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.
De-Commissioned Forum
March 28, 2024, 05:59:14 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Leadership: Elders and Apostles  (Read 40745 times)
nolongergci
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2009, 01:27:24 pm »

Quote
Are you free to give more details about this?

It happened in our church. One elder, pro-apostle (or at least pro-McCotter and willing to overlook apostles) and one studied it out and rejected the teaching. After sharing concerns, attention turned instead to the "problems" the one was having with submission to the "pro-apostle" elder and to national leaders. In the end, he was forced out and other leaders brought in from other cities.
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2009, 02:21:23 pm »

Quote from: nolongergci
Not every leader supported this book. Some ended up leaving (or being forced out) over this very issue.

Having been in GCI in 1984, I was unaware of any pushback on the doctrine in the book.  To the congregations it looked like unity - unity - unity.

In the assembly I once attended (technically it no longer exists), the elders sent the men to the spiritual gifts conference at which it was rolled out, distributed Jim's book, and then distributed teaching tapes on the subject, proclaiming that Jim McCotter was an apostle.  Only after the apostle McCotter decided the elders at our church needed to be in another ministry did they object, retroactively claiming to be against the apostleship doctrine, even as we sat there with the books they gave us in our hot little hands.  The church did not follow the elders or the apostle, and simply folded.  (Note: Jim sent an entirely new team of families and elders to carry on the name of the church, but only a single family remained from the original plant.)

While it may be true that an elder here or there protested, we did not hear of such a thing.  More to the point, I have a skepticism toward those who now claim to have been against the doctrine in the book even as they were actively teaching it. 

All that said, if you had publicly protested the doctrine in Jim's book in 1984, I would very much like to hear your story, for it would be an encouraging and uplifting tale from a dark time when little discernment was being exercised.



« Last Edit: January 29, 2009, 02:52:57 pm by EverAStudent » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2009, 02:35:43 pm »

Quote from: Leadership:Elders and Apostles
Nonetheless, the apostles’ financial support should not stop when they leave a church, any more than physical children should stop honoring their parents and grandparents by sharing with them (1 Timothy 5:4). Paul does not indicate that financial support should stop, even years later and countries away.
When I read this, the first question that came to mind was, "Is McCotter still on the payroll?"

If he was considered an apostle, and the leadership bought into this idea which is expressed in the apostles section, then wouldn't it follow that, he would still be on the payroll? How would anyone ever know?
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2009, 07:46:20 pm »

OK people,

Some of you are crying "Bad doctrine, Bad Doctrine" but all you can claim is "he called himself an apostle and wants our money" ...

Lets see what you think the other bad doctrines are.... simply name them.

And you'd better not claim it's bad because your particular theological persuasion disagrees with it. From what I have seen here, doctrine that some have claimed to be "bad" if perfectly orthodox to others here and it would have all of us calling each other heretics or worse.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2009, 08:32:45 pm »

Quote from: lonegone
Some of you are crying "Bad doctrine, Bad Doctrine" but all you can claim is "he called himself an apostle and wants our money"
Ummm, I just was highlighting two points that I remembered from when I read this book two years ago. I wasn't meaning to imply that was all I could come up with that was faulty with the theology.

How about this:
Quote
Even though it is God’s ideal to have His leaders recognized and appointed by other leaders, in this one area of qualification there could be a break down, since it relates to other men. There could be genuine apostles raised up and no one to recognize and appoint them. Even as the Scripture says, it is not who men commend, but "whom the Lord commends" (2 Corinthians 10:18). How good it is, however, to have men like Moses to appoint Joshuas.
The man writes page after page about how an apostle should be "recognized" (character, fruitfulness, desire) then says basically, "There might be a time when someone doesn't recognize you as an apostle, in which case God does, so go ahead, call yourself an apostle, start a movement and from then on make everyone obey you and if you ever leave they should keep you on the payroll."

If this doesn't strike you as bad theology, I can't help you.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 06:15:18 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2009, 11:21:13 pm »

There were a number of responses/rebuttals written to the Leadership book around the time it was published. Here is the first one: http://gcxweb.org/Misc/ERayMoore-05-17-1985.aspx More soon.
Logged
wastedyearsthere
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2009, 05:18:14 am »

Have I missed something?

Is GCI still going by the McCotter Apostles book?  Do they still refer to this book by McCotter?  If he is no longer in the movement -- does this book still hold? 

Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2009, 06:14:03 am »

Fair question.

As far as I know, they have not distanced themselves in any way from the teachings of their founder Jim McCotter. Do you know of a time when they did? Also, I believe that Dennis Clark is currently on the board and he is the co-author of this book.

Again, I do know that people do change what they believe, but it seems to me that they are still practicing a lot of this. Generally, when people drastically change a belief, they also change their actions.

The GCLI teaching is not available to mere members of the congregation. All elder teaching is "secret", reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to receive the special teaching, so no one really knows what they believe for sure.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2009, 06:18:31 am »

In fairness and in answer to my own question I will point to this article:

http://gcxweb.org/Misc/GCIFormerLeadersLetter.aspx

These authors paint a clearer picture of Jim McCotter and his teachings than anything else I have seen. Everyone should be aware of it's existence.  It also separates Error from Eccentricity.....

 Jim could be accused of error in only a few things in his writings according to these authors. The effects of what he taught can only be detected and measured in hindsight because what he taught, and what he intended from his teachings can be taken two different ways.     "Give someone enough rope and they'll hang themselves" is the phrase that comes to my mind







Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2009, 06:35:27 am »

Puff,
That was an interesting book review.
Quote from: Moore's response to Leadership
In past years Jim has exercised a major control over many of the churches (and elders) that have affiliated with GCI, particularly the several dozen he had personally begun or ones begun by his closest co-workers. This control or authority was largely on a personal basis and until recently did not have a doctrinal sanction. It has, however, been learned that some elders with GCI have taught privately that Jim is an Apostle on par with the Apostle Paul for several years but this has not been completely accepted by all GCI groups until this past year. Now the acceptance of Jim McCotter as "the Apostle" is an actual criteria for affiliation with any GCI group. This acceptance includes personal obedience and an apparent acceptance of Jim as the unquestioned leader and dispenser of doctrine, guidance and leadership. While many new initiates into GCI are not aware of this development, no one in the future will be appointed an elder or even a small group or team leader without acknowledgment of his authority. This is now generally true in most groups.

Control has been Jim's personal style of leadership for many years. He really has no peers in the GCI groups. Dennis Clark, who is frequently called an apostle by some, is clearly in a subordinate role and does not appear even to question or challenge any belief or action of Jim's. Dennis serves as a buffer to the criticism that only Jim makes decisions and rules GCI. There used to be a triumvirate (Jim, Dennis and Terry Bartley) but Terry's name suddenly was no longer mentioned. These types of decisions so characteristic of GCI are arbitrary and without any reasons given or known except to Jim McCotter.
Does anyone have any further information on whether or not recognizing McCotter as "an apostle" was a criteria for affiliation with GC? Any official GC communication in writing would be especially helpful.

Since GC has never publicly distanced themselves from the teaching of Jim McCotter, and all the current elders' path to recognition has come from elders appointed by McCotter, it follows that every current GC leader's job can be traced directly back to McCotter in a strange type of apostolic succession.

Also, what happened to Terry Bartley?

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2009, 09:23:31 am »

Quote from: Moore
Approximately one year ago LEADERSHIP by McCotter was published by GCI. Prior to that a preliminary manual had been circulated to some elders for comments. I declined to comment as I had a growing sense that my comments would not be seriously considered and further out of deference to Jim. I was still trying to keep an open mind on his new teaching and approach with "apostles".

Knowing that Jim published the "leadership manual" in 1983 among the elite (National Elders and most influential leadership outside his inner circle), and then held the three day spiritual gifts conference for all GCI men in early 1984, then published the book "Leadership: Elders and Apostles" in 1984 and distributed it to everyone in GCI, I find Moore's 1985 comments troubling. 

Moore--having been a stauch supporter of McCotter, himself an elder who taught like Jim that all men must become elders, who imposed the "pledge to join my assembly for life" at a 2 day all-church campout, who distributed Jim's apostleship book to his own assembly in 1984 (that's where I got my own copy)--to my knowledge never objected to the DOCTRINE of apostleship as Jim taught it, but only to Jim's authoritarian control as he exercised it in 1985.

Moore was supporting Jim's erroneous doctrine of apostleship (first released to the GCI elders in 1983 and heavily promoted in 1984) all the way through mid-1985 when Jim exercised his apostolic authority and ordered Moore to move to D.C.--a move which Moore resisted and consequently attempted a church split before leaving GCI (the church split failed as no one followed Moore or the remaining GCI elder, except for one family).

To me, key phrases go off like a claxon in Moore's explanation of why he waited until mid-1985 to say or do anything.  He "declined to comment...out of deference to Jim...trying to keep an open mind."  No pastor has the luxury to decline to comment when unsound doctrine has entered the church from the top.  There is no open mind policy with regard to the exceptionally poor teaching found in Jim McCotter's book.  Worse, for this two years of supposed open minded investigation Moore was still teaching that GCI was the only good church (Moore had brutal things to say about "traditional churches" in his sermons), was teaching that all men must become elders, told my wife and I we were commiting the sin of adultery and divorce because we left his church, and in 1984 actually had a 2 day conference to propose that all the families make the "this church for life" committment.

I propose that we object to Jim's book not on the grounds that it allows an apostle to assert too much authority (as is Moore's primary objection), but that the theology and doctrine are wholly flawed. 
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 09:35:18 am by EverAStudent » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2009, 09:43:36 am »

I noticed that the letter that lonegone just referenced was signed by Moore. Does anyone know the date on that?

Quote from: eas
No pastor has the luxury to decline to comment when unsound doctrine has entered the church from the top.  There is no open mind policy with regard to the exceptionally poor teaching found in Jim McCotter's book.
I totally agree.

It's a false teaching on "unity" that keeps elders quiet. We were told many times by current elders that correcting error in an elder would be to judge that man's heart. The elders we spoke with did not disagree with our assessment that the teaching was bad, in fact, they agreed. They just wouldn't correct it.

As I've mentioned before, on one occasion, an elder would not even listen to the HSLT teaching where our minor daughter was ask to commit to GC for life. He said he didn't have to listen to the teaching because he knew the heart of the elder. What kind of leadership is that when an elder won't even listen to the teaching of another elder for the purpose of making sure the teaching is Biblically accurate? It was very frightening, yet helpful in making our decision to leave, because it pointed out the blind loyalty of some elders.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2009, 10:16:09 am »

Quote from: lone gone
OK people,

Some of you are crying "Bad doctrine, Bad Doctrine" but all you can claim is "he called himself an apostle and wants our money" ...

Lets see what you think the other bad doctrines are.... simply name them.

And you'd better not claim it's bad because your particular theological persuasion disagrees with it. From what I have seen here, doctrine that some have claimed to be "bad" if perfectly orthodox to others here and it would have all of us calling each other heretics or worse.

This is a valid challenge.  So:

Abridged List of Doctrinal Errors in Jim McCotter’s Book

This is my abridged list of doctrinal errors I found in Jim McCotter’s teaching on the need for apostles in and over the contemporary church.  While different churches might agree with McCotter on a few of the aberrant points below, most evangelical churches would find the list as a whole to be very erroneous doctrine indeed.

1.   Jim states that to be an apostle of Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit or the church can do the commissioning, and Jim uses Paul as his example.  Yet, Paul said twice that Jesus Christ Himself sent Paul as His apostle, not the church or the Holy Spirit (Note: Acts 13:2-4 is very badly translated / interpreted by McCotter in this regard).

2.   Jim states that the Eleven apostles did not get it right when they stated that the qualifications for apostleship were to have heard Jesus teach from the beginning of His ministry and to have been an eyewitness of His resurrection.

3.   Jim denies that apostles had to have their office publicly validated by means of miracles.

4.   Jim refutes the premise that all the apostles were given revelatory visions.

5.   Jim maintains that the principle “job” (i.e. mission) of an apostle was “church planting” and “church organizing,” even though such assertions are not in the Bible.

6.   Jim teaches that all the early churches tithed to their apostles. 

7.   Jim misses the importance of the point that after Jesus appointed the Twelve Apostles, He immediately appointed Seventy other apostles. (Technically this is not an interpretive error, but it explains how such men as Barnabas can be called “apostles” without having been part of the Twelve--a point Jim misses entirely.)

8.   James,  Jude, Silas, Timothy, Andronicus, Junias, Apollos, Titus, and Epaphroditus were not identified as apostles in the Bible though Jim says they are.

9.   Jim asserts that the Bible does not teach that being an eyewitness of the resurrection was a test for true apostleship.

10.   Jim argues that having been taught by Jesus for three years was not a requirement of true apostleship.

11.   Jim posits that Paul did not immediately become an apostle when Jesus commissioned him on the road to Damascus, but only learned how to become an apostle over time and was appointed by the church to become an apostle years later.

12.   Jim instructs that men must first successively attain the gifting of elders, then prophets, and only then apostles.  In fact, Jim states that all the apostles were pastors before they became apostles.

13.   Jim teaches that living local apostles are the foundation of each contemporary local church--his understanding of the true meaning of Ephesians 2:11-3:6.

Each of these points have been more fully addressed here:  http://thefaithfulword.org/apostlepageone.html
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2009, 06:09:47 pm »

Here is another response to the Leadership book: http://gcxweb.org/Misc/JohnToner-1984.aspx
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2009, 06:39:33 pm »

I just read the Toner article.  Very good!  It is well reasoned and focuses more on the biblical legitimacy of the book's content than on McCotter's character or behavior.  I loved his "form over substance" discussion.

To be sure, Toner makes a few mis-statements.  He correctly asks whether the "categories" of gifts McCotter develops (speaking v. serving) are the actual categories Paul intended to imply (if any), but he fails to explain the genuine meaning of what makes a gift a "greater gift."  Toner also spends much time attempting to differentiate between the Twelve Apostles as being sent by Christ, and all other apostles as not being sent by Christ, but this only begs the question he and McCotter neglect to address, "What of the 70 'others' sent as apostles by Jesus immediately after the original Twelve are sent?--Are they not also apostles on virtually an identical mission?"

Those little things aside, this was a very good critical evaluation of McCotter's apostleship doctrine as Jim presented it.  John Toner gets an A.  I wish this had been circulated widely when it was written in 1984.
Logged
puff of purple smoke
Administrator
Household Name (300+ Posts)
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 604



« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2009, 09:57:09 pm »

Here is another one: http://gcxweb.org/Misc/BobLaForge-03-07-1985.aspx

This one was mailed directly to Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark, and at the end of it there is a response letter from McCotter himself.
Logged
theresearchpersona
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 418



« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2009, 03:29:32 am »

Fair question.

As far as I know, they have not distanced themselves in any way from the teachings of their founder Jim McCotter. Do you know of a time when they did? Also, I believe that Dennis Clark is currently on the board and he is the co-author of this book.

Again, I do know that people do change what they believe, but it seems to me that they are still practicing a lot of this. Generally, when people drastically change a belief, they also change their actions.

The GCLI teaching is not available to mere members of the congregation. All elder teaching is "secret", reserved for those who have been deemed worthy to receive the special teaching, so no one really knows what they believe for sure.


Perhaps Puff would be interested in the 2007 GCLI book then? : ) I don't know if it is the stuff for the pastors only (GC has many people in positions as elders, excusing itself by not calling them that, sigh), but it's an entire spiral-bound book full of the information and teachings, at least from that year's session. Many, though not all, of the blanks are also filled-in by whoever did it.

I got lucky and found one.
Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2009, 05:58:20 am »

TRP, 

THAT workbook that you mention would be very illuminating. Whether it is copyrighted material that can be reproduced would be the first question I'd have. If it is not, then posting the questions and answers online would be worth studying.


It would also answer the question we are examining..... how much of McCotter's teachings about modern day Apostles remains in the GC churches. Can you answer this for us?

If it doesn't appear, I'd guess that some people will be disappointed.
Logged
askingquestionsaboutGCI
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80



« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2009, 06:12:08 am »

I just read the Toner article.  Very good!  It is well reasoned and focuses more on the biblical legitimacy of the book's content than on McCotter's character or behavior.  I loved his "form over substance" discussion.

To be sure, Toner makes a few mis-statements.  He correctly asks whether the "categories" of gifts McCotter develops (speaking v. serving) are the actual categories Paul intended to imply (if any), but he fails to explain the genuine meaning of what makes a gift a "greater gift."  Toner also spends much time attempting to differentiate between the Twelve Apostles as being sent by Christ, and all other apostles as not being sent by Christ, but this only begs the question he and McCotter neglect to address, "What of the 70 'others' sent as apostles by Jesus immediately after the original Twelve are sent?--Are they not also apostles on virtually an identical mission?"

Those little things aside, this was a very good critical evaluation of McCotter's apostleship doctrine as Jim presented it.  John Toner gets an A.  I wish this had been circulated widely when it was written in 1984.

Unfortunately, the GC* cloning committee apparently got to him after Toner wrote this article.  The following comes from "Marching to Zion -- Part Four":

The planned conference got underway the next morning, using the facilities of Broadway Baptist Church (a church, be it noted, that Jim McCotter would have considered a “lukewarm” or “Laodicean” church - see pages 106-107). Jim, who had been scheduled to open the conference, was not there because he had gotten sick. As a result, Tom Schroeder and John Hopler were assigned the job of opening the conference. In spite of his illness, McCotter spent time, according to Henke, “challenging Clint about many things until Clint agreed to step down as an elder.78 Also, that evening Jim challenged another brother to repent and he did. Clint and this brother made their announcement Sunday morning.” The brother who repented was John Toner, who had earlier written a very cogent critique of McCotter's leadership book. His personal account of how he was persuaded to repent of “faction” and having a party spirit was published anonymously in a special double issue of The Cause, June-July 1985. Among other things, Toner wrote:

   As an 8-year member of the Cornerstone Church (Kansas City, Mo.), I never had the intention of undermining the authority of my local elders, and becoming the cause of a church split or faction. Nonetheless, through a few “small” sins, and much spiritual blindness, I found myself paving the road to division, strife and destruction of the very church I loved.


   For years, in the Cornerstone Church, there had been poor scriptural understanding of authority. Different people, from time to time, would murmur and grumble against the leaders and their plans for the church. Slanderous remarks were sometimes made concerning the character of the pastors…

   In late 1984 and January of 1985, things came to a boiling point. Numerous church members organized themselves together as a group to resist the plans of the leaders for the church, to entangle others in theological debates, and to call into question the motives and character of the local leaders. In addition, slanderous accusations were cast against leaders of other churches associated with ours who were barely known to their accusers.

   I was probably one of the chief of all sinners in such actions. By crafty words and untimely comments, I helped to spread suspicion and fear in the hearts of many. I thought I was helping to establish “unity” in the church, and protecting the freedom to hold different ideas based on scripture. But actually I was resisting scriptural unity (unity under God-given authority) and was only spreading strife. However, somewhere in my heart I knew something wasn't right.

   On February 9, 1985, four Christian brothers, in gentleness and love, rebuked my sin of spreading strife. Though it was hard, I listened to them closely, saw my sin and repented. After I repented, I began to understand more and more how the things I had been doing were wrong, and how I needed to change my path. But repentance over my own sin wasn't the hardest thing I did. I saw that in order to love righteousness, I needed also to hate iniquity. At a church meeting, I publicly confessed and renounced my sin. I honored the discipline of those who refused to repent (including my closest friend), and for the first time in my life, I got wholly under scriptural authority and obeyed them, as Hebrews 13:17 commands.79

   Taking such a public stand against sin was perhaps the biggest test of faith in my Christian life, because standing for righteousness meant separation from my close, close friend. But, by God's grace, and the encouragement of the Christian brothers, I was able to put love for God, His laws and His righteousness above affection for unrepentant friends. (However, by supporting church discipline, I actually loved such friends even more.)…


Apparently, he may have been "right", but since he wasn't "in unity", he was now wrong....... seems to be the ongoing saga of GC*, doesn't it?
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2009, 08:36:45 am »

Given my ongoing interest in the topic of apostles, I eagerly read the Bob LaForge rebuke letter.  Overall, as a rebuttal to McCotter and Clark's book, it is quite good.  His point about apostles being called and not asked is excellent.  Also, his point that Paul never desired to be an apostle of Jesus (given he was hell-bent on persecuting the church at the time of his conversion) is a good refutation of Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark's assertion that the only way to become an apostle is to earnestly desire that gift.  The two paragraphs under the heading, "Re: Concerning page 85 on what makes an apostle" are also quite good.

As with anything, there are a few small things that could have been improved:  1) LaForge quotes much from commentary sources, the very thing McCotter was objecting to doing since he insisted his thoughts and conclusions were directly from the Scriptures (not that they were, but that was Jim's assertion), 2) The entire first paragraph about "other apostles" following the heading "The Post-resurrection apostles" is factually suspect or in error, 3) LaForge repeatedly insists there is no biblical list of qualifications for apostleship; this is both correct and incorrect as there is a short list in Acts 1:21-22 (my opinion is that Matthias was probably chosen out of the "70 other apostles") while there is no list that permits men to become apostles today as compared to the offices of elder and deacon.

Finally, Jim McCotter's reply is both tragic and comic at the same time.  It is a classic case of "freeze 'em out."
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1