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
September 29, 2020, 10:49:54 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My understanding of the Great (C)ommission:  (Read 36508 times)
Neverbeengcm
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« on: January 27, 2012, 01:10:41 pm »

The Great (C)ommission was an idea Jim McCotter came up with and several other people helped make more popular. They picked and chose specific parts of the scripture that suited their needs.  They omitted sentences/parts in those same Bible verses that didn’t support their needs or intended message in their sermons. The plan was brilliant:

1 – They came up with creative interpretations of parts of the New Testament that gave power to only a few people in the church (the leaders, pastors and elders). They called themselves leaders (nobody else gave them that power), they hinted that they were Apostles (sometimes directly stated this) and practiced preaching this creative doctrine until they became good at it. These guys were at the top of their pyramid scheme and benefitted the most from it.

2 – Most men have one need that is primarily stronger than all others.  Men want sex from women!  Jim and his crew used that need to their advantage. They had their pastors/leaders preach that women are to serve men(they call it submitting).  That way the women in their church will feel that they must “submit” to their husbands at their husband’s whim.  What guy wouldn’t want that (secretly)? The men were getting all the sex they wanted because the Bible teaches women that they have to submit (according to McCotter).    Now they had the men with substantially more power over the women in their homes.  The men were not likely to rebel against that.

3 – They found the most likely group to be brainwashed.  The target group for their new pyramid scheme was 18 year old kids who were lonely freshmen in college.  Most of these kids had recently left their homes for the first time.  They were looking for some way to fit in with something at school. If you get 1% of the new students at a college with 20,000 students you now have 200 kids to use to recruit other kids. McCotter and crew made it seem like a good Christian youth group…with some cruel selfish twists…very clever.

4 -They went after a few good looking young religious minded girls.  These young beautiful college aged girls were to be used to recruit more young men by having them up front in the recruiting efforts.  These girls were visually seen but their words were not as important as the words of the leaders.  They were only used for advertising to get young men interested. The young men who bit on the possibility of getting these pretty women were used to get the attention of more young women and vice-versa.

5 - Once they had enough kid’s attention, a few parties were planned with some kind of seemingly harmless activities. Each party had some kind of prayer or bible lesson attached to it.  After a few parties, the kids became more comfortable with McCotter’s Bible because of the continued repetition at these social gatherings.

6 – Now the heavy brainwashing could take place.  McCotter’s crew led some activities where kids were taught to get “pumped up” on Jesus. Soon, these young 18-20 year old kids had their daily schedules planned by the church. Every night had some religious purpose and it was all in the name of Jesus.  They were slowly and subtly taught the rules according to McCotter.  The women, over time, were eventually brainwashed into believing that God wanted them to “submit” to men and that their primary purpose was to bear and raise children. The men (and everyone else) had to “submit” to the church leaders.  It was in the Bible.  We have to follow what it says in the Bible…right?  These same kids were used to get money for the church. Undoubtedly, Part of the take may have found its way to McCotter and company.

7 – Married couples would have their nights planned as well.  Daily bible and religious functions were the rule. Family time and time with non GCx people was limited by this scheduling. Only married people were allowed to have a “date night”.  Single people had a responsibility to pray daily and to avoid the “sins of the flesh”.  Dating was not permitted unless it was OK’d by a church leader and only within the members of the cult.  Dating was only for the purpose of marriage.  The rules of dating were quite strict.  Sex was saved for marriage so that the men in the group would have virgins as wives.  Flirting with members of the opposite sex was prohibited unless the couple had permission to date.  Personally intrusive rules were given for things to do while dating.  Even sex positions were discussed by church leaders to members of the flock.

8 – Bible passages were interpreted to say that everyone had a responsibility to report members of the church who talked about disagreeing with the “McCotter Doctrine”. This dissention was to be met with leaders having guilt sessions and late night prayer sessions with anyone who questioned the word of the leaders. Everyone was supposed to spy on everyone.  That way anyone who would question the twisted teachings would be met with a penalty.  If a person did not “submit” to the church leaders, they would be excommunicated or shunned.  This penalty helped control the flock.

The methods used by McCotter are still used today. Parts of the Bible that go against GC teachings are Omitted (Great Omisson) from teachings by leaders.  Nobody in the GC is allowed to question what the leaders say or do. Shunning still happens if you escape from the church.  There still are thousands of college kids who have their daily schedules controlled by power-hungry church leaders. The church intrudes on the personal lives of family members.  People who don’t “submit” to the church doctrine are faced with penalties (including late night visits, shunning by the church members and public emotional floggings).

Is this somewhat correct?  What do you think?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 05:16:34 pm by Neverbeengcm » Logged

In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2012, 01:28:37 pm »

Wow, well when you put it that way! Yes, it does sound right.  I do think that they didn't just want abstinence for the men's sake, I think they do believe that is best.  I also never heard any talk about sex positions (I don't think, anyway).  But other than that, yeah I think you nailed it pretty good.
Logged

Glad to be free.
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2012, 02:03:54 pm »



This is what was written by Linda's husband on his blog.   http://www.tmdugan.blogspot.com/2006/06/church-what-is-essential-mere-church.html

I have copied some excerpts here,  the bold choices are my emphasis to show only one thing..... that Evergreen Church as a stand in for all Great Commission churches  are not as bad as the insinuations of the Original Post.


Please read the entire post by Mr. Dugan so that you are not misled by my choice of excerpts.  Read and compare with the description provided in the original post and judge for yourselves.
Quote

I am not saying that Evergreen pastors are all proud men. I still count some of them as my friends (at least until this post) and would not want to be so strident and insulting as that. The same holds true for membersIt has been observed that organizations in their corporate existence develop personalities of their own—characteristics and a culture that aren’t necessarily represented perfectly by any one individual.

It seems to me that what has developed in Great Commission Churches, and the pitfall the GCM and GCC movement has been unable to climb out of, is essentially a kind of pride. Specifically, a misunderstanding of the nature of biblical leadership and of the church as the Body of Christ. It has resulted in an unduly elevated position of elders and in some cases heavy handed and controlling leadership. It has by its official structure excluded the congregation from it’s biblical role, and has produced a competitive system of leadership ambition inconsistent with true humility and grace. And then, from this leadership ethos flows a kind of exclusivism, elitism and exaggerated expectation of organization loyalty that seems to us unhealthy. So while the Gospel is preached[/font], and much good comes from it, something is seriously missing—as a church.

But, on the other hand the church participated with Billy Graham’s crusade and with Promise Keepers, so we gave it the benefit of the doubt.


There was some questionable biblical interpretation that concerned us, scripture twisting—bending a text out of shape to support a practice. One talk that really bothered us was a particularly unsound exposition of Proverbs in support of the Evergreen seeker strategy of “making Christ attractive.” Proverbs’ “Wisdom sending out her maidens” was offered as the basis for using attractive girls on the stage in the worship team. We heard it on a Friday, couldn’t believe our ears, came back Sunday and it was not repeated.

We overlooked a lot of things because there were so many things we were impressed by. Who could not like the music, the energy, the growing crowds of young families and singles, the emphasis on evangelism? And to be fair, we met some very nice people whom we still count as friends. Not the least, we ended up “acquiring” a wonderful son-in-law!



The beginning of Great Commission (The Blitz) was marked by aggressive, successful outreach on a number of college campuses across the country. Founder Jim McCotter was a charismatic and influential evangelist who along with a handful of co-workers recruited a sizeable following in a few short years. The blessing of God was on these young people as they witnessed boldly for the Lord in the early 70s.

According to Pile, it was a little later when “assemblies” began to organize that some dark clouds began to form around the ideas of leadership, authority, and the Body of Christ. His account of what followed includes story after story of excesses, excommunications (in one case, from the worldwide Body of Christ!), and errant teaching around the theme of Our Strategy, Authority, Our Cause and so on. The founder seems to have exercised a controlling style and formed a sort of theology of it culminating in his book co-authored with Dennis Clark, Leadership: Apostles and Elders 1984

There was indeed a statement of apology in 1991 (I now have a copy) including many of the afore-mentioned issues—prideful attitude, elitism, harsh discipline, misapplication of scripture, misuse of authority. It was done in consultation with men from Wellspring. It was genuinely intended, I’m sure, to clear up the damaged reputation of the movement. It was a step in the right direction.
  Our conclusion was this: The fruit here was mixed. There were some good things happening in ministry, there was real skill and resourcefulness in speaking to the unchurched, but the unhealthy church legacy continued.

What is the Great Commission church leadership legacy? There are impressions and there are facts. People can debate whether they feel “controlled” or not, whether they sense an attitude of pride and whether the heavy-handedness of the early years is still around. Many would say none of those things are, others will tell you they have left the group for those very reasons.

What are not debatable are the quantitative facts about governance. Remember, every decision, including strategy decisions, staffing decisions, and the way in which every penny of church money is spent, is left finally in the hands of the pastors. There is a trustee board overseeing money—a fact which is offered as assurance that there is safety and objective oversight. But remember that this board consists of pastors, office staff and pastor-chosen members. As dull and seemingly unimportant a subject as it is, church government matters. If for no other reason than that it reveals the actual view of the body of Christ that the organization holds. It’s sort of a barometer.

Here the congregation has no authority in the selection process of elders and trustees. Final authority rests in the board of elders, which is the pastors. These men have been chosen (with the exception of the first two who were appointed by somebody in Ames) by one another. Yes, the congregation is invited to offer input prior to installation, but the decision is made by the existing pastors (and, of course, the decision whether to even open a position and hire somebody).



This is extreme, but this is what I think. In Great Commission, what is going on besides the Gospel, what taints, twists and colors all that is done, is a prideful, worldly, hierarchical view of leadership and an underdeveloped concept of the body of Christ.    While all the good work and service and proclamation of the Gospel goes on, it persists in the culture of the organization and tangibly in its structure and governance.

Evergreeners are not bad people, or even bad Christians. Some are our dearest friends. In fact, there are many intelligent, wonderful people there
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2424



« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2012, 02:13:29 pm »

Quote from: lonegone
I have copied some excerpts here,  the bold choices are my emphasis to show only one thing..... that Evergreen Church as a stand in for all Great Commission churches  are not as bad as the insinuations of the Original Post.

Ummmm, you took my husband's post out of context and missed the point, Lone Gone. Wow, didn't expect that.

His point was that they presented themselves as main stream when, in fact, there was some pretty bad/unsound stuff that was hidden from the average attender.

Why didn't you highlight this?
In Great Commission, what is going on besides the Gospel, what taints, twists and colors all that is done, is a prideful, worldly, hierarchical view of leadership and an underdeveloped concept of the body of Christ.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 02:27:11 pm by Linda » Logged

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

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2012, 02:55:19 pm »

Linda,

I made it plain that I was posting excerpts.  I encouraged everyone to read his blog to make sure I wasn't distorting  anything.

I posted what your husband said about the people in Evergreen church,  that they were Christians, proclaimed the Gospel, did good works, shared missions with other Christian para-church groups, and were pretty good all round people.

I did not highlight what you did because my aim was different. I could have NOT posted what you highlighted but in the interests of the truth, I included it.

Would you have your husband read what was posted  by NeverbeenGCM and let you know if he feels it is accurate and fair in light of all that has happened since 2006?

I am not encouraging people to attend a GCM church, I am not defending their errors, I am not excusing their pride.....No matter what anyone says to the contrary.

Logged
Neverbeengcm
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2012, 03:04:46 pm »

Just for the record, I personally know people who have escaped GC churches and some who are still in GC churches.  Part of my thoughts in the original post includes things these folks have led me to believe are true and part of this post includes things I have surmised by researching.  I have listened to some babble by GC pastors online to see what people are talking about.  GC pastors do still want wives to submit to their husbands.  GC pastors still do teach their members to sumbit every part of their lives to GC leaders becasue they want them to believe that Jesus told us we have to do so (a real stretch of the truth).

The last paragraph includes the things I have been told by those who are still in the cult.  The GC does still control their daily lives, women are still 2nd class members in GC churches, shunnng is still practiced on those who leave the church, college kids have their personal lives scheduled to meet the needs of the church, personal rights are left on the wayside, women are still taught to submit to men, people still spy on each other to please the pastor/leaders...The list goes on and on....  

« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 03:15:28 pm by Neverbeengcm » Logged

In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
TerryD
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2012, 04:16:36 pm »

Yes, Lone Gone, you have indeed manipulated and colored the intent of my 2006 blog post here with your selections and bold-facing. But thank you for recommending that people read all of it. If they can bear to do that (it's long) they will not conclude that I was ambivalent on the goodness or legitimacy of the GCx system or of my local branch.

I don't think anybody has said that every single thing these churches do is in error, just that when you get beneath the "normal" surface, and back into the history of what they believe and teach, it's not normal at all. Sure, many folks there had good intentions and some of the things they did many evangelicals would say they did pretty well.

Nor do I believe anybody has said that all of the members are bad people. There are many good, well-intentioned people who for reasons unknown and increasingly baffling to me seem to live in the thrall of that organization. Some of them are friends of mine.

In my post, I'm chronicling a gradual, growing awareness, over time, that led me first to wonder if, and then to conclude that the group was not what it seemed; that it was seriously flawed and even dangerous.

I think I also chose contrast (surface vs. beneath the surface, seemingly normal vs. abnormal) as a way to more gently address some people whom I believed also needed to look beneath the surface, and perhaps better understand our decision to leave, should they have been wondering about it. As it turned out, very few people seemed to care one way or another.

By the way, that post was written 5+ years ago, within a year of our departure. Much more about the group and its history have become evident since then, confirming and corroborating things that were then not as clear.

So, if I had it to do over I'd probably do it differently. I'd make it a lot shorter, for one thing.Smiley I'd spend less time trying to be gentle and positive (that approach, as it turned out, accomplished nothing), and get straight to the point. And what was the point? Again:

In Great Commission, what is going on besides the Gospel, what taints, twists and colors all that is done, is a prideful, worldly, hierarchical view of leadership and an underdeveloped concept of the body of Christ.

And you know what? I might have edited this line to say, "...what is going on besides and perhaps even instead of the Gospel...." It's that serious.

Nothing in Neverbeen's initial post on this thread would surprise me.

And just to be clear, I was not and am not now equivocating on the nature of GCx.


« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 04:32:20 pm by TerryD » Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 28, 2012, 05:30:27 pm »

NeverbeenGCM  posted    Is this somewhat correct?  What do you think?

Agatha posted I think you nailed it pretty good.

Lone Gone asked Linda Would you have your husband read what was posted  by NeverbeenGCM and let you know if he feels it is accurate and fair in light of all that has happened since 2006?

TerryD  posted Nothing in Neverbeen's initial post on this thread would surprise me.

Lone Gone now asks his question again....  But is it fair and accurate?

Is it a fair and balanced and considerate of all the facts description of the past and present of the movement that Jim McCotter and Dennis Clark had a hand in starting?

Here are my thoughts....

  If you distort the truth but using sensational negative terminology in order to further an agenda, is that righteous? 
If you lie about the Devil,  it's still a lie.  The ends do not justify the means.

I now realize that I have contributed to this mess by trying to promote a less inflammatory description and interpretation of history and the present. When I raise concerns about this,  it results in a more radical reaction that only furthers the distortion.  The more I protest about the distortion, the more inflamed the negative reaction is.

All I can say is that now, with this radical statement and with the consent of others,  GCwhatever has a framework to further defend their actions. They can now show facts and offer interpretations of the past to repudiate these radical statements.

The two positions will only become more and more incapable of speaking civilly to one another, because each will be able to accuse the other of twisting and distorting the truth.

I have to admit my part in this. By wanting nothing but an accurate account of the truth as reported by those who were there and involved, without diminishing any of it, nor embellishing any of it, I have contributed to a greater degree of separation.

Anything more that I say will only cause further harm.

That's too bad....  I was hoping that by allowing everyone to reason together instead of raising voices in anger and offense and hardening of positions, that correction, healing and peace might happen sooner than later.

Yes, there are abuses In Great Commission Churches. Yes there is error. Yes, there is pride in many pastors, leaders and followers in the Great Commission. No, it wasn't started like a group of criminals plotting to deceive and enslave men and women through lusting after beautiful young women and not allowing couples to marry or to bring total financial and social control over a group.   Anyone who agrees with this mis-states and distorts the truth, and once it has been agreed with, you now can promote it as the genuine fact.

The truth will come out eventually.... at the Throne of God on the last day. The deeds of all men will be read,mine included. Oue words will be judged along with the intentions of our hearts, and God will be glorified by all mankind as His righteous judgement is given. Those who trust in Christ for forgiveness will be forgiven.

High sounding words,  but still the genuine truth.
   
So long.




Logged
Neverbeengcm
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2012, 05:45:48 pm »

The original intent of the GC founders was obviously not going to work if they broadcast it in the way it was to be carried out. They may not have been sinister in every way...  But, the actions and methodology used by the original Great Commission founders are the proof in the puddin'.  The original scheme is still being used today from what I have seen.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 05:58:07 pm by Neverbeengcm » Logged

In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2424



« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2012, 05:54:52 pm »

lonegone,

I have a lot to say and not a lot of time tonight, but I want to make one thing clear.

I did not "have my husband read" anything.

I mentioned to him on the phone that you had taken his blog post out of context and misrepresented him. Then, I ran errands. I happened by his office for about 5 minutes and found him composing a response. We were both busy and barely spoke other than to express dismay over how you had twisted his words. After I left the office, you posted your comment about having him read neverbeengcm's take. I guess he saw your post and answered your question.

Terry rarely posts here anymore and his decision to comment was not because I asked him to. I did not ask him to post. I didn't even see your post till after he had already responded.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Sheamus
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2012, 09:06:35 pm »

In answer to Neverbeengcm,

From my time with the Great Commission during the 1980s...
I am in agreement with the things you listed in your "understanding of the church" with teh exception that never did I see sex as a motivation or goal in the church's teachings, either spoken or implied. I didn't ever notice the church targeting of "good looking girls". If that was happening, I was blind to it.

Yes, impressionable young people in general were targeted, but this is done by all campus-based churches. Yes, women were taught to submit to men, and everyone was taught to submit to the elders, but this is still taught my many traditional churches. It has scriptural basis, but was abused by Great Commission. Yes, the church had a habit to overwhelm and control the daily schedules of members. I don't know if it was intentional, but the results were similar to cult indoctrination.

To be fair- there was a lot of good evangelism and many good people in the church but the overemphasis on the power of leaders was not healthy.
Logged
Neverbeengcm
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2012, 02:57:06 pm »

The items mentioned in the original post may be worded a little bit stronger than some folks are used to.  But, I have not seen anyone clearly refute any of it. In fact, some recent posts even add more validity to it. Mark Darling seems to like to use the "sex sells" part of the original Gcx doctrine.   Why is mark STILL publicly bragging (after a few years) about his talk with the woman who disclosed her personal sex life to him.

Logged

In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2012, 01:58:52 pm »

In answer to Neverbeengcm,

From my time with the Great Commission during the 1980s...
I am in agreement with the things you listed in your "understanding of the church" with teh exception that never did I see sex as a motivation or goal in the church's teachings, either spoken or implied. I didn't ever notice the church targeting of "good looking girls". If that was happening, I was blind to it.

Yes, impressionable young people in general were targeted, but this is done by all campus-based churches. Yes, women were taught to submit to men, and everyone was taught to submit to the elders, but this is still taught my many traditional churches. It has scriptural basis, but was abused by Great Commission. Yes, the church had a habit to overwhelm and control the daily schedules of members. I don't know if it was intentional, but the results were similar to cult indoctrination.

To be fair- there was a lot of good evangelism and many good people in the church but the overemphasis on the power of leaders was not healthy.


Hello and welcome!  I hate to disagree with your post, but don't you think controlling who dates who and how and who gets married and when is in essence "using sex" as a little carrot for good behavior?  I mean if sex is to remain within marriage (which I believe), then controlling who gets married based on their maturity is controlling who has sex.  And using a definition of submission to your leaders as evidence of your commitment and maturity is A+B+C+D= Using sex to control the behaviors of young and impressionable males and females.

In other words:
A Sex remains within marriage.  Dating and courting lead to marriage.
B Submit your dating and courting decisions to your leader
C Dating and courting permission (counsel) by your leader is given according to maturity
D Maturity is your level of commitment to God, the local church, and your leader based on said leader's evaluation


Add them up and you have a group that is "using sex to control the behaviors of young and impressionable males and females.

Those who do not submit these decisions will not be leaders.  Those who do not display maturity (as defined by GCx) will not be given counsel to marry.  Real decisions are made and actual candidates are eliminated for you by those in authority.  There is an underlying sexual tension to all of these decisions down to the domination and control of men over women. 

Add in the other dimension that women are then taken out of leadership when they are married, and you have an odd mixture of practices that are highly focused on gender.  I've never felt more like a "woman" (in a super negative, EWWWWW way) than at GC.  I was a woman in the the barest, most reproductively focused, utilitarian ways in their view.  It's yucky.  Oh so yucky.
Logged

Glad to be free.
calgal
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2012, 04:46:46 pm »

Agatha:

I loved your post ... made me smile and even more so when I thought of this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmv3WlKa6U8

I WAS one of these girls by the way .....
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2424



« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2012, 06:48:49 pm »

Agatha, your A through D are so true.

How many times have we seen the pastor's kids get the "fast pass" to marriage and the other guys have to work years serving the elders to get permission from the elders to marry. It's sick. (Of course, those elders do it because that's how it worked when they wanted to get married. It's one big dysfunctional system.)
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Neverbeengcm
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2012, 10:31:11 am »

First of all, I want to make it clear that in my opinion, sex is something that should belong in a loving marriage.  I am not promoting the practice of pre-marital sex. But, it seems so wrong to take the personal selection of a mate and give it to a church leader.  To me, our personal lives and the personal choices we make in our lives are none of our church leader's business. Those decisions are between us and our God.

Thank you, Agatha and Linda, for clearing up part of the whole sex problem with the Great Commission doctrine.  Its one of those intangible things that we all can feel something is wrong...but, we can't quite put our finger on it until we all look at it together from different perspectives. Should we add a new item to the original post?  to include:

9 - Preferential treatment (in the form of being blessed by the leadership for dating/marriage/sex priveledge) is given to those who most blindly give their lives to the church leadership.  Those who suck up to the church leaders or those who are family members who have been beaten (spanked) into submitting their lives to the church leaders as children are given the best opportunities (councel) to get married (get sex).

I know of a few other examples of this actually happening in GCx churches. The most vehement supporters of GCx are given the first opportunity to date the best looking GCx church members.  Very sad for the other young members of the flock who are not given an equal chance to date and experience that part of life.  Very sad....
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 03:36:39 pm by Neverbeengcm » Logged

In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
coolerthanme
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2012, 10:46:28 pm »

In answer to Neverbeengcm,

From my time with the Great Commission during the 1980s...
I am in agreement with the things you listed in your "understanding of the church" with teh exception that never did I see sex as a motivation or goal in the church's teachings, either spoken or implied. I didn't ever notice the church targeting of "good looking girls". If that was happening, I was blind to it.

Yes, impressionable young people in general were targeted, but this is done by all campus-based churches. Yes, women were taught to submit to men, and everyone was taught to submit to the elders, but this is still taught my many traditional churches. It has scriptural basis, but was abused by Great Commission. Yes, the church had a habit to overwhelm and control the daily schedules of members. I don't know if it was intentional, but the results were similar to cult indoctrination.

To be fair- there was a lot of good evangelism and many good people in the church but the overemphasis on the power of leaders was not healthy.

I can tell you that today, sex is used to motivate one way or another.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard about sex from the pulpit.  Some of it is to tell men and women to be faithful.  Other times to tell that it is wrong and sinful. 

I don't know about any of you but I enjoy masturbation and I see nothing sinful or wrong in it (unless of course it becomes addictive).  It is truly the only safe sex.  But to hear these sermons a person could come to believe that what is natural and innocent is actually more sinful than actual sex with another person and that they will burn in the fires of Hell.

I don't care how anyone twists it, the truth is that flesh is weak and people will make mistakes and when a pastor preaches like that it only makes people hide their mistakes, not repent them.  It makes people ashamed and weaker and more likely to do it again, saving no one.  How can you pray for forgiveness of a sin that no one should be doing?

I mind my own business in matters of sex.  I ask for forgiveness when I need to, and I don't judge others because it's between them and God.
Logged
Neverbeengcm
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2012, 09:54:37 am »


I can tell you that today, sex is used to motivate one way or another.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard about sex from the pulpit.  Some of it is to tell men and women to be faithful.  Other times to tell that it is wrong and sinful. 

I don't know about any of you but I enjoy masturbation and I see nothing sinful or wrong in it (unless of course it becomes addictive).  It is truly the only safe sex.  But to hear these sermons a person could come to believe that what is natural and innocent is actually more sinful than actual sex with another person and that they will burn in the fires of Hell.

I don't care how anyone twists it, the truth is that flesh is weak and people will make mistakes and when a pastor preaches like that it only makes people hide their mistakes, not repent them.  It makes people ashamed and weaker and more likely to do it again, saving no one.  How can you pray for forgiveness of a sin that no one should be doing?

I mind my own business in matters of sex.  I ask for forgiveness when I need to, and I don't judge others because it's between them and God.

Thank you for your interesting perspective. I agree that masturbation is not a sin.  Most mamals masturbate (little known fact).  Does anyone call them sinners?  The GC leaders love to use sex as a topic to elevate themselves to a higher level on the power scale.  The GC leaders are mostly men who are unable to gain any social power in the general public.  The GC gives power to only those who blindly follow the "doctrine" and suck up to the leaders.  That is the only way some of the GC pastors could ever have anyone in the general public listen to them.  These guys are like parrots who simply repeat the same things they hear in the GC leadership brainwashing sessions. The whole thing is wrong on so many levels.
Logged

In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2424



« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2018, 05:55:28 am »

Quote
7 – Married couples would have their nights planned as well.  Daily bible and religious functions were the rule. Family time and time with non GCx people was limited by this scheduling. Only married people were allowed to have a “date night”.  Single people had a responsibility to pray daily and to avoid the “sins of the flesh”.  Dating was not permitted unless it was OK’d by a church leader and only within the members of the cult.  Dating was only for the purpose of marriage.  The rules of dating were quite strict.  Sex was saved for marriage so that the men in the group would have virgins as wives.  Flirting with members of the opposite sex was prohibited unless the couple had permission to date.  Personally intrusive rules were given for things to do while dating.  Even sex positions were discussed by church leaders to members of the flock.

Opening up this thread again.

Actually, I heard personally from a credible source that this was happening in some (not all) ECC small groups and couples had to give reports on their sex lives. Even intimate details of honeymoon activities were shared with the small group and tips were given. Is this true?

Anyone care to share what they know?

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Boggs
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2018, 08:19:48 am »

The items mentioned in the original post may be worded a little bit stronger than some folks are used to.  But, I have not seen anyone clearly refute any of it. In fact, some recent posts even add more validity to it. Mark Darling seems to like to use the "sex sells" part of the original Gcx doctrine.   Why is mark STILL publicly bragging (after a few years) about his talk with the woman who disclosed her personal sex life to him.

Neverbeengcm - if you're still around, can you clarify this post from 2012?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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