Grievance Procedures

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.

[IWishToRemainAnonymous]

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5ebae0906778cb4708ca1cc0/612e542f0101713b5b3077d0_HC%20Complaint%20and%20Grievance%20Procedures%2010-29-20.pdf

I happened upon this tonight. I had never seen this. Thoughts? I have a few.

Sexual misconduct and embezzling should be handled according to Matthew 18? Really? These are not matters that require simple "reconciliation." Embezzlement is a serious crime. So is rape. There are times to go immediately to law enforcement. Those cases would be two of the times.

[Huldah]

I'll try to comment further tomorrow or Wednesday, once I've had more of a chance to digest this. For now, my first thought is this:

"In keeping with the biblical procedure described in Matthew 18:15-17, the first step is to go to the person directly. Clearly communicate to him/her your thoughts and feelings on the particular matter. Listen to his/her thoughts and feelings. Taking this action with them first will often give clarity and bring reconciliation."

A woman who's been sexually harassed, or worse, doesn't need reconciliation with her harasser. She doesn't need to "listen to his thoughts or feelings." She certainly doesn't need to meet him alone, as a first step, to handle this in private. She needs to be protected.

She may also need to go to the police, first, before the predator and his supporters have time to destroy evidence and circle the wagons.

It's bad enough when a professing Christian commits sexual sin with an equal partner who freely consents. Abuse of a nonconsenting partner is a whole different level of sin.

[Linda]

Exactly, Huldah.

Reading over this, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they could not possibly have thought this through. For example, a child/teen being harmed by a church leader would fall under the category of "Call Child Protection Immediately", not give Rob Gerber or Richard Lundborg (and who is this guy, why him Gerber is a "GCC guy" so that makes sense in a high control kind of way) a call and run it by them so they can help the child reconcile with the perp. I'm assuming they were thinking more along the lines of someone who didn't like the sermon series topic or the planned service project. Also, if the grievance was about what the person felt was some type of heresy (like teaching that leaving the local church is the equivalent of divorcing your spouse), you should definitely go to the person directly and kindly correct him, but you also get to tell your church friends that what they heard the man say was not right. This smacks of information control and is a sign of a cult. If a group is trying to not look cult-like, they should stay away from this type of control.

[Linda]

The plan in Matthew 18 is:

1. Go to the person. If that doesn't work,
2. Take another person with you to confront the person, If that doesn't work,
3. TELL THE CHURCH, if that doesn't work
4. Treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

The plan is not:
1. Go to the person. If that doesn't work,
2. Contact Rob Busse, but if the matter is one of a sexual nature contact one of two members of the BOT, but if you aren't comfortable with that,
3. Contact Rob Gerber or Richard Lundborg, and if that doesn't work,
4. Appeal to the Board of Trustees.

Obvious question here is: What about the part that says, "If they still refuse to listen, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH?"

This is NOT the way dealing with grievances is set forth in Matthew 18. The church is missing from this procedure.

[Huldah]

Reading over this, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they could not possibly have thought this through.

Linda, I think this is a very reasonable way to view it. They're trying to shoehorn everything into the Matthew 18 model, whether it fits or not.

Perhaps it would have made more sense to recognize three general categories of grievance (keeping in mind that the boundaries between the three aren't always hard and fast):

1. Disputes and disagreements over doctrine, procedure, and non-criminal interpersonal conflicts. These would fall under the Matthew 18 model.

2. Crimes alleged against church resources or property. These would be investigated by the church, with or without expert help or law enforcement, as the leadership deems necessary. The Matthew 18 model isn't necessarily ruled out here.

3. Crimes alleged against humans: assault & battery, sexual assault, child molestation, or domestic violence.

The GC document says, "The clearest 'grievance procedure' in the Bible is Matthew 18:15-17. This principle ought to be emphasized first and foremost." But there's no reason to believe that Matthew 18 trumps Romans 13:4, at least in criminal proceedings. "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." It makes more sense for victims of violence to go directly to law enforcement and/or medical authorities. That provides the best chance to preserve forensic evidence, as well as to ensure that there's no serious injury to the victim. This is what the church itself should be recommending, instead of putting the victim through a traumatic Matthew 18 procedure with the perpetrator.

However, I'm assuming that they're approaching this from an overly simplistic viewpoint, rather than malice.

Other than that, it's sort of interesting to see how this document reflects the historical teachings of the movement. The first principle it states is, "The plurality of elders/pastors (two or more elders/pastors sharing the leadership and decision-making authority) is the primary means of pastoral accountability." Even back in the 70s, they were teaching that a plurality of elders was a superior form of church government, as if it weren't possible for the elders to all go astray together. Yet, all of the unjust and unkind things they semi-apologized for in the Weaknesses Paper happened under the guidance of a plurality of elders. It's not that there's anything wrong with having multiple elders, but it's a little odd (given their history) that they're still treating it as if it offered any unique protection from error.

[Huldah]

To add to the post above, I just want to say that if you're the victim of a crime, no one at your church should ever act as a gatekeeper to law enforcement.

[Huldah]

Obvious question here is: What about the part that says, "If they still refuse to listen, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH?"

This is NOT the way dealing with grievances as set forth in Matthew 18. The church is missing from this procedure.

Excellent point.

[Janet Easson Martin]

…I just want to say that if you're the victim of a crime, no one at your church should ever act as a gatekeeper to law enforcement.

Agree, Huldah.  And no one should persuade you to spin the truth.

[Linda]

Thank you, Huldah, for taking the time to write this very well thought out post. Excellent points.

Reading over this, I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they could not possibly have thought this through.

Linda, I think this is a very reasonable way to view it. They're trying to shoehorn everything into the Matthew 18 model, whether it fits or not.

Perhaps it would have made more sense to recognize three general categories of grievance (keeping in mind that the boundaries between the three aren't always hard and fast):

1. Disputes and disagreements over doctrine, procedure, and non-criminal interpersonal conflicts. These would fall under the Matthew 18 model.

2. Crimes alleged against church resources or property. These would be investigated by the church, with or without expert help or law enforcement, as the leadership deems necessary. The Matthew 18 model isn't necessarily ruled out here.

3. Crimes alleged against humans: assault & battery, sexual assault, child molestation, or domestic violence.

The GC document says, "The clearest 'grievance procedure' in the Bible is Matthew 18:15-17. This principle ought to be emphasized first and foremost." But there's no reason to believe that Matthew 18 trumps Romans 13:4, at least in criminal proceedings. "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." It makes more sense for victims of violence to go directly to law enforcement and/or medical authorities. That provides the best chance to preserve forensic evidence, as well as to ensure that there's no serious injury to the victim. This is what the church itself should be recommending, instead of putting the victim through a traumatic Matthew 18 procedure with the perpetrator.

However, I'm assuming that they're approaching this from an overly simplistic viewpoint, rather than malice.

Other than that, it's sort of interesting to see how this document reflects the historical teachings of the movement. The first principle it states is, "The plurality of elders/pastors (two or more elders/pastors sharing the leadership and decision-making authority) is the primary means of pastoral accountability." Even back in the 70s, they were teaching that a plurality of elders was a superior form of church government, as if it weren't possible for the elders to all go astray together. Yet, all of the unjust and unkind things they semi-apologized for in the Weaknesses Paper happened under the guidance of a plurality of elders. It's not that there's anything wrong with having multiple elders, but it's a little odd (given their history) that they're still treating it as if it offered any unique protection from error.

[Janet Easson Martin]

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5ebae0906778cb4708ca1cc0/612e542f0101713b5b3077d0_HC%20Complaint%20and%20Grievance%20Procedures%2010-29-20.pdf

I happened upon this tonight. I had never seen this. Thoughts? I have a few.

Sexual misconduct and embezzling should be handled according to Matthew 18? Really? These are not matters that require simple "reconciliation." Embezzlement is a serious crime. So is rape. There are times to go immediately to law enforcement. Those cases would be two of the times.

Yes, IWishToRemainAnonymous, embezzlement and rape should not follow Matthew 18 process, but police  contacted instead. There should also be (in the least) immediate and permanent removal from any church leadership. It would also seem that these should be reported to the church WITHOUT naming the victim/s. That would be cruel to name any sexual misconduct victims.


Thanks for posting these strange procedures of this “GCx” staffed church, IWTRA. Very sadly not surprised to hear of another cover-up “process.”

[Huldah]

Another thought: Depending on the mandated reporter laws in a given state or jurisdiction, the proposed Grievance Procedures may actually place pastors or church staff in a precarious legal position. In my state, for example, the law says that any adult who becomes aware of a case of child abuse automatically becomes a mandated reporter. If someone alleges an act of abuse against a minor, or perhaps against a vulnerable adult (depending on state laws), then treating it as a strictly Matthew 18 situation could conceivably result in prosecution of the pastor or staff.