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.

[Huldah]

In practical terms, what would be different about GC if all its critics had chosen not to be anonymous?

Would the leaders of the movement have taken this forum's criticisms more seriously?

Would it have made the teachings of GC any more or less aberrant? Or do those teachings stand or fall on their own merits?

Hypothetical question: If we made a deal, wherein everyone on this board agreed to give up their anonymity in exchange for Evergreen publicly posting the names of its board members on its website, would Evergreen accept those terms?

[omelianchuk]

No one should deny that anonymity can be ethical as it provides a certain level of protection from harmful reprisals or other factors inimical to free speech. The goods of open enquiry and therapeutic progress can be achieved with it, for sure. Whether one is a coward for choosing to remain anonymous depends on the reality of the perceived threat; if the perception of the threat is exaggerated, then a charge of cowardice is (probably) credible. But if the perception of the threat is proportionate to the reality of the threat, then it can be prudent to remain anonymous.

As a rule, I try to use my name when I can. One of the virtues of Facebook (there aren’t many) is that it encourages non-anonymous posting, since the platform is designed to help others connect under the auspices of "openness." To be sure, conversations on Facebook can get quite nasty, but they always involve accountability through visibility. That is, my Facebook “friends” have to own their words and stand by them (so long as they aren’t deleted). My experience with that platform has been much better than the platform of my old blog, where anonymous posting was easy to do (and easy to ignore, I might add).

As I see it, the problem with anonymous posting (and it may not be a big problem) is that the words don’t matter as much as they do when they come from a person with a name. This is the case even with the works Linda mentions. No the authors weren’t cowards for writing them under pseudonyms, but their works are more significant to us now that we know who they come from. This is not to say that anonymous texts aren’t worthy of our attention or should not be admired either. There is a voice worth hearing there, but it is harder to hear when could be just about anyone’s voice.

Anyway, I didn’t mean to post this as a challenge to anonymous posters here, but to offer up some food for thought.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Linda mentioned Wade Burleson and I just wanted to post his book here because the part I've read (the first half) is quite good. 

https://www.amazon.com/Fraudulent-Authority-Pastors-Seek-Others-ebook/dp/B01EDH4GH8

I choose to remain anonymous because I am trying to protect those close to me who feel vulnerable.  Those who have been recently slandered and shunned (that means you need to be willing to accept those things happen) by their local church.  I am not anonymous on other forms of social media.  I am not afraid but others (who left quietly but are still slandered) are and I don't want them to be punished by association.

[hvpta]

I totally understand this website. I am as vindictive as they come. What I don't understand is why nobody has tried (that I am seeing) to out-con the cons. Get them to believe that not being abusive is the right thing to do and that it is their own idea. So many people on this forum appear to have an extremely high opinion of their own intelligence. Why is it so hard to figure out a way to get some non-seminary trained pastors in line?

[AgathaL'Orange]

Oh, you're good, you're very good. So cutting.  So pointed.     

You've clearly had practice.  I give you A+ in insults.

[hvpta]

Yes mam, vindictive and snarky.  But I honestly would like to know. Can the people of this board band together and fix the problem?

[Godisgrace]

Yes mam, vindictive and snarky.  But I honestly would like to know. Can the people of this board band together and fix the problem?

I came here during the time I attended a GCC church and even after. I came to the one of the pastors and his wife on a issue that arose on more than two occurrences. Each time they reassured me it would be taken care. What I realized is they never fixed the issue and that they didn't think it was a problem or something to fix.

1. Issues I dealt with were supposedly corrected in 1991. How were not corrected 9 years ago? Someone tried insinuating that these were issues 20 or 30 years ago recently. Why did I encounter them during the 5 years I attended a GCC church?
 2. Issues that only the leadership in GCC churches can fix, everyone on this board can attest to what they encountered. How to get the GCC churches to make sure the corrections are administered?

http://gcxweb.org/misc/weaknessespaper.aspx

[hvpta]

Get them to turn on each other so there isn't the wall of protection. If they smack talk each other like has been described in other threads, get them on audio or camera enough times to send to the other party.

[Godisgrace]

Get them to turn on each other so there isn't the wall of protection. If they smack talk each other like has been described in other threads, get them on audio or camera enough times to send to the other party.

Do you know how easy it was when I attended for the pastors to change wording make it smooth? Do you know how those who are deep in the church won't question anything that comes out of the pastors mouth? Your plan is easier said than done, after not attending a GCC church in 4 years going back into the church to get audio isn't high on my list. Plus I assume the leadership team might be more guarded, so easier said than done.

I had someone reach out to me from the GCC church who was willing to be friends. It didn't work out, if I said something that didn't sound supportive to GCC I was torn into by the person. It was more one sided, and my say was little because of how she would tear my words down. I have friends who still attend the church, but we can talk about anything and I can be open without being torn down by them.

[Rypick]

I'm going to attempt to bring this conversation back to the original question, because we seem to have gotten sidetracked on the issue of anonymity on this forum. For the record, I don't care if you are anonymous on this forum. Technically, I'm anonymous on this forum. My real name is not "Rypick." It's Ryan Pickett. SURPRISE!   
Anyway, my question about anonymity was not "should everyone be forced to state who they really are on this forum." The question was, "if this is supposed to be a support group, does anonymity in a support group work." I don't know the answer to that question. I was only thinking about other support groups, such as AA, which are often spoofed for their lack of anonymity... "Hi, I'm John Doe, and I'm an alcoholic..."

So, back to the real question:  Is this forum really useful to do what many of you claim it is for, which is to support healing for people who have been hurt by a GCC church?

Here are my thoughts, take them or leave them, but please note my tone. I'm not being rude, or trying to be confrontational for the sake of starting an argument. I'm sincerely trying to question whether this site is helpful to those who feel they need support from this site.

I can understand the value of being hurt, feeling isolated, and then finding out that you aren't alone. Why make the target so narrow though? Why not make it a forum for anyone who has been hurt by a christian church? GCC isn't the only movement that hurts people's feelings. Why not be inclusive of everyone, if the goal is truly to support healing? Then the process should be to let them tell their story, if they need to, keeping ALL names anonymous (accuser, church, pastors, perpetrator, etc.), and then direct them back to the scripture, and back to Christ. Healing comes from Christ alone. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't call for us to "find our voice" or "confront our abuser" in order to be healed. It has been demonstrated that a very broken life can be totally healed without doing either of those things, by finding your value and worth in Christ. Yes, there is a Biblical framework for confronting a fellow Christian in certain circumstances, but it doesn't make that a requirement for healing. If you've bought into these current, worldly ideas, you have fallen for the devil's plan for division among the church.

Like I said, I can see some value in having a support group type environment, but there are two fronts where this forum gets really iffy to me. One is when people call out specific churches, and specific pastors by name. The other is when people make it clear that they have been recently listening to messages online, or gone to a GCC service, etc., and want to point out the stupid or prideful or incorrect things the pastor said. Neither of these seem necessary for healing. They reek of a desire for vengeance or validation. I'm sure that someone will try to justify the second point by saying they are trying to expose false teaching, but I'm not so sure that this is the Biblical way to do that. To me, the Biblical model would be to take it to your church leaders. I know...I've read the stories. I know many of you claim to have done so, and it fell on deaf ears. In that case, you leave that church, and find one that you believe is preaching more accurately, and continue your walk. Feel free to continue to pray for your old church, that you think is heretical, or even pray for God to obliterate it, if you think it is beyond saving, but going public with your accusations and criticisms is not called for in scripture, that I've ever seen. I'm open to having my mind changed on that, if someone can show me the verses. I believe God's heart is to fix the issues that come up in your local church, if you can. If you can't, find a better church. But also, as much as it is up to you, live in peace with others, and let God take vengeance, and deal with heretical teaching. Don't take these issues to secular courts (which is essentially what forums and social media have become). It makes ALL of us look bad, and more importantly, it makes Christ look bad.

[araignee19]

Anyway, my question about anonymity was not "should everyone be forced to state who they really are on this forum." The question was, "if this is supposed to be a support group, does anonymity in a support group work." I don't know the answer to that question. I was only thinking about other support groups, such as AA, which are often spoofed for their lack of anonymity... "Hi, I'm John Doe, and I'm an alcoholic..."

Yeah... pretty sure that was not the original topic of this post. The original topic was a sarcastic sounding and profanity containing jab at anyone who would post on a site like this, and I wouldn't blame anyone if they ignored it because of how it was asked. This might be how you want to reframe that original question, and fine. But I believe that your reframed question has also been answered on this thread and the other that was linked to. As I said on my first reply to this: You do not get to decide what is helpful for other people. And like I said before, my criticism with my individual church did fall on deaf ears. I took it as far up the chain of command as I possibly could. This is bringing it before a wider body of Christians outside of one specific denomination.

Paul called out specific churches and specific names of people who needed to be corrected. Was he wrong for doing that? Were early Christians wrong for including those parts in the Bible?  Should we hide those parts of the Bible from the unbelievers because they are a bad testimony? I was so often told "unity is more important than truth" while attending GCx, or some various variation of that. I now wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment.

You will not convince me this site is in unbiblical just because it might be visible to non-believers. I personally won't address this "reframed question" more than that because I do not believe we will get anywhere we haven't already been.

[hvpta]

Get them to turn on each other so there isn't the wall of protection. If they smack talk each other like has been described in other threads, get them on audio or camera enough times to send to the other party.

Do you know how easy it was when I attended for the pastors to change wording make it smooth? Do you know how those who are deep in the church won't question anything that comes out of the pastors mouth? Your plan is easier said than done, after not attending a GCC church in 4 years going back into the church to get audio isn't high on my list. Plus I assume the leadership team might be more guarded, so easier said than done.

I had someone reach out to me from the GCC church who was willing to be friends. It didn't work out, if I said something that didn't sound supportive to GCC I was torn into by the person. It was more one sided, and my say was little because of how she would tear my words down. I have friends who still attend the church, but we can talk about anything and I can be open without being torn down by them.

Very sorry that you have been treated and still are treated that way. I agree, it would not be an easy thing or a fast thing. Hopefully if they are more guarded now it would mean they aren't expanding their abuse to new people. I have not experienced abuse at the GC church, but it upsets me to know that other people have.

[Huldah]

I was so often told "unity is more important than truth" while attending GCx, or some various variation of that.

^ This.

I still have one of my notebooks of sermon notes from the Columbus church in the 70's. They taught it back then. It's in my notes: "Unity trumps truth."

[Rypick]

Anyway, my question about anonymity was not "should everyone be forced to state who they really are on this forum." The question was, "if this is supposed to be a support group, does anonymity in a support group work." I don't know the answer to that question. I was only thinking about other support groups, such as AA, which are often spoofed for their lack of anonymity... "Hi, I'm John Doe, and I'm an alcoholic..."

As I said on my first reply to this: You do not get to decide what is helpful for other people.

Correct. But God does. That would be the reason that I mentioned the Bible multiple times, paraphrased scripture, and asked for scripture responses if you disagree with me.

Paul called out specific churches and specific names of people who needed to be corrected. Was he wrong for doing that?

He called them out in letters addressed to those churches.

Were early Christians wrong for including those parts in the Bible?  Should we hide those parts of the Bible from the unbelievers because they are a bad testimony?

I think we are talking apples and oranges. God decided what should be in the Bible. So, unless you are claiming that the posts on this forum should be added to the canon, I think this is different.

I was so often told "unity is more important than truth" while attending GCx, or some various variation of that. I now wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment.

I disagree with that as well. I've never heard anything remotely like that, or I would probably be an ex GCer too. Is there any context that might lend understanding to what was meant by those comments?

You will not convince me this site is in unbiblical just because it might be visible to non-believers.

How about for the other reasons I gave?

[araignee19]

Rypick, of course God gets to decide what is helpful, but the Bible is silent on "support groups." It also doesn't talk about the internet at all, or heroine addiction help, or country border disputes, or TV, or cars, or current political issues, or pain killers and modern medicine. The Bible's silence on these topics should not be taken as the Bible saying anything for or against them. Last time I checked, God has not specifically sent me a message telling me what he thinks of this website, so it is up to me to use what I know from the Bible and other sources to determine if this website and format are healthy or evil. What I know, and what I have based my opinions on, is that GCx still teaches false doctrines as of a few years ago (and probably more recently), has not publicly renounced or corrected those teachings since I heard them, and should be called out for these false teachings according to Matthew 18. I have and continue to follow a strategy which I do not think contradicts the biblical model for addressing these false teachings.

I don't think anything should be added to the canon of scripture at this point. However, I think there is a LOT of room for interpretation of the Bible, and we need to be careful not to take more out of passages than they really say. The Bible says in Matthew 18 how to confront people who have sinned against you, and I think the instructions there are good and should be followed. But you know what it doesn't say? It doesn't say that the revelation of sin can't be done anonymously, or that it has to be hidden from unbelievers, or that it shouldn't be done online, or at what point you have sufficiently addressed the topic and should walk away, or any other specifics. It also doesn't say this is the only option for addressing wrong, and that if you do anything outside of this one method you are wrong. Again, there is a lot of room for interpretation, and I have obviously interpreted it differently than you have. This does not make me a false Christian or any of the other accusations and names I have seen people use recently to describe people on this site.

I will say I firmly believe God led me to this site and has used it for healing in my life. Of course I could be wrong, and I suppose I will find out someday, but for now, I will hold to my convictions.



As for the "unity trumps truth" concept, I wish I could send you think link to the talk I attended at Faithwalkers (within the last 10 years for sure, can't remember which year without some digging) where that was specifically and outright taught. But it has unfortunately been removed from the GCx archives as far as I can tell. They never corrected this teaching publicly, just removed it. How should I take that? How would you interpret that?
Perhaps others on this form can point to some specific examples?

[bourneforHim]

I'm going to attempt to bring this conversation back to the original question, because we seem to have gotten sidetracked on the issue of anonymity on this forum. For the record, I don't care if you are anonymous on this forum. Technically, I'm anonymous on this forum. My real name is not "Rypick." It's Ryan Pickett. SURPRISE!   
Anyway, my question about anonymity was not "should everyone be forced to state who they really are on this forum." The question was, "if this is supposed to be a support group, does anonymity in a support group work." I don't know the answer to that question. I was only thinking about other support groups, such as AA, which are often spoofed for their lack of anonymity... "Hi, I'm John Doe, and I'm an alcoholic..."

So, back to the real question:  Is this forum really useful to do what many of you claim it is for, which is to support healing for people who have been hurt by a GCC church?

Here are my thoughts, take them or leave them, but please note my tone. I'm not being rude, or trying to be confrontational for the sake of starting an argument. I'm sincerely trying to question whether this site is helpful to those who feel they need support from this site.

I can understand the value of being hurt, feeling isolated, and then finding out that you aren't alone. Why make the target so narrow though? Why not make it a forum for anyone who has been hurt by a christian church? GCC isn't the only movement that hurts people's feelings. Why not be inclusive of everyone, if the goal is truly to support healing? Then the process should be to let them tell their story, if they need to, keeping ALL names anonymous (accuser, church, pastors, perpetrator, etc.), and then direct them back to the scripture, and back to Christ. Healing comes from Christ alone. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't call for us to "find our voice" or "confront our abuser" in order to be healed. It has been demonstrated that a very broken life can be totally healed without doing either of those things, by finding your value and worth in Christ. Yes, there is a Biblical framework for confronting a fellow Christian in certain circumstances, but it doesn't make that a requirement for healing. If you've bought into these current, worldly ideas, you have fallen for the devil's plan for division among the church.

Like I said, I can see some value in having a support group type environment, but there are two fronts where this forum gets really iffy to me. One is when people call out specific churches, and specific pastors by name. The other is when people make it clear that they have been recently listening to messages online, or gone to a GCC service, etc., and want to point out the stupid or prideful or incorrect things the pastor said. Neither of these seem necessary for healing. They reek of a desire for vengeance or validation. I'm sure that someone will try to justify the second point by saying they are trying to expose false teaching, but I'm not so sure that this is the Biblical way to do that. To me, the Biblical model would be to take it to your church leaders. I know...I've read the stories. I know many of you claim to have done so, and it fell on deaf ears. In that case, you leave that church, and find one that you believe is preaching more accurately, and continue your walk. Feel free to continue to pray for your old church, that you think is heretical, or even pray for God to obliterate it, if you think it is beyond saving, but going public with your accusations and criticisms is not called for in scripture, that I've ever seen. I'm open to having my mind changed on that, if someone can show me the verses. I believe God's heart is to fix the issues that come up in your local church, if you can. If you can't, find a better church. But also, as much as it is up to you, live in peace with others, and let God take vengeance, and deal with heretical teaching. Don't take these issues to secular courts (which is essentially what forums and social media have become). It makes ALL of us look bad, and more importantly, it makes Christ look bad.

  Ryan, Your line "Don't take these issues to secular courts....etc.

    You're requesting ECC and the shadow board of trustees do the same concerning the current investigation, correct???

[Rypick]

  Ryan, Your line "Don't take these issues to secular courts....etc.

    You're requesting ECC and the shadow board of trustees do the same concerning the current investigation, correct???

This discussion is about the usefulness of this forum for emotional healing after being hurt by a church. It doesn't necessarily relate directly to the current investigation.
But, to play along... yes, I would request that ECC and the dark forces of their BOT not go on Facebook to call out Suzanne for making up her allegations, if that is what the investigation finds.

[imnotbroken]

I truly don't understand this website. How can anyone possibly move on or heal from anything when constantly bitching to eachother?

Perhaps you don't understand something that you haven't been through. 

I went to a GC church for years.  I was very involved.  I served, I led, I spoke.  Then I came into personal circumstances in my life where I needed to be encouraged and needed to lean on some shoulders at my church.  When I shared this I was told that God would give me the strength I needed and to find comfort in the service of the Lord.  When I stepped down from leadership and service to find the encouragement in the Lord that I needed, I was still asked to serve and mentor. I was no good to anyone.  The leadership couldn't see this and many didn't ask.  I finally left to get the break that I needed.  This was very hard because I had been there for years and my friends and support network were part of that church.  Upon leaving, very few of my friends reached out and if they did it was to try to convince me to come back.  I was told that to leave the church was to turn my back on God, that without the church community I would fall into sin, that I wasn't trusting God enough to get me through my struggles.  I have felt guilt over leaving and have wondered if I could have been stronger.  Until, I found this site and found stories similar to mine over and over again.  As has been stated, through common experience, I don't have to feel like it was my fault, I know that I don't have to feel guilty for leaving, and I don't have to wonder if I should go back.  I am one reason that we need this website and how healing can take place.  It is not conventional but it has helped my healing process where my leaders and friends at my church could not. 

Someone commented on why a site specifically to GC and not all Christian churches.  Because, if you read my story or any story on here and it was for all churches you would immediately think "that is not my church, that would never happen where I go".  You would feel sadness for those poor churches "out there" that this is happening in.  Nope.  This is your church.  This is your movement.  If you are happy with the church you are in, please stay there and continue to thrive.  But please also be aware that these things are happening around you and watch for them so you can change them and it can continue to be the church that you love. 

[bourneforHim]

 Ryan, Your line "Don't take these issues to secular courts....etc.

    You're requesting ECC and the shadow board of trustees do the same concerning the current investigation, correct???

This discussion is about the usefulness of this forum for emotional healing after being hurt by a church. It doesn't necessarily relate directly to the current investigation.
But, to play along... yes, I would request that ECC and the dark forces of their BOT not go on Facebook to call out Suzanne for making up her allegations, if that is what the investigation finds.

     We're talking about this forum not facebook, and secular courts. You implied this forum is a secular court.  But you are okay with ECC and the shadow BOT using a secular lawyer rather than a faith based organization.  That doesn't count.  Got it.

[Janet Easson Martin]

Imnotbroken,

Thank you so much for sharing your personal and honest story here.  Yours, too, brings comfort and validation to many others reading here.

Janet