How GC churches are structured

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.

[AgathaL'Orange]

So I didn't realize GC churches had a governance board.  I always thought the elders made the decisions.  In most churches it was like two or three people but maybe more.  How are churches run?  Are they all run differently?


Is this not how they are run?

Top nationally:  GC board (No authority over those below?)

Authority in cities/cluster of churches in a city:  Pastors--- make decisions (authority over everyone below)


Deacons, church staff-- paid and unpaid (authority over their given spheres)

Congregation----- attend, serve, give, become members (no authority in governance)

[GodisFaithful]

From the very beginning of this movement, pastors or "elders" (same thing in this case) appoint upcoming pastors. 

And this is a big talking point for them.  Like it is THE New Testament Way, and the best thing since Peter I guess.

So they appoint each other and it's all supposed to work out beautifully.

Only it has it's flaws.  Like top elders excommunicating those who are down the line in the pecking order.  That happened a lot during some of the tumultuous formative years.  (there seems to be a definite pecking order in eldership)

Or another flaw, elders appointing elders that are too young and wipe out right away or fall morally.  Both of those things happened a number of times when the church was started in Mpls.  Who is left holding the ball and deciding how to procede and how to discipline?  The original elder who started the church. And that elder consults the elders who are on the national board. 

But I have a friend who called someone on the national board when these allegations started and that national board member said that they were treating this as a local matter at that point. 

So if this shadow BOT (poor souls, maybe family members of the pastors or close friends of the pastors, and appointed by the pastors) is given the results of this investigation, they are going to decide what is true and decide Mark's fate??  I can't believe that would be the case.  I think the results will be given to the pastors once the the investigation is complete and the BOT has looked it over, and then the pastors will decide what to do.  And if they do what has been done before (when victim A sent a letter and begged for something to be done) they won't do much with it except maybe a hand slap and perhaps most Evergreeners will breath a sigh of relief and everything will be good again. Unless there is a pastor who goes rogue and wants to do the right thing.  But would we ever know? From my experience, there is an attempt at making everything look so hunky dory on the outside. 

If an outside reporter tried to find out from Evergreen how this is being handled, I don't think they would have much to report except that it looks corrupt.

[Peace]

I think every GCx Church is different.

Elders aren’t even named at mine. At least, we don’t use that terminology.

We have a board comprised of people in and out of the church. And additional boards for various ministries.

The pastors and staff make decisions together with ministry leads. Both men and women.

Pastors and deacons go  before congregational review for a month or so before they are recognized.

I don’t see much, if any, influence from regional or national leaders.

[GodisFaithful]

Peace, what do you mean elders are not named? No one knows who they are?  That seems really bizarre. 

Pastors are different from elders at your church?

How nice for your church, but that leaves a lot of churches to do whatever they want, and if pastors decide to be secretive and controlling and lording-it-over, then not so nice for those churches, except the people are probably used to those pastors being on their own pedestal. And for those churches there is much more likely to be serious spiritual abuse, which some people do not think exists. 

[Peace]

Oh no, I just meant we do not call them elders. We have pastors, deacons, deaconesses and staff.

And I am not trying to be defensive. I apologize if it came off that way. I was simply trying to answer AgathaL’ Orange’s questions.

[GodisFaithful]

Peace

Thank you for clarifying.

[Huldah]

For the record, GC churches historically taught that elder, pastor, and overseer are three different terms for the same office. The terms just emphasize different aspects of the office. (I happen to agree with this position.)

Maybe some of the churches have just dropped the "elder" and "overseer" terms in favor of using "pastor" exclusively.

[Clear]

So I didn't realize GC churches had a governance board.  I always thought the elders made the decisions. 

The board at Evergreen is only for finances.  This is from their website:

The board of trustees
Final responsibility and authority for financial management at Evergreen rests with the Board of Trustees.  The Board is made up of one pastor, the Finance Director, the Operations Manager and a lay person from each of our five locations.  The Board carries out their responsibility in a number of ways:
Approving the annual operating budget.
Monitoring the budget and the financial health of the church on a quarterly basis.
Approving all major church financial transactions.
Developing financial, legal, and employment policies.
Determining the employee compensation and benefits plans.

[GodisFaithful]

So then, if this is clearly spelled out,
who thought it was a good idea to have the
lawyer report to the BOT? It has nothing to
do with finances. 

A lawyer is hired to investigate allegations
of a sexual nature with one of the pastors
and the BOT is supposed to, mid-stream,
be dealing with this?

This is crazy! No wonder they are keeping it all secret.
Because it is craziness.

[Boggs]

So then, if this is clearly spelled out,
who thought it was a good idea to have the
lawyer report to the BOT? It has nothing to
do with finances. 

A lawyer is hired to investigate allegations
of a sexual nature with one of the pastors
and the BOT is supposed to, mid-stream,
be dealing with this?

This is crazy! No wonder they are keeping it all secret.
Because it is craziness.

I agree, the financial oversight board usually has absolutely no oversight over the pastors. They're supposed to be accountable to the other pastors, but in this case, that accountability has been called in to question by Suzanne's allegations that Bowen knew about Darling's behavior but chose not to keep him accountable. So - in this case, the only oversight they have is compromised, and they have to push the responsibility onto a handful of people who may or may not be prepared for it.

[Peace]

I have only followed this from afar and have no personal connection with ECC. But if the role of the board is “ Developing financial, legal, and employment policies” I can see how this would be under their jurisdiction. Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but Scout’s initial tweet seemed to suggest she wanted Mark and those supporting him to step down or be fired as a result of her allegations. If the investigator has completed her case, it would make sense for her to report the findings to those who make employment decisions, correct?

[GodisFaithful]

I highly doubt the BOT could fire a pastor.

It says employment policies, not decisions.

[Peace]

And employee compensation. Maybe they will recommend paying him $0 aka firing him.

Again, I don’t actually know anything about this situation or ECC. I just think there is another way of looking at how they have tried to respond to these allegations.

[GodisFaithful]

Wow, simply then, "we think MD should not be paid anything." End of story.

Do you realize that others who aren't even on staff, when they have chosen to leave, it has been said of them, at Evergreen,
"They were listening to Satan."

And they didn't do anything wrong.  They simply decided to leave and go to another church. 

Maybe that has not happened recently, but I know of a case where this was the explanation.

[Huldah]

The board at Evergreen is only for finances.  This is from their website:

The board of trustees...
Final responsibility and authority for financial management at Evergreen rests with the Board of Trustees.  The Board is made up of one pastor, the Finance Director, the Operations Manager and a lay person from each of our five locations.  The Board carries out their responsibility in a number of ways:
Approving the annual operating budget.
Monitoring the budget and the financial health of the church on a quarterly basis.
Approving all major church financial transactions.
Developing financial, legal, and employment policies.
Determining the employee compensation and benefits plans.

So pastors are employees, right?

The 2017 Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 315, Religious Societies, Section 315.05, says, "The trustees may not fix the salary of a minister; it must be fixed by a majority of the society entitled to vote at the election of trustees." (An earlier portion of the statute permits trustees to either be elected or appointed, according to the standard practice of that particular denomination.) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=315&view=chapter#stat.315.01

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if I'm reading this correctly, but it looks as if the BOT is in violation of the law if they're setting the pastor's salary and benefits. I'm very much open to correction if I'm wrong here.

[Linda]

it must be fixed by a majority of the society entitled to vote at the election of trustees

And who votes in GCC/ECC churches?

Not the congregation.

The "society entitled to vote" seems to be the elders.

If this is true, it means the elders determine their salaries.

It is good to be the king.

[Godtrumpsall]

it must be fixed by a majority of the society entitled to vote at the election of trustees

And who votes in GCC/ECC churches?

Not the congregation.

The "society entitled to vote" seems to be the elders.

If this is true, it means the elders determine their salaries.

It is good to be the king.

Yes, kings living the lavish lifestyle of a servant of Christ...living in extremely modest homes, driving older cars, shopping at the Goodwill, extravagant indeed.

[Linda]

It is a sarcastic line from a Mel Brooks movie.

That said, no, it is not a good idea for elders to either set their own salaries, or appoint the people who do.

Do you know what your ECC pastor makes? What benefits, retirement, vacation he has? This is public information in a lot of churches. In fact, those things are often voted on at congregational meetings. Everything is out in the open for the members to see

This is what transparency and accountability to a congregation look like.