Is GC dangerous?

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.

[DrSam]

Ex-gcm pastor,
Sorry to hear of your troubles with the group, but also happy that you saw through the fog and got out.  It will take time, but hopefully you move upward with your life as you put this dangerous group far far behind you.

Without knowing all of the twists and turns of your story, all I can encourage you to do is be careful as you alude to "naming names".  We are steadily visited by current members who could easily get word back to your former church and cause you trouble (speaking from experience).

Please exercise caution accordingly.

Angry

Angry,

It grieves me to see that you still have a long journey of healing ahead of you, my dear brother/sister. You still want to throw in all of GC into the "dangerous" category. I think that is too harsh and can be vindictive. I don't deny that some individuals might be highly abusive. (I know what it is to be abused also). I can understand why you would feel hypervigilant, but you don't need to. A good sign of healing would be being able to bless those who have hurt you and not being scared of them any longer. Your anger and your hypervigilance, I submit to you, are fogging your view.

I find it amusing that a very good pastor friend of mine that used to be part of the infrastructure of Calvary churches shared with me things about that group that could make GC look tame. I also know of plenty of situations of other pastors (I counsel many in their flocks over time) being heavy handed. These pastors come for a wide variety of groups and denominations. Pastors who overlord are more common than you think.

Angry, you might jump on me and maybe even call me a "sellout" but my intentions are very good ones for you, brother/sister.

Dr Sam[/b]

[Linda]

A good sign of healing would be being able to bless those who have hurt you and not being scared of them any longer.

Hi Sam. I took Angry's response in a totally different way. Speaking as someone who had unwanted e-mails and visits from ECC pastors OVER A YEAR AFTER WE LEFT OUR CHURCH, I understand the need for people being careful and not identifying either themselves or situations and people that might identify them. It seems to me that Angry was just trying to let this former pastor know that naming names could add some grief to his life. That's all.

Knowing some small bits about a few of the anonymous posters here, I believe their motives are way more pure than you would imagine.

I know you're trying to help, but sometimes your comments demonstrate a lack of knowledge of some of the specifics of some of the situations.

There are a lot of people posting here who want to remain anonymous out of fear or retribution and not out of lack of being willing to bless people. I also believe that some posting here don't want to identify themselves because they are being merciful and don't want to hurt current leaders.

Personally, I remain friends with a number of GCM pastors and their families. We know where each other stand and care about each other. However, I can tell you that there are a few leaders, who, if they showed up at my door unannounced, I would not answer and it's not because I'm an unforgiving person. It's because it would be weird and inappropriate for them to show up.

Also, about this:

I find it amusing that a very good pastor friend of mine that used to be part of the infrastructure of Calvary churches shared with me things about that group that could make GC look tame. I also know of plenty of situations of other pastors (I counsel many in their flocks over time) being heavy handed. These pastors come for a wide variety of groups and denominations. Pastors who overlord are more common than you think.

Sadly, I agree with you here, there are a lot of high control authoritarian sects out there.

[DrSam]

Knowing some small bits about a few of the anonymous posters here, I believe their motives are way more pure than you would imagine.

I know you're trying to help, but sometimes your comments demonstrate a lack of knowledge of some of the specifics of some of the situations.

Hi Linda!

I agree with just about most of what you are saying. In the case of Angry, it goes back to before you started posting here. Angry has and continues to insist that GC is "dangerous" and he/she is, in my opinion, over-reactive and hyper-vigilant. That affects what he says about GC in blanketing all GC. I still believe that a significant indicator of healing having happened is whether a person can bless their enemies, as scripture says.

Thanks for your thoughts and your heart.

[searching]

For what it is worth, I agree with Angry that GC is dangerous.  I can bless my enemies(those who have done wrong to me), but I can also warn others to be cautious...nothing wrong with that.

I do not post a lot because of people like you Dr. Sam...I always feel I need to over explain my comments because people like you say they are blanket statements. I do understand that you are directing your comments to Angry, but I could have easily said the same as he/she did.

[DrSam]

For what it is worth, I agree with Angry that GC is dangerous.  I can bless my enemies(those who have done wrong to me), but I can also warn others to be cautious...nothing wrong with that.

I do not post a lot because of people like you Dr. Sam...I always feel I need to over explain my comments because people like you say they are blanket statements. I do understand that you are directing your comments to Angry, but I could have easily said the same as he/she did.

Searching,

I am responding to "BLANKET STATEMENTS" that GC is "dangerous." I imagine that if you can say that GC is dangerous as a "blanket statement" without knowing every elder then I can say "blanket statements" to one individual who has been VERY harsh without knowing all elders and their hearts. I'm sorry that you have to categorize me as "people like Dr. Sam" as if I have some fault for challenging "blanket statements" that show vindictiveness, resentment, rage and lack of healing. I'm assuming that this is not you.

[Linda]

Sam, I am MamaD. I starting posting under my real name (Linda) when I had some weird hits on my stat counter from the Navy and the EOP Homeland Security people and learned that there was an Islamic guy named Mamad who had a blog in Arabic. I have read every post you and Angry have written both here and on the old decomm blog.
You wrote:

I am responding to "BLANKET STATEMENTS" that GC is "dangerous." I imagine that if you can say that GC is dangerous as a "blanket statement" without knowing every elder then I can say "blanket statements" to one individual who has been VERY harsh without knowing all elders and their hearts.

I am wondering if you know Angry's story? If you don't, how can you say Angry is being very harsh? Perhaps Angry is being very restrained. The fact that Angry is "angry" has nothing to do with whether or not healing has occurred. There are some things in life that we should be angry about. There are some things that it would be wrong to not be angry about!

As far as "healing", I have no problem personally with any GCM elder. I think they are deceived. There are some that are not welcome unannounced at my home, but there are none that I wouldn't speak with.  

If you want to talk about not healing, maybe you should mention the GCM elders who have chosen to not associate with my family. Perhaps they need to heal and move on. Just so you know, I choose to pray for them and their families and various difficult situations they are currently facing. I really do care about them.

In fact, I cared about them enough to confront them about their theological errors before we left, after we left, and now. I also care about the people who are sitting at their feet and are consequently being mislead about the nature of who our Master is. If you want to say I have not healed, go ahead. I hope to never "heal" enough that I don't speak up for what I believe is right.

No one here is saying that all GCM leaders are bad people. The danger is the way the word of God is mishandled and people are deceived. To the extent that elders buy into bad teaching and perpetuate it, they are dangerous. Some, as I understand it have gone beyond that.

As I mentioned, prior to my leaving GCM, my most irrational fear was that a GCM elder would show up unannounced at my door and rebuke me. My husband was amused and said that would never happen. Then, one year after we left, it happened.

[DrSam]

I am wondering if you know Angry's story? If you don't, how can you say Angry is being very harsh? Perhaps Angry is being very restrained. The fact that Angry is "angry" has nothing to do with whether or not healing has occurred. There are some things in life that we should be angry about. There are some things that it would be wrong to not be angry about!

Linda,

Thank you for your thoughts. I always felt that with you and the other original folks that set up the blog it were "safe" and "healthy." I don't think that the folks that came after you guys have had the same outlook or spirit. Quite often after you left, I sensed a high toxicity here. That's why I dropped out. I occasionally drop in when I feel that maybe something is said that borders on unbalanced, as in the case of Angry's "blanket statement" of calling GC "dangerous."

I understand very well what being angry is all about and I don't condemn people for feeling anger. I've been through it myself quite deeply and with tremendous losses of all kinds. I do, however have a problem when folks use very intense and strong descriptors as "dangerous" in a blanket fashion. If you were to define dangerous (like you did) as GC having some doctrinal impurity and that affecting lives in negative ways, then maybe that could be categorized with that word. I still would not use it because I know of plenty of "dangerous" teachings in most denominational slants covering all kinds of gamuts from living the Christian life, to marriage, prophecy, to soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and ecclesiology (the church), on and on...

When I hear the word "dangerous" that is like saying the danger is at level defcon 10! and the sky is falling. If it means much less than that, then it is still irresponsible to use such strong words that are open to great misrepresentation. I get from people like Angry that GC is at the same place as JW's and Scientology, etc. Unless I'm wrong, I think that is grossly irresponsible and unfair. I believe the Lord cuts us all much slack (called wonderful grace) than what we cut ourselves and each other. I don't believe the Lord condemns GC or Calvary Chapel folks or some Baptists, or Charismatics or others like we might.

Anyhow, I think you get the gist. Thanks for your sweet spirit and being a good sport about it.

[Linda]

Sam,

I guess I don't think Angry's comment was toxic. It seems to me that he was just trying to tell someone that if they were going to name names and situations they needed to know that it might cause them some personal stress. Obviously, there are people posting here anonymously because they've seen what happens to people who post under their real names. They get letters of rebuke, they get shunned, they get talked about behind their backs, they are labeled divisive,etc.

Personally, I sometimes worry that I have been misleading by not naming names and revealing the content of letters and e-mails written by elders to us.

For me, Sam, the "danger" I talk about is that of unsound doctrine. I do believe it is dangerous for the hearers.

However, for others, it is deeper and I do not stand in judgment of them. I seem to remember one person posting here about being confronted in an alley by two GCM pastors. I would be a little fearful if that happened to me. That seems a little confrontational and dangerous.

I think it is pretty clear that when someone posts, they are referring to their situation and experience at their particular GCM church. I know a very teensy bit about Angry's situation. It is nothing like my situation and if I were in Angry's shoes, I would be very angry, as well.

There are some "angers" that need to be repented of and people need to move on. There are others that fall into the category of Jesus turning over the money table. In the case of situations like the latter, no one needs to heal and move on, but they do need to stand firm.

[G_Prince]

Hi Sam, glad to have you back!

Well my head is spinning with deja-vu, but I'm still curious about the idea of a blanket statement. I think we all agree that GCx has some significant issues, the question is how bad or how dangerous are these problems. Could GCx be characterized as 30% bad...50% bad...all bad?

Clearly Sam while you might find fault with GCx, you believe that a website and chat room dedicated to the topic seems excessive. In your opinion how should people like us with hurts, concerns, and anger act?

Also for what it is worth...I've participated in many GCx national events and all the same wrong and hurtful teachings were preached. GCx being "dangerous" seems to have less to do with individual leaders and more to do with flawed doctrinal DNA.

[lone gone]

I am certain that ex-GCM has his own opinions as to what is or is not harmful about GCM.  

He likely doesn't need any assistance finding more to be dismayed by when he has had enough to decide to leave.

[AgathaL'Orange]

I think GCM is a dangerous group because it makes kids and young people give up the best years of their lives, the most important decisions of their lives (who they marry, where they live, occupations), their best resources, and then leaves them with the idea that they have never and will never do enough.  Then they say that they are doing God's work and God's bidding in making these demands.  They really are adding to the gospel, and distorting Jesus' message.

That's why I think it's a dangerous group.

Can people heal from that... yes they most certainly can.  But here's the thing about healing:  It always leaves a scar.

[MidnightRider]

I think GCM is a dangerous group because it makes kids and young people give up the best years of their lives, the most important decisions of their lives (who they marry, where they live, occupations), their best resources, and then leaves them with the idea that they have never and will never do enough.  Then they say that they are doing God's work and God's bidding in making these demands.  They really are adding to the gospel, and distorting Jesus' message.

That's why I think it's a dangerous group.

Can people heal from that... yes they most certainly can.  But here's the thing about healing:  It always leaves a scar.

Ag,

Well said. Amen and ditto.

One does not have to know every GCx elder to decide that the group is dangerous. I am wary of all the fire ants in my yard, though only a small portion of them have ever bitten me.

[nateswinton]

I am wary of all the fire ants in my yard, though only a small portion of them have ever bitten me.

Well spoken!

[Angry]

Posting removed.

[lone gone]

Angry, Sam , Linda and all,

Now it appears to me that you all are being hypervigilant.    Sketchy conclusions of a freudian slip are hardly enough to warrant public conclusions about Sam or blanket statements about other situations.

I for one can see the humor in the situation regarding the ex-Calvary leader even if no one else can. Maybe a better word would have been "bemused" and not "amused".  The childish antics of dictators can make us laugh as well as cry when viewed with some perspective.

I advocate moderation in everything..... even accusations.

[Linda]

Huh?

[DrSam]

Sorry folks... I was gone for a couple of days and I just noticed that I missed some comments. I have no idea what Angry just said that merited his/her post being axed.

Let me say, in response to the gracious G_Prince, that I celebrate web sites and forums that discuss openly issues pertaining to what we grapple with as long as the instrument doesn't degenerate into a "mudfest"/bacchanal of hatred and rage with no resolution in sight. I feel some individuals who have posted in the past have operated in what I call "lower and base energies of the soul" making the environment quite toxic. There's a difference in a person saying, "I have anger but am seeking how to resolve this in the most loving, healthy, and God-loving way that considers all sides of the equation... I seek objectivity, truth, and humility." I think that embodies an excellent and more Christ-like heart attitude. To me this kind of person has hope and will heal instead of being on a war path as I have felt and seen with certain folks, some of which include quoted ones.

As for the using the term "dangerous" let me clarify that I don't mind it as long as there are parameters used to define it for that person. To indiscriminately say a person or an organization is "dangerous" and not define what is the bias of definition being used is very irresponsible and destructive in my humble opinion. I sort of borders on a slanderous (if not one already) statement. I appreciate one of the previous poster explaining what "dangerous" means to them. I respect that and in those terms it would make sense why she/he feels the way he does.

I think those who categorize GC as a cult on the level of JW's, Jim Jones, etc. is going too far and is over-reacting, sometimes showing almost a vindictiveness which would make them guilty of a spirit of retaliation/vengeance.

There is no doubt that GC is dysfunctional and has some erroneous doctrine and practices while having at the same time some very good things that others do not have. Telling people that serving Jesus means surrendering your will to Him is a very good thing because that is what Jesus preached and claimed in his Lordship and being God in flesh. Translating that to drop out of school across the board for every student (God may have someone out there do such in a special case) is guided by misinformed judgment (though well-intentioned as motive) and is not purposely misleading. I would categorize it as a being deceived and mislead just like every Christian has heresy in him that is still undiscovered. I heard that from a hard-core legalistic wise fundamental Baptist pastor/professor I sat under when I was taking some grad courses at a Legalistic Independent Fundamental Baptist University in my much younger years. This man taught me some of the most amazing truths of "Theology Proper" despite his being in such a repressive group that thought they had one of God's corners.

I believe that teaching and counseling young ones that as a result of surrendering to Jesus one must give up schooling, is a most unfortunate thing and very misleading but not intentional in motive. Hence, to call that "dangerous," I would say is a little strong and assumes also that the student had no part/responsibility/free will in the decision making hence has no culpability. Both sides are guilty but not intentionally deceptive or trying to cause harm.
 
Every group has faulty doctrine and practice that can be taken as "dangerous" depending on what levels of perceptual severity one attaches to those areas. If you are a theology buff and possibly hung up on semantics of sorts, then your "bag" might be to be a stickler with doctrine to the point that what may appear as "slightly off" to some appears to you as "horrendously off!" For example, I know and some of you know pastors who leave a group because they "see the light" in some area, whether it is reformed theology, eschatology (like when the rapture, if it exists, will happen), gifts and moving of the Spirit, etc., ad nauseum). I remember when the "Lordship Salvation" folks trashed the "Grace Only" folks as embodied by John MacArthur Vs. Chuck Swindoll. I know pastors and believers that say certain churches are "dangerous" because they cheapen God's grace so they leave and join MacArthur and become elitists. I know folks on the other side that trash and call dangerous guys like Billy Graham and Bill Bright because they "add works to salvation" and so these also become elitists. Is Campus Crusade for Christ dangerous? Some think so and have their verses. Is John MacArthur dangerous? Some think so... and also have their verses. Every church and movement can be     "dangerous" depending on the criteria adopted.

My only concern is for us to see a balance of grace and truth. Jesus had that perfect balance. In lieu that I'm not Christ, then I must constantly run my judgments and processes by His Lordship. He loves old heretical me as he does old heretical you! My goal is to transcend the chatter...

[puff of purple smoke]

Sorry folks... I was gone for a couple of days and I just noticed that I missed some comments. I have no idea what Angry just said that merited his/her post being axed.

His post wasn't axed.. The post was split into two posts (See the original thread here) He (without anybody asking him) did change his wording in the original post after I noted that the conversation no longer had anything to do with greeting Ex-GCM Pastor but instead had been diverted into an argument about whether GC was dangerous or not.

Please remember forum rule #3:

3. Be mindful of the topic. A small deviation from the original topic is permissible, but if your post is going to radically adjust the direction of a thread (known as "thread hijacking") simply make it into a brand new thread. We reserve the right to move or delete off topic posts. Also be mindful of which forum would be most appropriate when posting a new thread.

You can still argue about whether GC is dangerous or not in this thread.