Is my mind sick and twisted??

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.

[askingquestionsaboutGCI]

I've been watching these reports coming out of the radical Mormon groups/cult in the southwest and shaking my head in wonder and sorrow over the lives these poor women (mostly) and children have lived -- but then found myself wondering how close maybe GC* might've come to that in the past....  There but for the grace of God go many of us.....

[steelgirl]

I've been watching these reports coming out of the radical Mormon groups/cult in the southwest and shaking my head in wonder and sorrow over the lives these poor women (mostly) and children have lived -- but then found myself wondering how close maybe GC* might've come to that in the past....  There but for the grace of God go many of us.....

I know they encouraged women to multiply.  How did you hear of this past?  Have you heard stories at the gc church you are aware of.

I thought it was interesting that I have heard stories about how men expected women to cook meals for them back in the 70s.  The women were not yet married.

[AgathaL'Orange]

You  know there is a growing movement of evangelical protestants that really think polygamy is okay.  They think that since it's Biblical that it is fine.  They reinterpret the "husband of one wife" as an elder qualification differently than most people.  

For me, that's another argument for looking at church history.  People can look at the Bible and come up with all kinds of interpretations.  It's only when we match them up with the scriptures and historical positions of the church that we can know we're not coming up with some new doctrine (in my opinion anyway).

I have always felt that there are certain people who could have thought that back in the day.  I HAVE absolutely NO evidence of this whatsoever.  Again, it's just a hunch.  It's probably misguided!

[Columbus Old-Timer]

Yeah- when I left Columbus in 1980 the sisters were still cooking for the brothers. Not one on one, in groups. Usually home groups had a meal every night. The brothers would do the dishes. It didn't seem weird at the time. As far as the possibility of polygamy- that's a stretch, I think. The leaders are too concerned about reputation and their lack of credentials. But maybe if the Apostle should reappear with a new revelation...

[theresearchpersona]

GC has at times actually mis-taught on the Biblical stuff regarding polygamy...for instance I've seen David portrayed as sinning for marrying more wives: the Bible doesn't hint at that.

The polygamy in the word, however, is something in context: not only a situation where women may require support (non-economic-involvement) but God even warns in the OT that we should not multiply women unto ourselves and be led astray...or is that just to the king? I think it applies to others too.

It's certainly not acceptable with our circumstances for people to endorse polygamy, I think; and if men are doing this it's sad...yet it is Paul who says "one wife", "one husband", so these "evangelicals" whoever they  may be better take heed.

[askingquestionsaboutGCI]

No, I wasn't thinking about the possibility of GC* being a polygamist group -- that would be really quite a stretch for GC*, I think!  I was thinking more about how these mind-controlling ways could lead so many people astray..... that we can be so gullible without a good, solid understanding of what God says in His Word -- open to any twisting of the scriptures, if we don't understand what the text was truly meant to say. I just have an incredible sadness over that situation in the west, mostly for those poor women who, even if they leave that group, will probably never experience a "normal" life (whatever THAT is!), but will question their own thoughts, their reasoning processes, other people's intentions, for the rest of their lives.  It's just very, very sad.

[Immortal_Raven]

The thing that struck me in this whole instance was that the Fundamentalist Mormon church and GCC churches are both labeled as cults.  I don't think GCC would go for polygamy as doctrine, nor would they condone the alleged sexual abuse that some of those children in Texas endured.  GCC seems to be more inclined toward mental abuse.

All those observations aside, I'm actually disgusted at this situation.  Those children never even had a chance.  And some children born into strict GCC families never have a chance.  The indoctrination is strong.  And anything learned when you're young and impressionable is the hardest thing to unlearn.

-Immortal_Raven

[steelgirl]

Yeah- when I left Columbus in 1980 the sisters were still cooking for the brothers. Not one on one, in groups. Usually home groups had a meal every night. The brothers would do the dishes. It didn't seem weird at the time. As far as the possibility of polygamy- that's a stretch, I think. The leaders are too concerned about reputation and their lack of credentials. But maybe if the Apostle should reappear with a new revelation...

What was the purpose of that?  Did the sisters really want to cook or was it expected?

[steelgirl]

The thing that struck me in this whole instance was that the Fundamentalist Mormon church and GCC churches are both labeled as cults.  I don't think GCC would go for polygamy as doctrine, nor would they condone the alleged sexual abuse that some of those children in Texas endured.  GCC seems to be more inclined toward mental abuse.

All those observations aside, I'm actually disgusted at this situation.  Those children never even had a chance.  And some children born into strict GCC families never have a chance.  The indoctrination is strong.  And anything learned when you're young and impressionable is the hardest thing to unlearn.

Is GCC still considered a cult?  They don't deny the basic tenets of Christianity.  I hear Heritage is a good church.

I remember about 6 yrs ago, one of my friends at the time's roommates  parents more or less did not allow her to date.  I met other civilings.  I don't know if any of the girls further their education.  I don't know if they were encouraged to do so, but the son was.  The last time I heard this girl went to help out a family in the Carolinas.  Why does that sound weird?  Unless she wanted a change of scenery.

On the other hand, I knew a few other people who grew up in Solid Rock/Linworth Rd who dated another person, but did not marry them.  I know one ended up breaking up with one and within the next yr or maybe a month or two after was married to someone else.

The other couple, God had different plans for them.   First of all they met at work, she was going to another church but went to the GCM campus church since her boyfriend was going there.  They were dating, but he got accepted at a grad school out of town for his field of interest.  This Sunday I saw the girl at my present church with her husband sitting in front of me.  It was not the guy she was dating 5 or 6 yrs ago.

[MidnightRider]

Is GCC still considered a cult?  They don't deny the basic tenets of Christianity.

steelperson,

Since you are new to this site, you may not be aware of this: It is a point of controversy as to whether the term "cult" only refers to doctrinally messed-up groups. Some think that theologically "normal" groups who mistreat their members can be classified as cults, too.

[exshep]

Is GCC still considered a cult?  They don't deny the basic tenets of Christianity.  I hear Heritage is a good church.

I remember these discussion in the anti-cult group in the 80s and 90s.  There  an evangelical  definition of a cult which deviates from standard orthodoxy [authority of scripture, resurrection of Christ,  Trinity, salvation by grace through faith].  There is the sociological definition of a cult being a closed community shield from outside forces creating psychological harm.  This is admittedly simplistic, but it will suffice as a general definition.

I could apply the sociological definition during the 80's.  Today it is too much of  a stretch. This is what makes GC so enigmatic at times.  There are some great churches, some that leave me cold, and many in between.  It really depends where one worships.  My conventions of GC were called to task when I  attended an unusually healthy GC in Texas.  I  have listened to tons of internet feeds of GC churches.  I would have hard time stereotyping GC.  I also know there are those who were negative affected by their involvement.  I am glad the forum is here.

The most honest answer on GC?  It depends.

[Huldah]

Yeah- when I left Columbus in 1980 the sisters were still cooking for the brothers. Not one on one, in groups. Usually home groups had a meal every night. The brothers would do the dishes.

What was the purpose of that?  Did the sisters really want to cook or was it expected?

It was just considered a fair division of labor, since most of the singles all ate dinner together. As Old-Timer pointed out, the sisters cooked, but the brothers had to do the clean-up. Sisters were discouraged from participating in the clean-up, because the brothers were supposed to learn responsibility from doing the work.

Having sisters to cook for you wasn't quite the perk that one might imagine. Keep in mind that most of the women who made the meals were young and inexperienced cooks. Most of the meals turned out okay, but there were the occasional strange results. Like, once when we wanted to make carrot cake, but we were lacking some of the key ingredients... such as carrots...so we ended up substituting some leftover spaghetti squash instead. The brothers were usually pretty good about not complaining, though. Or maybe it's just that hungry young men will eat anything.  

[exshep]

Having sisters to cook for you wasn't quite the perk that one might imagine. Keep in mind that most of the women who made the meals were young and inexperienced cooks. Most of the meals turned out okay, but there were the occasional strange results. Like, once when we wanted to make carrot cake, but we were lacking some of the key ingredients... such as carrots...

I remember huge stocks of pasta and pudding. It sounded like somebody had an account with Sam's Club.   The Athens church actually ate quite well.  When they first came to town they had  a Sunday evening dinner followed by  a time of worship.  I enjoyed it immensely. Of course I was completely unaware of the pratfalls at the time.

[exshep]

Actually I remembered somebody in Columbus or Athens made the quip that Macaroni and Cheese was the breakfast of champions. I did not take me long to figure that one out.

[EverAStudent]

This should be posted under the Humor Department, but...

Our assembly leadership was into health foods.  When the single girls cooked for the guys, it was always health foods.  When one family went to another's for dinner, it was health foods.  

Since the leadership was into health foods, it was considered "spiritual" to also be into health foods (tofu, turkey burgers, black licorice tea, soy everything).  For every churchwide event all foods were "healthy"--you never saw so many singles who suddenly had really good reasons for having to miss dinners.

On a "weekend teaching event" that involved the entire church camping out for two nights, my wife and I knew better.  The "leadership wives" collected money from all families so they could purchase all the foods for the event personally, and thus ensure that nothing unhealthy found its way in.  We certainly gave our required amount to the "event common fund" to cover what they thought our family would eat.  But even though we were barely surviving financially (and I do mean that) we  anticipated starving for two days, so we secretly packed edible foods--peanut butter and crackers, white bread, canned ham spreads, canned tuna, and so on.  

After the common dinner (tofu dogs, soybean soup, onion salad...) we quietly slipped back to our tent and ate.  Another family "stopped in" and caught us.  Awkward silence.  The wife stormed off to tell the leadership  wives about our rebellious spirits, but the husband just stood there stunned and unmoving, and finally he asked, "Can I have some too?"  Well of course!

[AgathaL'Orange]

No way!  She really told on you for eating in your tent?

[EverAStudent]

Until I came across this site, I had all but forgotten so much of the crushing control that GCI had exercised over our lives.  As I look back, I realize now that the reason we had so many all-church"retreats" at camp sites was to detach us from the real world, isolate us, literally make feel all alone, except for the church family.  No access to phones (cell phones had not yet been invented), no internet, no Bible research tools, no family members to talk things over with, just the elders giving teachings.

At such retreats, they were able to tell us all what to eat, when to get up, when to sleep, when to pray, what to read, and essentially, what to think.  And since we were "camping" it all had an air of propriety with regard to their giving such orders for they played the role of "camp counselors."  

Returning to the story about that camping retreat where we took the food with us.  My wife and I had prayed, fretted, and tried to reason out whether God would be angry enough at us to punish us because we were going to bring and eat food that the elders' wives had not sanctioned.  Were we silly to worry about such things?  Yes, because God did not hold a charge against us for buying and eating our own food.  Ah, but the elders and their wives did desire to make us feel guilty for having done this.  And that is the essence of "lording it over the flock" and legalism.  

"Are you too good to eat the food the community is eating?"  "You have a rebellious heart."  "You are stiff necked."  "I would never call you a fool, but these Proverbs do."  And so it continued...

At the last of these camping retreats that we ever attended, one elder gave a teaching that culminated in telling us all to pledge (vow, make an oath) that we would be committed to, and reside with, this assembly for the rest of our lives.  Most of the church did do this.  I declined and forbade my wife to make the vow.  

"What seems to be the problem?  Why can you not commit to be a part of the body of Christ?"  

"I am a member of the body of Christ.  Don't you think that any of us will ever leave for employment, to become missionaries, or to get married?"

"That's my whole point!  The church will send you on your mission.  The church will guide you to proper employment.  The single men will only marry inside the church.  So, no, I cannot think of any reason when I would intentionally leave this assembly."

"But what would you do if, say, Jim McCotter should suddenly become apostate?  Then you would be ethically bound to leave by the Bible--'Come out and be separate'-- but you could not because you vowed to God you would never leave this assembly.  What would you do?"

"Oh be serious, Jim McCotter become a false teacher?  That would never happen!  So you are really not going to pledge to stay with us?"

"No, I am really not going to pledge.  And I think it is wrong to ask us and wrong for you to do it."

We left about a month later.

[Linda]

At the last of these camping retreats that we ever attended, one elder gave a teaching that culminated in telling us all to pledge (vow, make an oath) that we would be committed to, and reside with, this assembly for the rest of our lives.

Obviously, the commitment to US for the rest of your life concept has been an ongoing issue for GC. That they don't see this form of sectarianism as the ultimate "showing partiality" is beyond me.

You can't date, they say, because that might be showing partiality, but you can tell people that they have to be committed to your little gathering forever thus dividing your loyalty from the rest of the true Church.

I think the essence of the error is this sectarianism that requests lifetime commitment to THEIR group, thus implying that there are many Brides.

At an HSLT in 2005, our daughter was asked to make a lifetime commitment to her local church. Here is what Mark Darling said:

I made a determination as a young man to not leave my church in Ames until and only when I was sent. I was sent. Now, there is, of course, maybe a unique exception within "our movement" and it's a beautiful thing it's why some of us moved to different cities, big metropolitan areas. One, you may need a job and you can still stay linked with Great Commission Churches because you can find one in that city. Secondly, you may be leaving your local church to go to college to join another Great Commission Church that's like minded and I think that will equally accomplish the same thing. I'm here for life.

Our 17 year old (at that time) daughter sat in the front row, with all her friends around her listening to this heresy. She did not stand to make this commitment because she knew it was wrong. When you are 17 and living at home, your parents decide where you will go to church. Period.

Not to mention, how odd it is to say if you move to another city you have to go to a GC church. Or, you can only move to a city with a GC church.

The sad thing is that many parents paid a hefty fee to send their children on what they thought was an extended time of studying the Bible and to this day have no idea of the indoctrination their children sat under OR know of the commitments they made.

[EverAStudent]

Obviously, the commitment to US for the rest of your life concept has been an ongoing issue for GC. That they don't see this form of sectarianism as the ultimate "showing partiality" is beyond me.

Linda, you are so correct.  To vow your attendance to one organization for the rest of your life is wrong on so many levels.  Making vows is wrong (Matthew 5:33-37, James 5:12, http://thefaithfulword.org/oaths.html ).  Telling men you will obey them for the rest of your life instead of saying, "If the Lord wills and does not require me to do otherwise..." is wrong (James 4:14-15).  Even marriage has two termination clauses--death of the spouse or infidelity of the spouse--but GCx's pledge does not.  Not even the associates of the apostles felt it necessary to stay with them for life, nor even to always do what they wanted (1 Corinthians 16:12).

To be honest, I am shocked that GCx is still making this demand of its members.  I think such poor practice betrays a poor base of theology and a poor understanding of how to interpret the Bible.  Of course it also betrays the abusive use of power that seems to reside in the leadership.  

What a shame.  This organization just keeps slowly creeping along, like a snake, almost unseen, swallowing people as it goes, taking from them all that they can, and then leaving them behind as waste when they are no longer useful, then continuing the search for their next useful person.  Churches should be wise as snakes, not act like them.

[MidnightRider]

Our assembly leadership was into health foods.  
...
On a "weekend teaching event" that involved the entire church camping out for two nights, my wife and I knew better.  The "leadership wives" collected money from all families so they could purchase all the foods for the event personally, and thus ensure that nothing unhealthy found its way in.  
...

I guess this varies from place to place. In our church (TX in the 1980s), cheap was the theme. Lots of hamburger, potatoes, etc. Shepherd's Pie, meatloaf, and spaghetti with meat sauce were common at our house groups.

Some of our weekend retreats were at retreat centers. Usually we ate in a dining hall and had typical cafeteria food. Sometimes we had campouts, but at those everyone was responsible for their own food. Some people would pool their $$, but not everyone did.

I recall at one of the campouts seeing a squirrel running through the campsite with 3 or 4 Fig Newtons in its mouth.    At the next meeting, we were "admonished" not to leave food out.