I don't understand this website

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.

[Clear]

I never once heard anyone appeal to "apostleship" in ten years I was part of it

I'm not sure what you mean by "appeal to apostleship."  But if you are referring to the overly authoritarian structure of the shepherding movement mentioned above, I think many from Evergreen would have examples.  Some would think this is an example:

The Greatest Reason Of All

By Brent Knox
Okay. I am going to pull out the big gun. Of all the reasons to spend 45 minutes of your life filling out the Spiritual Life Survey (REVEAL), the greatest reason of all is because the pastors are asking you to. Notice the attitude Paul encourages the believers in Thessalonica towards their leaders: “Dear brothers and sisters, honor those who are your leaders in the Lord’s work. They work hard among you and give you spiritual guidance. Show them great respect and wholehearted love because of their work. And live peacefully with each other.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13, NLT)

The writer of Hebrews gets even more explicit: “Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.” (Hebrews 13:17, NLT)

Doing what your leaders ask is easy when:

You agree.
It’s convenient for you.
Doing what your leaders ask is hard when:

You disagree.
It’s inconvenient.
However, wouldn’t the progress of the church be so much greater if we set aside our preferences, little disagreements, and smaller priorities for the greater good? For instance,

If we ALL got involved financing KAH, packing food, inviting friends….great things could happen!
If we ALL got involved in Growth Groups and attended with enthusiasm….great things could happen!
If we ALL completed the survey, then the best information would be gleaned and the best decisions would be made and….great things could happen!
God is asking us to set aside personal preferences and smaller priorities in favor of following spiritual leaders. In this way, the Kingdom of God can move forward in powerful ways.

   

[omelianchuk]

I never once heard anyone appeal to "apostleship" in ten years I was part of it

I'm not sure what you mean by "appeal to apostleship."  But if you are referring to the overly authoritarian structure of the shepherding movement mentioned above, I think many from Evergreen would have examples.  Some would think this is an example:

The Greatest Reason Of All

By Brent Knox
Okay. I am going to pull out the big gun. Of all the reasons to spend 45 minutes of your life filling out the Spiritual Life Survey (REVEAL), the greatest reason of all is because the pastors are asking you to. Notice the attitude Paul encourages the believers in Thessalonica towards their leaders: “Dear brothers and sisters, honor those who are your leaders in the Lord’s work. They work hard among you and give you spiritual guidance. Show them great respect and wholehearted love because of their work. And live peacefully with each other.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12–13, NLT)

The writer of Hebrews gets even more explicit: “Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.” (Hebrews 13:17, NLT)

Doing what your leaders ask is easy when:

You agree.
It’s convenient for you.
Doing what your leaders ask is hard when:

You disagree.
It’s inconvenient.
However, wouldn’t the progress of the church be so much greater if we set aside our preferences, little disagreements, and smaller priorities for the greater good? For instance,

If we ALL got involved financing KAH, packing food, inviting friends….great things could happen!
If we ALL got involved in Growth Groups and attended with enthusiasm….great things could happen!
If we ALL completed the survey, then the best information would be gleaned and the best decisions would be made and….great things could happen!
God is asking us to set aside personal preferences and smaller priorities in favor of following spiritual leaders. In this way, the Kingdom of God can move forward in powerful ways.

  

By "appeal to apostleship" I mean a claim to apostolic authority to compel some item of faith or practice. The example you cite wouldn't fit that. Rather, it's an appeal to Scripture to claim that members ought to obey their pastors in spite of inconvenience or disagreement "for the greater good." Whether that is an instance of "an overly authoritarian structure of the shepherding movement" I have no opinion, because it isn't clear to me what that movement amounts to. I would also assume that there is some level of disagreement that is tolerable and some that isn't (disagreement over allocating resources towards Kids Against Hunger rather some other charity v. allocating a large portion of church funds to buy a private jet or a big mansion). And while I find consequentialist reasoning to be objectionable, in general (we ought to act for the "greater good", ect.), I don't find all forms of paternalism to be fundamentally wrong. It seems to me that what Brent is saying is controversial because it is paternalistic, and he is assuming that the church's pastoral leadership is ordered towards maximizing certain goods. But, then, that is what he takes Hebrew 13:17 to be saying, which would locate the controversy in Scripture itself, no?

[HughHoney]

Put whatever label you want on that to make yourself feel better about choosing to be led by people who feel they know better than you how to run your life.

[Clear]

But, then, that is what he takes Hebrew 13:17 to be saying, which would locate the controversy in Scripture itself, no?

One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance.  The message from Brent seems to present a more heavy handed approach of making people feel like if you don't do the specific things that he is listing, you are not obeying God.

[Godtrumpsall]

I think this article explains well the difference between shepherding with a small "s" and shepherding with a capital "S".  Also the author is an ex member from the charismatic word faith movement, which shows me he has some level of discernment. 

http://exwordoffaith.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-is-shepherding.html

[omelianchuk]

Put whatever label you want on that to make yourself feel better about choosing to be led by people who feel they know better than you how to run your life.

Is that what you take the shepherding movement to be? I am not being adversarial here, just wanting to clarify.

Like I said, I do accept some forms of paternalism; I don't think it is necessarily evil. Sponsorship in AA is an example.

[Godtrumpsall]

I didn’t realize you wanted just a list. I thought you wanted documentation, as well. There is a thread here called false teaching that should be corrected. Actually several. I was looking for a few of those and took some time away from making memories with my 5 children and 4 grandchildren and dozens of cyber friends with funny names to do that so you wouldn’t have to waste your time because you seemed irritated that margaret suggested you search this forum and read through the thoughtful posts that people have taken hours and hours over many years to research and write because they care about people who have been harmed by this teaching.

Here is a starter list.

1. False view of the role of the Holy Spirit.
2. Commitment to the local church for life.
3. Non Protestant view of the Word of God. (The Bible AND the Bible as interpreted through the pastor)

All those are things that happen in shepherding churches.

These 3 points have not occurred in the GCx churches I have attended for 20 + years.  Also, do you have a link to the message you referenced in your first post that had the link to your husbands blog?  You said something to the effect that there was a message that shunned you?  Maybe I misunderstood? 

[omelianchuk]

But, then, that is what he takes Hebrew 13:17 to be saying, which would locate the controversy in Scripture itself, no?

One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance.  The message from Brent seems to present a more heavy handed approach of making people feel like if you don't do the specific things that he is listing, you are not obeying God.

Perhaps, but the need for some sort of paternalism is what we should expect from the very high standard you stipulate: "One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance." A lot of people, for a variety of reasons, fail to have these in their lives.

[Godtrumpsall]

Ryan, from what I gather, the chief complaint against GCx is that its view of church governance is insufficiently congregationalist. The plural-elder model to which GCx subscribes "leaves the congregation out in the hall" as it were, and the apostleship idea as articulated by McCotter and Clark elevates certain elders to a level of unacceptable authority. From my perspective, the anti-congregationalism is still part of GCx's DNA, but I never once heard anyone appeal to "apostleship" in ten years I was part of it (though a guy from the early ISU days I knew still believed it was a gift of some sort). At any rate, the plural-elder model is thought to create fertile ground for abuse of power.

Talking with a professor I had in undergrad who did his dissertation on the plural-eldership model and who attended Urban Refuge to see it in action, I will never forget what he had to say. He said it was the church's greatest strength in that it produced beloved and trusted leaders who were very committed to well-being of the institution and the members -- a big advantage over rotating pastors that come and go every few years. But he also said the model was its greatest weakness in that it produced a top-heavy structure of authority that left the ordinary member with little power -- only the power to "vote with their feet" in a case crying out for justice.

It seems to me that the basic division between people who had bad experiences with GCx and people who've had good ones depends on the experience of the "good" or the "bad" inherent in the plural-elder model.

This.  Exactly.  But when you have leaders that are beloved, and trusted who are committed to the well being of it's members....this is what matters.  This has greater value.  This is what drew me to ECC. 

[Clear]

But, then, that is what he takes Hebrew 13:17 to be saying, which would locate the controversy in Scripture itself, no?

One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance.  The message from Brent seems to present a more heavy handed approach of making people feel like if you don't do the specific things that he is listing, you are not obeying God.

Perhaps, but the need for some sort of paternalism is what we should expect from the very high standard you stipulate: "One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance." A lot of people, for a variety of reasons, fail to have these in their lives.

I wouldn't view it as high standard.  Instead, it seems to be the essence of a Christian walk. A church can teach towards the goal of people understanding this, and kingdom building will flow from it.  There is no need for the use of paternalism to bypass this to produce kingdom building. People need to have these things in their lives as a foundation.  Without them obeying paternal directives will not produce anything of much value.

[omelianchuk]

But, then, that is what he takes Hebrew 13:17 to be saying, which would locate the controversy in Scripture itself, no?

One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance.  The message from Brent seems to present a more heavy handed approach of making people feel like if you don't do the specific things that he is listing, you are not obeying God.

Perhaps, but the need for some sort of paternalism is what we should expect from the very high standard you stipulate: "One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance." A lot of people, for a variety of reasons, fail to have these in their lives.

I wouldn't view it as high standard.  Instead, it seems to be the essence of a Christian walk. A church can teach towards the goal of people understanding this, and kingdom building will flow from it.  There is no need for the use of paternalism to bypass this to produce kingdom building. People need to have these things in their lives as a foundation.  Without them obeying paternal directives will not produce anything of much value.

Fair enough. I think if we continued, we would find points of agreement and disagreement along the way; I'm content to just agree to disagree on the point about some form of paternalism being permissible in the church.

[Clear]

But, then, that is what he takes Hebrew 13:17 to be saying, which would locate the controversy in Scripture itself, no?

One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance.  The message from Brent seems to present a more heavy handed approach of making people feel like if you don't do the specific things that he is listing, you are not obeying God.

Perhaps, but the need for some sort of paternalism is what we should expect from the very high standard you stipulate: "One needs the full counsel of scripture and their own personal direction from the Holy Spirit to obediently apply this verse in their own life in each circumstance." A lot of people, for a variety of reasons, fail to have these in their lives.

I wouldn't view it as high standard.  Instead, it seems to be the essence of a Christian walk. A church can teach towards the goal of people understanding this, and kingdom building will flow from it.  There is no need for the use of paternalism to bypass this to produce kingdom building. People need to have these things in their lives as a foundation.  Without them obeying paternal directives will not produce anything of much value.

Fair enough. I think if we continued, we would find points of agreement and disagreement along the way; I'm content to just agree to disagree on the point about some form of paternalism being permissible in the church.

I don't disagree that it is permissible.  I disagree with the way it was presented in Brent's message.

Thanks for the polite discourse.

[Boggs]

These 3 points have not occurred in the GCx churches I have attended for 20 + years.

GTA, it seems you're a current or past ECC member yet you're saying you've never heard about planting your flag and dying at the church? Have you ever attended a Faithwalkers, or an HSLT, or a college LT, or even a regional meeting? I attended for about a decade and it was not an uncommon concept to hear from the stage or core members.

[Godtrumpsall]

These 3 points have not occurred in the GCx churches I have attended for 20 + years.

GTA, it seems you're a current or past ECC member yet you're saying you've never heard about planting your flag and dying at the church? Have you ever attended a Faithwalkers, or an HSLT, or a college LT, or even a regional meeting? I attended for about a decade and it was not an uncommon concept to hear from the stage or core members.

I did say this was taught, and encouraged, and I wholeheartedly agree that being involved in a body of Christ long term is a good thing, I have seen the benefits of this first hand, as I have had the gift of serving alongside my brothers and sisters in Christ for many years, it is a gift!   But I see people take it way out of context.  And on the other hand I have seen people leave my church for great reasons...marriage, health issues, God's calling on their life, etc. People leave with the pastor's blessings.  This is why I say it is twisted out of context continually by folks here.  Some seem to try to utilize whatever they can and make it fit into their narrative that this is an abusive church system, or to go as far as calling it a cult.  I don't disagree that people have had hurts, misunderstandings, etc. People hurt each other, people have misunderstandings, people get angry, people get offended.  But oh for satan delights in pitting believer against believer, it must be one of his greatest accomplishments on earth. 

[Boggs]

GTA - thanks for clarifying. I thought you were saying it wasn't taught at your church and that was very surprising to me.

[Linda]

Oops, I missed a whole bunch of posts a couple days ago.

Did you guys think they would read your blog post, and come back with a public apology to you guys, to the congregation?

We had no expectations that any pastors would read it.

He wrote it because, as it turns out, some people were given reasons for our departure by the pastors that had nothing to do with why we left and people would say things to us that showed they not been told the truth about our departure. And, as we all know, there are two sides to every story. He wanted a place where he could refer people should any care to know why. He didn't advertise that post and, honestly, no one seemed to care to hear from us why we left. I later was told by a current member that she was told not to ask us why.

Shunning it not delivering a letter to you personally.  Do you have the letter?  Maybe you could post it here?

Yes, we still have the letter. No, I will not post it here. The pastor who delivered it did, literally, look at us, turn, and walk away the next time we saw him. To be fair, not all pastors are shunning us. In fact, many have been very gracious to us in social settings. We don't hate them.

I agree that blog post was slanderous, it is an opinion stated as fact.

So by your definition, your response is slanderous as well since it is your opinion stated as fact? You need to look up the meaning of slanderous. That said, when you determine and say I am bitter, hate filled, whatever, I don't think you are slandering me even though that is your opinion stated as fact. Although, calling someone a slanderer is actually calling them a liar and that borders on libel, so in terms of accurate definitions, you may be slandering (libeling actually) me.

I am sorry you had such a terrible experience, but I believe you played a part in that experience.

You don't sound that sorry.

Publicly calling out a church as a cult, in your opinion (or your husbands) on a public blog post

To clarify, my husband has never called GCC/ECC a cult publicly. And privately, until recent months, if I ever used the word cult, he would say it's more a "sect" than a "cult".

[Linda]

These 3 points have not occurred in the GCx churches I have attended for 20 + years.

Oh yes they have.

I'll start with number 3 and get to the rest later.

3. Non Protestant view of the Word of God.

Mark Darling gave a lengthy teaching in which he said:

"and so we submit to the Word of God and we submit to the Word of God as it comes through the mouth of those who are responsible before God for our lives"

GCC/ECC call themselves Protestant. This teaching is not Protestant.

Protestants subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Meaning the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Word of God. Period.

Not the Word of God AND the pastor (or bishop or Pope.)

You could argue that many fine Christian people do not subscribe to "sola scriptura" (Catholics, I think Orthodox), but I don't think those groups go as far as to say that the pastors are responsible before God for our lives. They are responsible before God for their teaching, but we are responsible for our lives.

If GCC/ECC believes what Mark Darling said (the Word of God AND the Word coming through elders), they should not call themselves "orthodox Protestants" because that is misleading.

[Godtrumpsall]

These 3 points have not occurred in the GCx churches I have attended for 20 + years.

Oh yes they have.

I'll start with number 3 and get to the rest later.

3. Non Protestant view of the Word of God.

Mark Darling gave a lengthy teaching in which he said:

"and so we submit to the Word of God and we submit to the Word of God as it comes through the mouth of those who are responsible before God for our lives"

GCC/ECC call themselves Protestant. This teaching is not Protestant.

Protestants subscribe to Sola Scriptura.

Meaning the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

The Word of God. Period.

Not the Word of God AND the pastor (or bishop or Pope.)

You could argue that many fine Christian people do not subscribe to "sola scriptura" (Catholics, I think Orthodox), but I don't think those groups go as far as to say that the pastors are responsible before God for our lives. They are responsible before God for their teaching, but we are responsible for our lives.

If GCC/ECC believes what Mark Darling said (the Word of God AND the Word coming through elders), they should not call themselves "orthodox Protestants" because that is misleading.

and how many hundreds and hundreds of messages of MD speak about the infallible word of God, from MD's own mouth, and that the Word of God is our guide, our reference for life, God's word is sufficient, is all we need, is God-breathed.  I just went to strongdisciple.com and listened to a few messages, one from 1994, and some from 2011...and MD's message does not change.  The word of God is ALL we need for life.   So  I am not sure how you feel that this one teaching you listened to and picked apart proves that MD does not believe that scripture is God-breathed and final authority for our Christian walk, and it is false teaching, or that GCx claims to be protestant but really is some sneaky devious cult teaching that we need to follow our leaders as the final authority, and not God.

But should our pastors have a responsibility to help us understand the scriptures....um, that is sort of their job, to preach the word of God, to shepherd the flock, to guide.  I am thankful I have pastors that their life's work is to guide me through the scriptures, to teach and point out what scripture has for me and my life, and that they value God's word above all else.   

I liked this article about sola scripture,
https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/god-breathed-scripture-sola-scriptura/
however it seems to be a bit of a controversial subject even among protestents. There are several articles regarding sola scripture that states it is a controversial subject...phrase, etc, but I won't post those here.