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
April 19, 2024, 05:00:25 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Peacemaker Ministries  (Read 5165 times)
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« on: April 07, 2018, 02:32:07 pm »

By their own admission, GCx has used Peacemaker Ministries (PM) in the past as a third party to resolve conflict.  GCC currently list PM as a resource - http://gccweb.org/about/history/accountability/.

PM's original founder, Ken Sande, stepped down from the organization in 2012.  The following Wartburg Watch article illuminates some of the past criticisms of PM.  http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/08/05/peacemakers-ministries-true-conflict-resolution/.  I think the most interesting sections of this article discuss Ken Sande's definition of forgiveness and PM involvement in helping churches draft their membership covenant and commitment statements.  This article was written prior to Ken Sande stepping down.
 
PM helps churches implement "commitments" and "covenants" contained in their membership papers that grant the church certain legal benefits.  A sample of such a covenant can be found here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uodvRg_rsNIJ:peacemaker.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Relational_Commitments.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

One of the criticisms of such documents has been the hidden legal protections that are not disclosed to the signers.  Such legal protections are written by attorneys, of which Ken Sande is one.  The above PM document states that, "Each Commitment may be adapted to fit the governing structure and convictions of a particular church. Be careful, however! As explained in the Implementation Manual, the provisions in each Commitment have been drafted to address specific church conflict and liability issues. If they are inappropriately modified or deleted, you may lose important legal protection.  General adaptation may include the following changes..."

It has been difficult finding much information how PM currently works.  I have also not been able to find a list of ministries that currently use PM services.  I am wondering if anyone has information regarding the current status of GCCs affiliation with PM, if one exists at all.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2018, 02:39:44 pm »

I don't know about Peacemaker's relationship to GCC, but I'm aware that there are those who caution victims of abuse, specifically domestic abuse, against allowing Peacemakers to mediate for them.

The domestic abuse blog, A Cry for Justice, has several guest posts by a domestic abuse victim who felt that Peacemakers made her situation worse, not better. There's also a brief review of a book by Ken Sande, the leader (or former leader, I'm not sure) of Peacemakers. The link is https://cryingoutforjustice.com//?s=peacemaker&submit=Search.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2018, 05:01:55 pm »

I checked out the link to the GCC page and was surprised to see this:

"If an individual believes that his or her church is not complying with Biblical standards, what is that individual to do? Our policy is that a church member should work through the Matthew 18:15-17 process, presenting his or her concerns to a pastor in the church and then, if not satisfied, to the board of that church. If still not satisfied, that individual has the option to contact a regional or national office of Great Commission Churches."

For reference, here is Matthew 18: 15-17:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

For starters, Matthew 18 is referring to SIN, not doctrinal error. But, let's play along and assume a pastor was guilty of false teaching and you were going to apply Matthew 18: 15-17 to the situation.

Here is what you would do:

1. You would go to the pastor. If that doesn't work,

2. You would take one or two others. If that doesn't work,

3. Tell it to the Church. Greek: ekklesia (See note below about the translation of ekklesia. Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating ekklesia as "congregation" rather than "church leaders/priests")

Now, let's look at GCC's suggested Matthew 18 pathway.

1. Go to the pastor. So far, so good.

2. Go to the board of the church. Um, this is not what Matthew 18 says. It could be the board, I guess. Or just one or two friends.

3. Contact the regional or national board of Great Commission Churches. No, no, no, no, no. THE REGIONAL OR NATIONAL BOARD OF GREAT COMMISSION CHURCHES IS NOT THE CHURCH. ALERT. ALERT. ALERT. THE REGIONAL OR NATIONAL BOART OF GREAT COMMISSION CHURCHES IS NOT THE CHURCH.

Sorry I yelled...at least I didn't go with bold in addition to all caps.

In the GCC scenario, the Church in Matthew 18 is the Board of Great Commission Churches.

No, Great Commission Churches, the church is the church. The regional or national board is not the church.

It is telling that in Great Commission Churches there is no place for the congregation.

I am reminded in all of this about William Tyndale who took on the wrath of the Catholic Church for daring to translate ekklesia as the congregation and not the church leaders. Here is Tyndale's story if you are interested.

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/always-singing-one-note-a-vernacular-bible

An excerpt:

"But there were deeper reasons why the church opposed the English Bible: one doctrinal and one ecclesiastical. The church realized that they would not be able to sustain certain doctrines biblically because the people would see that they are not in the Bible. And the church realized that their power and control over the people, and even over the state, would be lost if certain doctrines were exposed as unbiblical—especially the priesthood and purgatory and penance.

Thomas More’s criticism of Tyndale boils down mainly to the way Tyndale translated five words. He translated presbuteros as elder instead of priest. He translated ekklesia as congregation instead of church. He translated metanoeo as repent instead of do penance. He translated exomologeo as acknowledge or admit instead of confess. And he translated agape as love rather than charity.
 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 04:03:17 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2018, 05:20:40 pm »

Going to the pastor, and then the Board (pastor selected) and then the Regional Directors (who trained the pastors) assures that people are trying to work out problems with people over them and are all tied to the pastor.  There is no equality in this, and therefore I'm not sure how they can apply the word "brother."  When someone has "authority" over another (per GCLI training materials), the relationship is not brother/brother or brother/sister or whatever.  It's child/father, employee/boss, or similar. 

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

Posts: 49



« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2018, 06:45:17 pm »

I would also add that in this case- Mark Darling did SIN, against Suzanne, Victim A and Victim C.
Three accusations have been made.
Doesn't this disqualify him.

It is an accusation that more than two witnesses have made. 
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2018, 12:42:29 pm »

I agree with you Linda in regards to Matthew 18. 

I find it odd that "god-appointed leaders" never like to cite scriptural support of leaders being called out in public places without Matthew 18 taking place prior.  Multiple translations of Matthew 18 note the sin to be of a personal nature (if a brother or sister "sins against you.")  In such personal matters, correction should be as gentle and private as possible.  There is scriptural precedence for addressing matters publicly "in the presence of all," when the addressed matter is public and affects multiple people - Galations 2:14, Acts 11:2-3.
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2018, 01:19:58 pm »

"Although confidentiality is to be respected as much as possible, there are times when it is appropriate to reveal certain information to others. In particular, when our leaders believe it is biblically necessary, they may disclose confidential information to appropriate people in the following circumstances:

• when a leader is uncertain of how to counsel a person about a particular problem and needs to seek advice from other leaders in our church or, if the person attends another church, from the leaders of that church (Prov. 11:14);
• when the person who disclosed the information, or any other person,is in imminent danger of serious harm unless others intervene (Prov.24:11-12);
when a person refuses to repent of sin and it becomes necessary to promote repentance through accountability and redemptive church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20); or, ..."

The above quotation is from the Peacemaker Ministries sample membership commitments.  In addition, Bethlehem Baptist Church used this section verbatim and notes their use of PM in drafting their membership papers.


The above is interesting to me because the GCM/GCC church I attended, Cedarcreek, noted that the pastors are the "good shepards" who "know their sheep."  Rob Gerber just recently preached a sermon on just this.  Through sessions of counsel, accountability groups, and informational gathering from other leaders, the GCC Pastors collected much dirt/sin on their "sheep."  If the sheep went through church discipline, all bets were off as far as the confidentiality of their past shortcomings.  The pastor's knowledge of the sheep allowed them to sometimes build a better case against the accused sheep even when such past sins were irrelevant.  And yes, seeking questionable information from past churches/acquaintances was fair game as well.

I don't think Cedarcreek had such clauses in the membership covenant I signed.  Do they have any obligation to confidentiality without a contract whether morally or legally?  And does this put them at increased legal liability if they didn't describe their right to break confidentiality in such situations to potential members -  "If they are inappropriately modified or deleted, you may lose important legal protection" - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uodvRg_rsNIJ:peacemaker.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Relational_Commitments.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 284



« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2018, 03:44:24 pm »

Wow Linda. It all my time of processing through bad theology from GCx I never noticed this rather glaring issue with how they had interpreted Matthew 18. Thank you for pointing this out.

And as for membership convenants, I know I signed a membership thing, but I don't at all remember what was in it. It never crossed my mind then or up till now that I may have signed away some legal protections. Makes me wonder. I never did technically "cancel" my membership. I just stopped attending. Is canceling membership something you even can do? Is that a typical step for when someone leaves a church? 
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2018, 05:23:55 pm »

And as for membership convenants, I know I signed a membership thing, but I don't at all remember what was in it. It never crossed my mind then or up till now that I may have signed away some legal protections. Makes me wonder. I never did technically "cancel" my membership. I just stopped attending. Is canceling membership something you even can do? Is that a typical step for when someone leaves a church? 

It really depends on the individual church.  Some common denominational churchs ask that you notify them so they can remove you from contact lists saving them money on mailing or any contributions they might have to pay per member to their denomination.

As you may have noticed the Peacemaker Ministries (and Bethlehem Baptist) commitments note that a member cannot leave while church discipline is being carried out.  A branch of Bethlehem Baptist, Ekklesia, noted that any member leaving must notify the leadership and let them know which church they were transferring to.

I don't know what each individual-GCC-affiliated church (you're welcome Mr. Hopler) asks for regarding notification when members decide to leave.  I will look to see if I can find any examples.  In my opinion, there is never a wrong way to leave a GCC church as long as you don't return. 
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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