Reconciliation Between Larry Pile, Bill Taylor and GC Official

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.

[Neverbeengcm]

Neverbeen,

I would recommend you pool your thoughts together with your buds here and send the leadership your questions and suggestions. That is what I have done in the past and what I still recommend. Whether they change or not, engage in further discussion or not, then I would move on with my life. There is life after GC. Lots of it.  

Sam,

I agree with parts of your points.  The one thing you are forgetting is that i have not personally been injured by the GC.  I am not the one I am concerned about.  I am not here for me or to promote myself.   I am here because I am concerned about the thousands of poor souls who have been sucked into this religious black hole that seems insurmountably impossible for them to get out of. My first thought is "How can we help them to escape" to the religious freedoms that Jesus intended for all of us.  

I know if we talk with the GC leaders, we will only get more of the same rhetoric and false teachings preached to us.  Some day, I may even take your advice and talk to them.  But, first I need to see some kind of willingness to reform and become MUCH less controlling before I can do that.  They have not shown the ability to change their doctrine to the best of my knowledge.

[Linda]

Sam,

You have got to be kidding me!

Is John Hopler blind? If he can read he knows full well the concerns. He is in a position to do something. Apparently, he doesn't want to.

I know a lot about GC. Past and present. Probably more than most newbie "pastors". I post here to warn people about GC. I understand that you think we need to "move on and heal".

We got that message several years ago. You have made your position clear.

[DrSam]

Fine. So be it.

[randomous]

I heard about this reconciliation today, and was excited to come see the reaction here.  Surely it would give pause and be treated with respect, I thought.  I was honestly surprised, shocked by the vitriole I found here.

For EveraStudent, Titus 3:10 is addressed there if you read the full pdf.  It's on page 5, in the history, about it being used inappropriately. 

For everyone else, from what I can tell, you don't even agree what you think needs to be corrected.  For some it is personal, for some it is false teaching.  With false teaching, it seems that what is really meant is that you disagree with a particular pastor's teaching on a given issue.  That's okay, and fine, but no reason to be cruel.

Neverbeengcm mentions freedom to discuss the bible (what?) and equal rights for women (nobody calls gcc a cult or aberrant for their teaching on women's roles.  It's the standard evangelical position, so just disagree with it without the hate please).  Linda has personal problems with her leaders and the process that happened, which is reasonable.  The commitment to the church thing I don't fully understand you having a problem with, in regards to some of the quotes you posted, but do understand in regards to people under their parents authority and such.  It seems you disagree in general with the idea of committing to a local church based on the quotes in the other thread.  So Linda I would hope would look at this and say, "we have some differences in how we interpret the Bible, but as a whole the main issue is my problem with the church leadership at the one I was part of and that has been the lens through which I look at it.  Now that Larry Pile has encouraged me to evaluate them on present, maybe I should go talk to my pastors again, and not keep bringing up 70s and 80s stuff that I wasn't involved in"

I know John Hopler, and he is a really good and humble man.  If he was worried about PR he would have taken a totally different course of action, namely the one he was advised to by non-GCC evangelical leaders.  He genuinely cares about Christian unity, as do all the GCC pastors I know.  Please take this opportunity to honor Larry Pile's "request that the past remain the past" and evaluate current members and leaders fairly "according to how they teach and live out their faith in the present."

[Neverbeengcm]

Sam,

I knew we could find some common ground if we kept corresponding. I know the thoughts i post on the great commission are not favorable to the religious sect.   Maybe I could be a little less dramatic.  Sometimes drama is what is needed for people to see that there are other alternatives to explore.  Perhaps looking in from the outside makes it easier for me to see some things.  Sometimes it may also blind me from the positiive.  I promise I will keep an open mind to your thoughts while at the same time try to encourage those who are in GC into seeing the light.

Maybe I could refrain form some of the dramatic phrasiology I have used in some of my posts. I will try to be as objective as i can from now on. The problem is that everything i read regarding the Great Commission and their teachings is skewed or flawed.  I will try to address these flaws in a more positive light.  I only want the best for all Christians...all human beings for that matter. We are all God's children.  But, we are all also equal.  Nobody should be told that they have to "submit' to anyone.

Looking forward to hearing more posts from you.  God bless

[Linda]

Linda has personal problems with her leaders and the process that happened, which is reasonable.  The commitment to the church thing I don't fully understand you having a problem with, in regards to some of the quotes you posted, but do understand in regards to people under their parents authority and such.  It seems you disagree in general with the idea of committing to a local church based on the quotes in the other thread.  So Linda I would hope would look at this and say, "we have some differences in how we interpret the Bible, but as a whole the main issue is my problem with the church leadership at the one I was part of and that has been the lens through which I look at it.  Now that Larry Pile has encouraged me to evaluate them on present, maybe I should go talk to my pastors again, and not keep bringing up 70s and 80s stuff that I wasn't involved in"

Hi Randomous,

Haven't heard from you in a long while. Hope all is well.

I just want to set the record straight. Contrary to what you believe, we did not leave because we had "personal problems" with our leaders. We made this clear from the beginning. To this day, we have no problem interacting with any of them and, on occasion, do. Some, not all, chose to dissociate themselves from us. In writing. We never broke fellowship with them. They broke it with us. Titus 3:10 was the go-to verse in that transaction. Larry Pile knew nothing of this, btw. Now that I think of it, perhaps he should know. Can someone pm me his e-mail?

Several months after we left, people started saying odd things to us that made us realize they had been misled by leadership as to our reasons for departure.

You see, much to our shame, we were very silent as we were leaving, having bought into the lie that talking to others in the church about our theological differences with the church would be "slander". We talked only to pastors. We wondered why no one ever asked us why we left and later learned from some that they had been advised not to. Very odd.

Oh, I'm remembering something. In the middle of all of this, we were asked by BK and SB to commit to a two sentence statement and say nothing more if asked about why we left! Talk about information control! We didn't agree, but it was months before we said anything. Larry never knew about that, either. I do believe he might want to know that, also.

In an effort to clear up our reasons for leaving, my husband blogged. Just so it would be available for any to read, should they care to. We assumed no one cared. That blog post, 9 months after our departure caused quite a stir. As it turned out, people cared. Mostly pastors who now had to answer some tough questions. Obviously, the way around that was to shoot the messenger rather than deal with the substance of the matter.

In that blog post, he clearly states:

We weren’t in conflict with anybody. It has been interesting to notice how many people have assumed that we were “hurt” in some way by the church. It’s as if personal conflict, not substance and content, is the only reason people might come to a parting of the ways. We were not hurt, but the decision was painful. We did not want to part in any way with friends. Moving our younger kids one notch away from their friends and familiar church surroundings was heartbreaking. So why did we do it?

It was a sharp disagreement over underlying principles, with what we now see as pretty significant flaws in what Evergreen pastors and GCAC/GCM believe about the nature of the Church and the leadership of it.

I disagree with your take that the main issue was a problem with church leadership at the one I was part of . Our issues were not merely at the local level. What we view as significant and on-going flaws in GCC, is prevalent throughout the movement. Keep in mind that two of the "elders" at ECC are on the national board. They teach at national conferences. They have much more authority in the movement than merely being a "pastor" of a local affiliate. Please note: The teaching that we left over was done nationally at an HSLT in Colorado. 300+ highschoolers were asked to commit to GC for the rest of their lives. The teaching is still available for all to hear. Larry Pile doesn't know about that one, either. Note to self: Send Larry an e-mail.

As far as Larry Pile's request goes, I am in agreement with him. We should evaluate leaders "according to how they teach and live out their faith in the present." My issues were never with the 70's and 80's. I wasn't around. As my husband wrote about what we learned from Marching to Zion:

"That was a long time ago. A big part of the question for us has been whether or not Evergreen and the association have truly moved beyond those ideas and toward a healthier, more biblical approach to church. In some ways they have, but frankly, in some important ways, they have not; and that what we regard as an authoritarian government style, and an unscriptural approach to member loyalty, are still not only acceptable, but part of the core values of this movement, even enjoying a kind of resurgence."

Two final thoughts:

1. Telling people to give controls of their life to an elder is WRONG. It violates not only specific verses in the Bible (Matthew 23 comes to mind immediately), but also the whole of the New Testament. In the OT, God did speak through prophets. In the NT, He speaks through the Holy Spirit. In addition, it is not a Protestant idea since it is not Sola Scriptura. I like to call it Sola Pastora. It's not Orthodox or Catholic either. Not sure what it is, but it is definitely not Protestant.

2. Asking people (minors or adults) to commit to their local church for the REST OF THEIR LIFE is wrong. It is sectarian at best and profoundly unwise. It only makes sense if you have bought into the idea that your "elder" knows best. It is actually a highly divisive idea. All Christians matter. Not merely the ones in your local church. Plus, God may call you to a different city, or country, or, heaven forbid, church in the same town!

About John Hopler, that's great that you find him good and humble. I hope he is, because if he is, he will do the right thing.

Unity is not the most important thing. Truth is.

Bill Taylor got excommunicated for 35 years for saying that.

I am happy that they have "reconciled". Hopefully, bad teaching and actions were acknowledged and repented of in that transaction. Time will tell.

[EverAStudent]

One Roller-wide Paint Stroke

Randomous wrote: “I heard about this reconciliation today, and was excited to come see the reaction here. Surely it would give pause and be treated with respect, I thought. I was honestly surprised, shocked by the vitriole I found here.  For EveraStudent, Titus 3:10 is addressed there if you read the full pdf. It's on page 5, in the history, about it being used inappropriately.“

Is referring to everyone’s postings as shockingly “vitriolic” not an imprecise and gross exaggeration, not to mention painting everyone on the forum with but one massive paintbrush?   Frankly, I did not find vitriol in my posting on the subject, but I thank you for the opinion anyway.

The Claim: The Process Was Broken, Not the Interpretation

As for GCC “referencing” Titus 3:10, yes they did reference it in their write up.  But that is what illustrates they do not understand its meaning.  

They refer to Titus 3:10 as the biblical charge against Larry and Bill.  GCC admits they applied the charge to innocent men, not that they misunderstood the very meaning of biblical “faction.”  GCC glosses over this by stating they sometimes they misapplied (“misused“) Titus 3:10, not that they misinterpreted the passage.  There is a huge difference between interpretation and application, just as there is between misinterpretation and misapplication.  

To invoke an analogy, a person who never committed murder can be charged with murder; the charge of murder is misused / misapplied on the innocent.  That is not what GCx did.  GCx assumed that the law against murder was really a law against littering and charged innocent men with murder all the while thinking the law as about littering.  

But it was not even just mis-defining the charge that got GCx into trouble in this case.  GCC repeatedly states that it was not their charge of Titus 3:10 (“factiousness“) against Bill and Larry that was in error, but rather some undefined technicality went awry with the excommunication process itself.  The process was somehow broken in some inexplicable way, but the Titus 3:10 charges of faction may well have been valid, in their opinion.  But since the “process” went wrong (somehow) the elders “set aside” the charges against Bill and Larry.  This means that even though they are now considered innocent, having gotten off on a technicality, Bill and Larry may have both been truly factious men, and may have still been found factious if only the process had not become broken.  

Referenced, Misused, but Not Properly Interpreted

GCC will continue to abuse Titus 3:10 and to wrongly apply the charge to innocent people until GCC comes to interpret the passage correctly.  Good exegesis indicates that Titus 3:10 faction is only about a false teacher introducing a set of bald-faced heresies into the church and calling the congregation to follow him (as a faction leader) into false worship around false doctrines.  Those false teachers, those anti-Christ leaders, are the faction-makers.  That passage, when read in context, has nothing to do with differences of opinion around church politics or church programs.  

Are You Really a Factious Person?

Factions in Titus 3:10 were about the creation of false cults by which the children of Christ may be misled.  In other words, GCC interprets factiousness to mean “disagree with an elder about political and program issues” instead of “to found your own religious group around a false god or a false doctrine about God.”  

Am I Really a Factious Person?

Well, if my above post can be construed as vitriolic, then I suppose I can also be construed as being factious for pointing out that GCC continues to misinterpret AND to misapply Titus 3:10.

[Linda]

Women are not considered to be as important as men in the GCx.  No women are included in any real church decision making.  Elders are all men, pastors are all men and even ushers are all men.  Women simply are not respected as equal human beings when compared to men in the GCx.

I might add to this statement and make it say, "Women and "non-elder men" are not considered to be as important as "elder" men in GCwhatever" because, not only are women not included in any real church decision making, non-elder men are left out of the picture too, while GC "elders" make all their decisions in executive session. Essentially, the congregation (you know, those people who have various spiritual gifts some of which are things like discernment, prophecy, teaching, exhortation) is left out of the picture when it comes to decision making. I guess, we have to assume that GC "elders" believe they have the corner on the spiritual gifts market.

(nobody calls gcc a cult or aberrant for their teaching on women's roles.  It's the standard evangelical position, so just disagree with it without the hate please)

Randomous, I challenge your statement that it is "the standard evangelical position" to leave women out of any real church decision making. It is standard GC position to do that (they also leave most men out of that, as well).

I would venture to say that most elder led American evangelical denominations, even the ones that are complementarian in their view of women as church leaders, have congregational votes and permit men and women who are church members to vote. I understand that your knowledge of church government is limited due to faulty GCLI papers/teaching, but most evangelical churches (Baptist General Conference, Evangelical Covenant, A of G, Christian and Missionary Alliance come to mind immediately) are elder led, but have elders who are elected by the congregation. The elders are, in effect, chosen by the members. Men and Women vote in these denominations/associations.

GC can not get a handle on the concept of an elder led church where the elders are chosen by the congregation, but I assure you that's how it works in a significant number of evangelical churches. Perhaps most.

Standard position is to allow the congregation through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make decisions about church leadership. Men and women. It is the minority of evangelical churches that give the congregation no meaningful say.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

It has been helpful to read this post years later.  It has bothered me that Ronald Enroth and Larry Pyle made statements that seemed to let GCX off the hook, which has been used as a huge victory for GCX ("see, there may have been some issues due to the misunderstanding of others, but these experts say we're all good now").  I am interested in researching how this cult managed to continue their abberant behaviors but convince these critics of change.

I like the point made by EAS: Is it possible they think that by "fixing" Larry everyone else will think this is a reconciliation-by-proxy for them also?  If so, then yet one more time they demonstrate a lack of understanding of both love for fellow Christians and a misunderstanding of the Scriptures.

This would totally be the MO of GCX--elevate "leader" type men and throw the masses to the curb.  Since GCX pastors are proxy for the Holy Spirit in their members lives, I suppose they think Larry and others have the same role in the lives of former members.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Larry wrote this statement :

"...I urge that current members and leaders of GCC be evaluated fairly, according to how they teach and live out their faith in the present."

Upon doing that, GCC leaders are still abusive.