that keeps coming up in GCx communications from very early on to this day is the statement that it is a "movement."

It is most definitely NOT a movement. It is an emerging religious denomination (with little distinction except a huge appetite for growth predicated on high-commitment, high-compliance participation.) A "movement" happens organically, spontaneously, and at the grass-roots level, and is not contained by the strictures of centralized, hierarchical organization and doctrinal regulation. And as amply demonstrated both by my growing up in the church and observing it now, GCx has both, even if individual churches claim theoretical "autonomy."

And in practice, it seems that the autonomy is really very little, for reasons amply discussed here.

If GC were ever to grow up, it would have to admit the following:

1. It is a small church denomination and not a movement.
2. All the rhetorical gimmickry in the world won't change its authoritarian nature or cover up its past which is even more extreme.
3. It has huge membership turnover, and its exes aren't starting GC-like churches they way they would be if GC were a "movement."

[banished]

Well said.

[observer]

My statement that GCx is not a movement does not mean that it has no relationship to certain kinds of religious trends. Clearly, it was a non-charismatic part of the "Jesus Movement" (the rapid growth of popular evangelical religion) in its early years. It could also be understood as a part of the "religious right" with its early (and continuing?) and fairly extreme (and in some cases vicious like with the pro-central american insurgency pulpit propanda) political activism (of course, elders were induced to do this by McCotter, Short, et. al. "national leaders"). Of course, Larry Pile situates GCx as a part of the shepherding movement. Clearly, it has been a part of the megachurch fad, and is actively pursuing getting a foothold in the emerging church now.

My point is that however you slice it, GCx is a small fundamentalist  sect/cult/denomination/TACO, even as it adapts itself to various trends.

What really still saddens me (as one with parents still involved with GC) is the ahistoricality of GC members and leaders. That I am even articulating a sort of historical context to understand GC in is so un-GC like! It is almost as un-GC like ("irrelevant" a GC'er might say) as reading the Bible in historical context.

Oh, and of course for GC'ers there is a great verse to support this attitude: "Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."

I can just hear an elder's reproof: Paul commands us to think about the future, so quick harping on the past!

[namaste]

observer-
I found your post very though-provoking on a number of levels.  

First, as the NAE pointed out in the 80s, GC is most certainly not a "movement" nor a simple organization.  The point at which you've promoted your brand of church, the point at which you're a group of churches, the point at which you insist that your campus ministry is better than InterVarsity, Campus Crusade, etc., because you promote the "whole church" concept (as opposed to a "christian club") you're no longer a simple "organization."

Even the NAE said that they misrepreseneted themselves as an organization when they were more accurately a denomination.  You'd think that after nearly 20 years, they'd have figured out their error.

GC has long since passed the point of critical mass where they needed to start acting like a legit denomination.  Loosely governed, change-the-rules-as-you-go may have worked when GC was a rag-tag group of guys in the 70s, but the organization is so large now, and the systemic abuses so pervasive, that I really can't understand how they continue to turn a blind eye to many of the things going on.

In the face of everything going on, it's very difficult for me to take seriously remarks like, "You can't paint with such a wide brush," and, "Don't condemn the entire organization over the mistakes of a few."  Is this like plausible deniability or something?  :lol:  It's like they're trying to argue that the organization is inherently good except that all the churches/elders suck.  :?

[observer]

Namaste said:
"Even the NAE said that they misrepresented themselves as an organization when they were more accurately a denomination. You'd think that after nearly 20 years, they'd have figured out their error. Wink ...
GC has long since passed the point of critical mass where they needed to start acting like a legit denomination."

Inability to act as a denomination I think could have something to do with GC's origins as a Plymouth Brethren offshoot. Brethren churches make a HUGE deal about the fact that they are not a denomination, that elders are plural, that congregations are autonomous. The whole "new testament church" mentality expressed seems to be that since first century Christians did not belong to denominations, 21 century Christians shouldn't either.

But what's ironic is that this anti-denominational posture really shows itself to be quite sectarian--in its own way--even as it decries sectarianism. Just read Edmund Gosse's Father and Son (a late Victorian autobiography of the son of a Bretheren elder) and see what I mean.

It would be very normal, healthy, and realistic for GC to just come out of the closet as a denomination and quite trying to be the church universal. But this would go against the grain of its bretheren roots.

[unsubscribed]

Yes, but if they did become a demonation the pastors would have to come under some kind of real authority.  I mean they would really have to obey some rules and not just give lip service to being under anothers authority. Wouldn't fly in my old church.
unsubscribed

[unsubscribed]

well I'm not sure if that was a fraudian slip or what but I meant to say denomination.  :lol: