Leaving

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.

[EverAStudent]

My understanding is the national leaders (McCotter, Clark?) came up with a plan to "send" leaders and "worker bees" various directions to start new churches. A big question to start with would be why start a new church in cities that already had a bunch of good Bible believing churches. That in itself smells of sectarianism.

Also, it leaves me with the impression that the churches are much less "independent" than originally thought if they were all a result of some national people orchestrating the church plants.

From the very inception of GCx the individual churches were never independent in any meaningful sense of the word.  Jim McCotter (and Dennis Clark to a lesser degree) directed the politics, doctrines, and strategies of the organized assemblies.  As the "denomination" (a word they detest, but still applies) grew larger, "national elders" (denomination leaders) were appointed to make the governance of the varied churches more manageable.  

One must be cautious about stating that people were "ordered" or "commanded" to do things.  Most people who have left would probably use the word "coerced" to characterize being told which city to go to, what job to take, and even who to marry.  Those who were in governance would probably use words like "suggested," "counseled," or "advised."  To do opposite of a leader's counsel (especially the counsel of a national leader) was to invite being charged with divisiveness, or rebellion, or a lack of faith.

It was in that atmosphere that Invasion '85 was launched.  Certainly volunteers were solicited.  However, many were also "counseled" to go and others which geography they had to go to.  Also, the individual assemblies were "counseled" by the national elders to participate in the progam, regardless of the church's size or enthusiasm for the project.  

Jim McCotter wrote a book on leadership in which he concluded that unless the assemblies are organized via strong national leadership (which he characterized as apostles) then it would not be possible for GCx to win the world for Christ.  In his view, the assemblies had to actively be directed in a hierarchical top down style so that the national leaders ("the best") could establish and implement national strategies.

Since only such a national organization of assemblies goverened by national leaders was seen to be sufficiently effectual in reaching the world for Christ ("traditional" churches were seen as ineffectual), new GCI churches were needed so that the organization could grow to sufficient size that it, by itself, could complete the Great Commission.  Thus, Invasion '85 was seen as crucial.

I certainly would not refer to how the assemblies functioned during Invasion '85 as "independent."  National governance was considered to be a key success factor for GCI at the time.

[wastedyearsthere]

I was around in 85 when a bunch of churches were sent out.  People were "asked" to go and you had the choice whether or not to go.  I was NOT asked and wanted to go but felt like I couldn't because I was not invited.  I could have gone and joined the church in Fort Collins (so glad I didn't!)  I don't remember pressure on people to go or not -- uncharacteristically for the church but they left it up to them as I recall.  It was a long time ago and I wasn't in leadership so I might be wrong about this -- this is my recollection.

[lone gone]

for years there had been summer missions to many different states. I went to Corvalis Oregon in 1977 for three months at the same time that many other groups went to other locations in the nation.

The plan was to evangelize, like St.Paul, and that the converts and interested Christians would organize their own church. This was a direct imitation of Acts.

We all came home at the end of the summer to resume school or find jobs. My wife and I had stored our things in a friends basement and had to find an apartment and new employment. We thought nothing of the difficulties this strategy imposed on us and our families. We simply did it.  We were not "coerced".... we were "convinced".

Later summers had similar endeavors, but politics also intruded. We all went to New York City in 1980 to demonstrate for Jesus at the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden.

By 1985 I was gone, but the strategy to plant new churches by moving a group of "settlers" seems like the next likely step in Acts. As the church in Jerusalem was persecuted, members moved and proselytized other areas.

It wasn't sectarian. This strategy ( again ) was found in Acts when the gospel was preached first in Jerusalem, then in Judea, then in the surrounding countries.

We had witnessed for Christ in Ames,( Jerusalem) then the state of Iowa( Judea), then gone out on missionary journeys like Paul and Barnabus, and finally had sent members to settle in new areas close to the original church. (surrounding countries ).

If you know the context, you know the motive.

[Linda]

Looking in the rearview mirror, this all makes sense.

I realize now that we were really naive. We believed what the leaders said at "face value".

For example, as I mentioned, the literature said (and still says) that our church started as a dream in the minds of two pastors. It always bothered me that there was talk about a group at the U of MN called "the Christians" that somehow merged with a different church and ECC was formed. Reading Marching to Zion, I learned that there was already a GCI church in Minneapolis that was headed by someone named Coleman (who seems to have been somehow dismissed). There were a lot of unanswered questions and when I would try to ask I got a lot of vague answers. I didn't realize the importance of getting answers, so didn't pursue things since at the time it didn't seem to matter.

We always had a sense that there was some deal about Ames. There were a whole bunch of people who came from there and had a special relationship. Dare I say, for all the talk about showing partiality, there was a definite sense of partiality surrounding the Ames people. I'm sure they had no idea how strong it was to "outsiders".

Wanting to believe the best, we just assumed that these people had all been to college together and gotten saved around the same time so there was a special long time affection. And, amazingly enough, we assumed that a bunch of them had for various reasons just ended up in Minneapolis and reconnected. We had no idea there was an apostle involved. How foolish we were.

I remember during the final push for answers, right after Mark Darling suggested leaving a local church was equivalent to divorcing your spouse, we mentioned to Spencer Bernard that there seemed to be some odd connection with Ames. As our little meeting ended, Terry said, "Do you think we are crazy?" Spencer's answer was, "I don't think you are crazy and I am not from Ames."

A few weeks later, he was on board with the Ames team and a year later, he labeled us divisive and slanderous. So sad.

[TerryD]

It wasn't sectarian. This strategy ( again ) was found in Acts when the gospel was preached first in Jerusalem, then in Judea, then in the surrounding countries.

I don't think it is splitting hairs, but Linda is correct to "smell sectarianism" in GCx then and now and to draw a clear distinction between the book of Acts and GC's imaginings. There were no Christian churches in Judea and Samaria and surrounding countries when believers dispersed into those areas. There were scores (hundreds?) of Bible believing churches in Minneapolis and other major cities at the time McCotter sent people out. Not really the same context.

There's nothing wrong with any denomination starting a new church in any city, but the GCx mentality looks quite different to me. An incipient notion of superiority and exclusivity is evident throughout the "Apostles and Elders" book (referred to in EveraStudent's comment), and in countless other sources on this board and elsewhere over the years.

[lone gone]

But the churches in Minneapolis didn't have the "biblical plan" that GC did.
It was the same reasoning used to form a new church in Ames rather than remain a college oriented bible study group.

It was the Acts plan for GC and it's message. That message wasn't going to get out unless GC did something about it, and they used  Scripture as a framework to develope their strategy.

It' s the same with business. If you are running a bread business and want to expand, you end up marketing your bread to someone who already has access to bread. It's just that you have to convince someone that your bread is different in a good way than the bread they are already eating.

[Linda]

When I said this:

Looking in the rearview mirror, this all makes sense.

I hadn't seen Lone Gone's post. I was referring to the posts by Wastedyearsthere and Everastudent and really appreciated the insight as to the Ames phenomena.

As far as this comment

But the churches in Minneapolis didn't have the "biblical plan" that GC did.

and this one

It was the Acts plan for GC and it's message. That message wasn't going to get out unless GC did something about it, and they used Scripture as a framework to develope their strategy.

are concerned wasn't the Minneapolis plan developed by GC? Weren't people sent up here during Invasion '85?

Also, who gives a hoot about GC and it's message getting out? We care about the Gospel. When you throw GC and it's message into the mix, you've got sectarianism, don't you?

I do not believe that God is so powerless that he needs GC to do His work.

[EverAStudent]

Also, who gives a hoot about GC and it's message getting out? We care about the Gospel. When you throw GC and it's message into the mix, you've got sectarianism, don't you?

I do not believe that God is so powerless that he needs GC to do His work.

The national elders (who ruled over the denomination) were the GC governing structure.  The world evangelism strategy of GC was framed in the language of Acts.  It might be helpful for discussion purposes to see those two topics (governance and global strategy) as being different topics, related as they might be.

GC did seriously misconstrue the historical narrative of Acts to be some kind of divine master plan of evangelism and marching orders for the church today.  Biblical hermeneutics was not necessarily known as the strength of the GC national leadership at that time.

Paul, of course, taught that his personal mission was to only preach where Christ was not yet named.  Today, unless one goes to Japan or some very remote area of the world, this is hard to accomplish.  Therefore, many of our modern traditional churches can properly do their best to reach their own local communities, or any community they feel the Lord is directing them to preach in, without feeling like they are violating some divine master plan.

As regards GCI, in those days, the leaders openly taught that only GCI was "doing evangelism God's way" and for that reason GCI was "the best church to be in."  In any parlance that attitude amounts to sectarianism, and a certain amount of pride.

Were all GCI churches the same?  Were all GCI elders the same?  No.  Some were more authoritarian than others, some more sectarian than others.  Sadly, we had been in one of the more authoritarian in the denomination.  Though it may have been a bit more extreme, was that assembly totally disparate from the GC mainstream?  Not from what I have observed.

[Linda]

I just remembered that during the summer of 2005, just before we left, there was a summer long series on "our DNA". At one of the meetings, they had a powerpoint presentation and there was a slide of the connection to Ames.

Ames WAS THE MOTHER CHURCH. There was no doubt about it. In fact, it was made clear that Ames was Jerusalem and it showed how all the other churches were connected to Ames and I guess depending on where they were, the churches were Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world. Was the state of Iowa Judea, the USA Samaria, and the rest of the world the uttermost parts?

The diagram was kind of like a family tree with all lines leading to Ames. Very strange.

I know Larry Pile explains the Acts philosophy in M2Z. If I remember correctly Ames was somehow chosen because it was geographically more central in the USA. Something like that.

At any rate, why we went there 10 years before we realized just what the DNA was boggles my mind. I can only say, I guess God wanted us there for a time. And, now, He doesn't!

[lone gone]

ECC was not the original church planted by Ames in Mpls.  Evergreen came along later when "church growth" principles were being applied. Church Growth hadn't been part of the strategy before then.

Ames was not the Mother Church for the US... Ames was ithe mother church for its region, the same as Columbus, or Colorado, or Kansas were the mother churches for their areas of the country. McCotter lived in Ames, but he traveled widely promoting the same strategy wherever he went to whomever he was teaching.

Remember, things evolved over time. The reason GC churches do things now are not the same reasons they did things then. Applying current motives to past actions will result in a skewed interpretation of both the past and the present.

It's nice to think that things hold still long enough for us to gain understanding. Life doesn't work that way... it goes on while we are still trying to figure out what really happened.

[Linda]

ECC was not the original church planted by Ames in Mpls. Evergreen came along later when "church growth" principles were being applied.

I am aware of this. I referred in a previous post to a church that had a pastor named Coleman, I believe. There was also a group of people at the U of MN who called themselves "The Christians". Somehow, these groups merged, and Coleman left (was asked to leave, perhaps?), Brent and some others came up from Ames to "take over" and at this point, from what I can figure out a church evolved which met at Regina High School.

In June of 1988, this group (the old GCI church and "the Christians") restructured as ECC. You would think that the history of a church would be simple to figure out, but I never did figure out why the Ames people came up and "took over" the already formed GCI church or how the Christians got swept into this. I asked a lot of people and always got vague answers. (That should always be a clue.)

Ames was not the Mother Church for the US... Ames was ithe mother church for its region, the same as Columbus, or Colorado, or Kansas were the mother churches for their areas of the country.

Again, I saw the chart. On the chart, Ames was the mother church. So, as ECC presented their series on DNA, all roads led to Ames.

[lone gone]

If Ames was the mother church to the US, I guess I would have felt more important and proud. I never heard that.

  Did the ECC DNA chart include ALL the Great Commision Churches in the US and did it point all of them to Ames?

If so, then someone re-wrote history to suit the present interpretation of the past.

Couldn't you say that it is pretty commonplace in the whole GC movement.... say the right thing at the right time ,fudge the details, hide some information, claim ignorance, and proclaim the new interpretation to justify the cause?

[Linda]

Did the ECC DNA chart include ALL the Great Commision Churches in the US and did it point all of them to Ames?

Keeping in mind that I only saw the chart once, here is what I remember. Ames was BIG. Maybe in big type in a big box. At any rate, they made note of Ames in a way that I had never been aware of. All roads led to Ames. Then, I'm remembering other little boxes of the "subordinate" churches and their church plants.

So, for example, I recall Minneapolis, Colorado, Columbus as being the direct offspring of the mother church and then the church plants of those churches coming off of them. I seem to remember the analogy of a wheel being used. Ames was in the center and the church plants from Ames came off like spokes on a wheel. Then, in turn, those church plants had a smaller version of their own spokes.

I would love to see that chart again. It would be great to have it for all to see. Anyone have a copy?

[lone gone]

That chart sounds like Amway, Slick 50, and Shaklee multi-level marketing.

 :lol:

[Linda]

That chart sounds like Amway, Slick 50, and Shaklee multi-level marketing.

Ha-ha!

[Linda]

My husband tells me that he thinks that the original church plant at the U of M was called "The Christians". He was a pastor at the time and led a coffeehouse street ministry and knew of "The Christians." He remembers them as calling themselves a local church movement.

So I guess there weren't two groups that merged, there was just one group that morphed. I do think it's weird that no matter how much I asked, I could never get a straight story about the pre-ECC days.

My revised version.

Sometime prior to 1985, a GCI church existed in Minneapolis. There were two leaders. One was named Coleman. Sometime in the mid-80's a group of people came from Ames and the two leaders left and the church leadership was taken over by the Ames people. I think Brent was the main leader at first and Mark D came after. In 1988, this group became Evergreen.

Again, how weird is it that the history is so vague. One odd thing that stands out to me is that for all the talk about "choosing leaders from within the church because that way you know their character", the leadership of the pre-ECC church seems to have been taken over by a bunch of people from Ames who no one in the Minneapolis church knew.

Does anyone know how all of this came about? Was anyone posting here there at the time?

[EverAStudent]

One odd thing that stands out to me is that for all the talk about "choosing leaders from within the church because that way you know their character", the leadership of the pre-ECC church seems to have been taken over by a bunch of people from Ames who no one in the Minneapolis church knew.

I cannot address the specifics of the Minneapolis church as I have no first hand knowledge there.

In general, in the 1980's the "national elders" did have grand authority to displace local church leadership, unseating those they did not fully appreciate, replacing them with their hand-picked companions.  That type of "super-oversight" which can trump a pastor's local authority is something I found unbiblical and distateful.  

Certainly, the ideal that local pastors are trained from within the local congregation in which they will eventually serve is a great concept, and one that was practiced by the 1st century church.  No command of God requires it to be done that way, however.  But it is one thing to embrace and teach "locally grown elders" as your "ideal," proudly telling everyone that this is what makes you different from traditional churches, but then to violate the ideal with impunity.  Call it what you will, but that action of the "national elders" was inconsistent with their teaching.

[MidnightRider]

I will be leaving my church on Friday.  "officially" or whatever.  I don't even know if it is worth it to talk with leadership
...
Please pray for me and please leave any advice on what to do upon leaving and what you wish you would've done before leaving officially or announcing your decision or what-not.  

Vowel Seeker,

You have my prayers and best wishes in leaving your GCx church. My advice is that you use your best judgment in deciding whether to talk to the elders and what to tell them about your decision to leave. You know the situation better than anybody else.

It has been a long time since I left. I met with my GCx pastor, and he brought a "brother" along with him (a deacon or elder, I think). I kept it matter of fact, telling him that I was leaving town (I graduated) to take a job. He already knew that I had some doctrinal differences with them. (I had even written a letter to Jim McCotter about one of those issues, and to The Cause about another.)

That is one thing I think I did OK on. So think about your reasons for leaving and try to be able to explain them briefly and without a lot of beating around the bush. Be specific and don't back down when you know you are right. Be careful about speculating on people's motives (e.g., McCotter's reason for The Blitz) when you don't have solid info.

The pastor did not give me as hard a time as I thought he would. Leaving a GCx church to move to a town without a GCx church was a no-no at that point. But he probably figured it was a done deal and not much point in arguing too hard with me.

Maybe your meeting with them will go well, and maybe not. If they want to gang up on you and argue you down, do your best to be gracious. There is a good chance that some of the ones who rail against you will themselves be leaving the church in a year or two.

Anything I wish I had done differently? Yes. There are a few people in the church I was fairly close to. I wish I would have sat down with them and told them why I was leaving. As it was, the church leadership got to spin that to everyone. Or maybe I just disappeared into the memory hole. I don't know.

Of course, it took me a while to realize that there were a lot of good reasons for leaving that church that I was not even aware of at the time. That might be a good project for the next few years. What baggage have you carried out of GCx with you? What aspect of GCx was good? bad? I don't think you would want to "reject" GCx, then go spread some of its poor ideas on the next church you attend.

[trthskr]

midnight rider...
Thanks for the nickname..laughing feels good right now. Haha.  I have decided to NOT speak to my "authorities" or whatever because I don't feel as close to them as what I think is necessary for them to accept my reasons.  I spoke instead to one of my close friends who is big in the movement.  I explained my reasonings, and when met with the divorce idea I almost fell over.  I thought he knew better...but I explained that this was not my conviction and therefore knew I was not sinning agains the Lord.  See Romans 5:13 and 4:15...and I don't interpret any verses in the bible to say that this is a divorce.  No Law, No Sin.  The Bible is a lot more liberal than I originally realized.  And Acts 23 was huge for me too.  I thought I was turning over tables, but wow, Paul, just wow.  And the Lord was pleased with his actions and told to go do it elsewhere as well.   This isn't a big deal.  My older sister, a Christian, didn't understand why I was making a big deal over the whole thing, so I decided not to as well.  A nice simple letter, as suggested by the website suggested to me in earlier posts, is all I need.  In an emotional state I may have said things that could be considered slanderous.  I don't think I said anything untrue.  I'm sorry for any hurt that I have caused.  But I'm not going to say I'm sorry for leaving the church, because my mom always told me that sorry means you'll never do it again.  I would do this over again if necessary.  So I won't say it.

[AgathaL'Orange]

I love your point about it not  being that big of a deal.  When you are in the "GC mindset" it seems HUGE to leave the church.  When you step away, you realize that in the grand scheme of things, it's not so big... especially for an ordinary member.  After four or so years of being gone, I can say... it feels pretty darn good.  Things in my life still have great meaning, but just not in the same way they did at GC.  

I go to confession to a priest, a personally confess my sins to God through prayer, I do my best to be at peace with everyone... and it feels so good to not have that additional GC burden of how to live, where to live, how to think, what career to have, when to have kids, etc. etc. etc. on my back too.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, and I'm nothing NOTHING if I ain't freeeeeeeeeee.  (okay... I still have a lot to lose in life, but  I couldn't resist quoting the song.  I LOVE that song!)

Aggie