Rick Ross and our forum

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.

[blonde]

I just noticed tonight our forum is cited on Rick Ross!  Wow.

http://www.rickross.com/links.html#Great%20Commission%20International

-Blonde

[Unknowntoall4ever]

Long time listener calling in for the first time here. I have yet to post on this site because of all the ad hominem attacks, impulsive critiques, and individuals that seem to have such desire to find fault with anything GCx that reasonable thinking has lost its place. I hope those hurt find their help and/or healing in Christ and move on as you're all immensely valuable to God.

On to the topic at hand.

It appears blonde either didn't exercise due diligence to investigate Rick Ross's credulity or doesn't find anything actually wrong with his past illegal actions, current position on those actions, or lack of any formal education on the issues beyond a high school degree.

Checkout his credentials: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/

I would hardly consider this any sort of "accomplishment" for those opposed to GCx.  Rick Ross even has a section for "Christian Fundamentalism".  It seems any born again Christian would fall into this category.  Rick Ross seems to be no friend to anyone religious and has no authority in this area.

I know GCM maintains a counsel of reference and it seems Wikipedia has archived it at http://web.archive.org/web/20070624005347/http://www.gcmweb.org/about/council.asp.  Of those names I particularly noticed:

• Dr. Paul Cedar - CEO, Mission America
• Dr. Howard Hendricks - Dallas Theological Seminary
• Mr. Jerry Sharpless - Campus Crusade for Christ

Credible, authoritative leaders within evangelical Christianity still support GCM.  Rick Ross does not seem to carry any credibility.

[Linda]

because of all the ad hominem attacks, impulsive critiques, and individuals that seem to have such desire to find fault with anything GCx that reasonable thinking has lost its place.

Ad hominem.

It appears blonde either didn't exercise due diligence to investigate Rick Ross's credulity or doesn't find anything actually wrong with his past illegal actions, current position on those actions, or lack of any formal education on the issues beyond a high school degree.

More ad hominem. The accuracy of the information presented by Rick Ross has nothing to do with his past history. It appears as if you are trying to discredit blonde by suggesting he/she is uninformed. (Were you referring to Mr. Ross's charges of burglary as a youth or the deprogramming of Mr. Scott? He doesn't do either any more that I know of and they have nothing to do with his knowledge of cults.)

or lack of any formal education on the issues beyond a high school degree.

So, formal education is a big deal to you? Interesting.

I think that the religious freedom watch site might be a tad biased since they seem to be Scientologists who are ticked off that Mr. Ross and others present them as a cult. The site says, "As parishioners of Scientology and other religions, we expose the intolerance, racial discrimination, bigotry, threats and violence perpetrated by those individuals in society who would use any means to destroy religious freedom."

Rick Ross seems to be no friend to anyone religious and has no authority in this area.

Again. Ad hominem. I believe he is used as an expert witness. People like Robert Lifton, Steven Hassan, and the late Margaret Singer had a lot to say about cults and brainwashing, but weren't necessarily Christians or "religious". That doesn't mean what they said was incorrect. To assert that it is wrong because they aren't Christians is ad hominem. Or, is it a red herring?

GCM is not part of GCC. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

(Also, do you have any idea what a council of reference is or what people on them do? One thing I learned from looking at that list a few years back is that I would never allow my name to be on a council of reference. They had Ray Ortlund listed on there several years after he passed away.)

[Neverbeengcm]

Long time listener calling in for the first time here. I have yet to post on this site because of all the ad hominem attacks, impulsive critiques, and individuals that seem to have such desire to find fault with anything GCx that reasonable thinking has lost its place. I hope those hurt find their help and/or healing in Christ and move on as you're all immensely valuable to God.

On to the topic at hand.

It appears blonde either didn't exercise due diligence to investigate Rick Ross's credulity or doesn't find anything actually wrong with his past illegal actions, current position on those actions, or lack of any formal education on the issues beyond a high school degree.

Checkout his credentials: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/

I would hardly consider this any sort of "accomplishment" for those opposed to GCx.  Rick Ross even has a section for "Christian Fundamentalism".  It seems any born again Christian would fall into this category.  Rick Ross seems to be no friend to anyone religious and has no authority in this area.

I know GCM maintains a counsel of reference and it seems Wikipedia has archived it at http://web.archive.org/web/20070624005347/http://www.gcmweb.org/about/council.asp.  Of those names I particularly noticed:

• Dr. Paul Cedar - CEO, Mission America
• Dr. Howard Hendricks - Dallas Theological Seminary
• Mr. Jerry Sharpless - Campus Crusade for Christ

Credible, authoritative leaders within evangelical Christianity still support GCM.  Rick Ross does not seem to carry any credibility.

It seems as though this poster is not able to see the big picture.  I wonder if he/she knows how much hurt GCx has put on individuals, families and those good Christians who have been duped into believing that we all need to give our lives to our pastors.  There are thousands of churches in the US.  Most are not on cult watch lists. The fact that your church appears on a cult watch list at all should be of great concern to you.


IF you have to defend your church because people believe it is a cult…maybe it is time to consider finding a different church home where the love of Jesus and God is more important than pleasing the pastors.

 
God bless

[EverAStudent]

Linda, your post was an excellent and well-researched piece of internet reporting.

It is too bad that the person to whom you have responded did not apply equal integrity or accuracy to his post and the allegations in it, as you have done with yours.  Such lack of integrity by that other poster is evidenced by his citation of religiousfreedomwatch.org as some type credible or unbiased reporting source.  Consider religiousfreedomwatch.org's own purpose statement on their home page:

One result of this campaign [against Scientology] has been an increase in acts of harassment and violence perpetrated against Scientologists. Scientology churches have been vandalized and individual Scientologists have been harassed, physically attacked and threatened with death. ... This section of the web site exposes the truth about these instigators so that no one else will succumb to their lies.

Linda, I hope that other people who post will take the time you have taken to check their own allegations and to proof their "logic" flows.

Finally, I increasingly reject the arguments of those who post who think they have the ability to read the minds and motives of others remotely over the internet and thus they think they are able to declare others as "unhealed."  Playing at such long distance mystical pseudo-therapy is worse than insulting, it contradicts Scripture and unleashes further pain on those who have survived significant trials.

[Unknowntoall4ever]

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Replies are so numerous I decided to post my original posting with notes to individuals in it. Linda is Green.  Everastudent is orange.  Neverbeengcm is blue.

Also, my argument was not about whether or not GCwhatever actually is a cult.  My argument was about the relative importance of being on Rick Ross's list of people he claims to be cults.

Long time listener calling in for the first time here. I have yet to post on this site because of all the ad hominem attacks, impulsive critiques, and individuals that seem to have such desire to find fault with anything GCx that reasonable thinking has lost its place. I hope those hurt find their help and/or healing in Christ and move on as you're all immensely valuable to God.

• Linda-

  Ad hominem

  This is not an attempt to negate the truth of the claim made by blonde.  It's not even an attempt to negate the truth of any claim.  It is therefore not ad hominem.  It is just a list of reasons why I had not decided to write in the past.
• Everastudent-

  Finally, I increasingly reject the arguments of those who post who think they have the ability to read the minds and motives of others remotely over the internet and thus they think they are able to declare others as "unhealed."

  Nowhere here did I declare any particular person or all people here "unhealed".  I'm sorry if you read this as an indictment against anyone in particular.  It isn't.  Please take it at face value.  I genuinely do hope that those hurt do find help and/or healing and move on and that you all are immensely valuable to God.

On to the topic at hand.

It appears blonde either didn't exercise due diligence to investigate Rick Ross's credulity or doesn't find anything actually wrong with his past illegal actions, current position on those actions, or lack of any formal education on the issues beyond a high school degree.

• Linda-

  More ad hominem.

  There is no negative characteristic about blonde being pointed out here.  Though I can see making an argument for the state of being uninformed as a characteristic I can't see it being something that is negative.  I'm uninformed about lots of things; "for we know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9).  I'm not saying she's dumb, got long arms, has a booger hanging our of her nose.  I'm also not pointing out a different belief as the reason why I take issue with her here.  I'm not saying she's wrong because she believes Allah is God or because she believes in the flying spaghetti monster.
• Linda-

  I think that the religious freedom watch site might be a tad biased...

  Of course "parishioner Scientology and other religions" have a bias.  I have a bias.  You have a bias.  Rick Ross has a bias.  Bias is not a dis-qualifier for credulity, though it should make us cautious.  I believe their characterization of Mr. Ross can be independently verified.  For more information about Rick Ross go to http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/CAN_NEWSLETTER.htm and http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-rick-ross-not-endorsed.
• Linda- Saying someone is wrong because they have a disposition to make such an argument is ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial).  (I know you did not make this statement but just thought it was pertinent).

Checkout his credentials: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/

I would hardly consider this any sort of "accomplishment" for those opposed to GCx.  Rick Ross even has a section for "Christian Fundamentalism".  It seems any born again Christian would fall into this category.  Rick Ross seems to be no friend to anyone religious and has no authority in this area.

• Linda-

  Again. Ad hominem.

  I am not saying he is wrong because of any of this.  I'm just saying that his credulity is at risk.  My whole original point was not in reference to whether or not GCwhatever actually is a cult or not.  My original point was that being on Rick Ross's list isn't really a big deal for reasons aforementioned.
• Linda-

  I believe he is used as an expert witness.

  I would like to see his credentials as an expert.
  

I know GCM maintains a counsel of reference and it seems Wikipedia has archived it at http://web.archive.org/web/20070624005347/http://www.gcmweb.org/about/council.asp.  Of those names I particularly noticed:

    Dr. Paul Cedar - CEO, Mission America
    Dr. Howard Hendricks - Dallas Theological Seminary
    Mr. Jerry Sharpless - Campus Crusade for Christ

• Linda-

  GCM is not part of GCC.

  I know GCM does not equal GCC.  One has a M and one has a C (laugh with me please).  As to GCC, it is a part of the National Association of Evangelicals, a very reputable organization.  That said, these people can still be wrong and Rick Ross could be right.
• Linda-

  Also, do you have any idea what a council of reference is or what people on them do?

  A counsel of reference is an endorsement.  If people wonder if your group is legit there's a counsel of people they can refer to.  Thus counsel of reference. The exact nature of each relationship to the organization is likely different for each person

Credible, authoritative leaders within evangelical Christianity still support GCM.  Rick Ross does not seem to carry any credibility.


Neverbeengcm:

• Your Assumption:  I am a part of a GCwhatever church -  This is irrelevant and not even a moot point as it will never have relevance to any conversation on this forum since this forum is not built to authenticate users.  It's also an ad hominem attack, a combination of ad hominem circumstantial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial) and guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association).  Let's please keep on point.  I'm sorry for how you feel about me.  I'm sorry for all the incorrect assumptions you've made about me.  I'm sorry for any wrong ever been done to you.  Please don't take it out on me.  I won't take it out on you.
• Your Assumption: If Someone or Something is Innocent it Needs no Defense - Your second statement

  IF you have to defend your church because people believe it is a cult…maybe it is time to consider finding a different church home where the love of Jesus and God is more important than pleasing the pastors.

  makes both the previous assumption and this one as well.  If this were true then we should never allow a defendant a right to an attorney.  Defending someone or an organization against an accusation does not incriminate the person or the organization.

• The fact that your church appears on a cult watch list at all should be of great concern to you.

• Does this concern me that GCwhatever is on this list?  My level of concern is proportional to the stock I place in the author of the list.  Since "Christian Fundamentalism" is on the list and three independent sites all give me caution to the author of that list it doesn't concern me too much.  Those independent sites are http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/, http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/CAN_NEWSLETTER.htm, and http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-rick-ross-not-endorsed
  

[Linda]

Realizing that this is all a red herring, here I go.

The facts are, GC is/has been on numerous cult watch lists over the years. This should be sobering to all who attend a GC church.

You began your post by saying you had never posted here because those posting here were prone to:
a) ad hominem attacks
b) impulsive criticism
c) were unreasonable
d) hadn't healed

Words like that have nothing to do with the topics being discussed and are attempts to discredit those posting here. So, that first paragraph was an ad hominem attack on former members posting concerns with GC.

Other ad hominem attacks we've heard are we are full of vitriol, want head's on platters, or, my personal favorite, what we said may have been true, but we didn't say it in love. We get called a lot of names.

Then you accused blonde (we don't know if blonde is male or female, btw) of:
a) not exercising due diligence or
b) not finding anything wrong with RR's past actions

That is an either-or fallacy for starters. There are other options. Both options you gave cast blonde in a negative light and seemed to be an attempt to discredit his/her character which would be ad hominem.

In addition, you made an ad hominem attack on Rick Ross when you questioned his "credulity" [sic]. (I think you meant credibility.) You brought up:
a) past illegal actions (not relating to cult research)
b) current positions on those actions (he regretted the robbery as a youth and said he's changed, he was acquitted of kidnapping charges in a jury trial)
c) lack of formal education (has nothing to do with knowledge of cults)

Finally, a Scientology web page would not be the place to go to get valid information about people posting concerns about their group any more than GC pastors would be a good source to go to for information about the credibility of this web site. The group has obvious reasons for misrepresenting/discrediting those posting information they find critical.

It's late and I am tired, so I'll stop, but here is the main point in case you missed it earlier. It is sobering to find one's church or denomination on a cult watch list. A person could try to discredit the man or woman who came up with the list, or a person could take each issue one by one decide for themselves whether or not the group is a cult.

The things that need discussing are topics like commitment to your church for life and giving the controls of your life to your pastor. Are they Biblical or not?

Those of us posting here think they are not.

[Neverbeengcm]

 Unknowntoall4ever,

You are obviously never going to be able to see the big picture.  I can tell by your weak and unwavering defense of the Great Ommission that you have either been in the GCx for a while or you are a pastor in a GCx church. Anyone looking in from the outside can see the flawed logic you use and the blind path of arrogance you continue to follow. It's like you are a member of one of those alien societies from Star Trek where the leaders all are insane.  It all becomes normal for those close to the leaders to see warped thinking.  It becomes the norm in their daily life. They start to think like the insane leaders. In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane. The GCx uses the same flawed logic.  If you don't believe the GCx doctrine completely and fully commit the rest of your life to the pastor/church, then you are not one of "God's Chosen few"(GCx Church members).  GCx teaches people to judge others based on their religious affiliation. Those close to the leaders begin to think its ok.  Pretty soon they are defending the Gcx to the end.

You began your post by saying that you "have yet to post on this site because of all the ad hominem attacks".  You claim to have found some some flaw in Rick Ross (I personally have never heard of Rick Ross before this post). Then, you try to mislead us into the subtle thought that because someone said something to attempt to discredit him and hint that the Great Commission is somehow forgiven of their sins.  The biggest problem is that after claiming to dislike ad hominem atacks....YOU USE PERSONAL AD HOMINEM ATTACKS TO DEFEND YOURSELF.

I am not buying into your mocking of us by your feeble attempt at trying to be holy.  You Said, "Nowhere here did I declare any particular person or all people here "unhealed".  I'm sorry if you read this as an indictment against anyone in particular.  It isn't.  Please take it at face value.  I genuinely do hope that those hurt do find help and/or healing and move on and that you all are immensely valuable to God".  Your post tries to discredit someone who you feel threatened by.  You try to subtly lead us into believing that Rick Ross is somehow evil and an outlaw.  

You want people to just move on with their lives and to stop saying things that are not favorable to the Great Commission.  That is a classic move used by those who support the Great Commission.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  What Linda said in her last post makes sense:

Linda said, " It is sobering to find one's church or denomination on a cult watch list. A person could try to discredit the man or woman who came up with the list, or a person could take each issue one by one decide for themselves whether or not the group is a cult".

How do you imagine a church gets into the position of being on ANY Cult watch list? Could it be that they do somethng that is harmful to others?   I have personally seen the abuse of power and the hurt the GCx caused some unfortunate souls who have been good Christians who have the sense to question the GCx leadership. They are handled roughly and badgered in very cruel ways...not in the loving ways that Jesus taught us.  Read the stories on this site from those who experienced it.  They tell personal stories of the of this unchristian treatment from those who they trusted as spiritual leaders and from their church provided support structure (supposed friends). You discredit their experiences, their hurts and their feelings of emptyness by telling them to just "move on with your lives".

 Do you see how that may be hurtful to some folks (not me...BTW)? I will not give power to those lost souls who do not have compassion for their fellow human beings.  I do not empower those who don't care about the way that GCx has taken away years of the lives of innocent souls in order to to stroke the ego's of power hungry church leaders. Your personal attacks on Rick Ross, Me, Linda and Everastudent do not portray you in a positive light.  You continue to ignore the elephant in the room.  The great commission remains on several cult watch lists for a reason...because it is a dangerous cult that ruins peoples lives, separates children from their parents, invades personal privacy, mocks personal religious freedoms to choose that we all have been given by God and then misrepresents the bible in order to give too much power to the church leadership.

I can see the GC has taken away from you the compassion for your fellow human being that the rest of us have.  I sincerely feel bad for you. You show no remorse for the hurt the Great Ommission has caused to families and individuals by its doctrine and abuse of power.  I don't see any remorse in your posts for the people who have posted their stories of years of pain, suffering, mental abuse, social ridicule from GCx members/leaders and then the difficulty fitting in with normal society some have experienced after leaving GCX.

I pray for you...May God give you the strength to have compassion on your fellow human being (even if they are not Great Commission members),  May God allow you to open your heart to see the hurt caused by the abuse of power by GC leaders, may God give you the grace to allow People to have the religious freedom to leave GC churches and to heal without fearing retribution from church leaders.

I am sorry if I do not use as much Grace as some other posters.  I am working on it...
 

[EverAStudent]

Linda, once again your calm approach is appreciated and your pristine logic holds up well under scrutiny. 

Thank you for posting as you have done.

Blessings.

[AgathaL'Orange]

1.  cre·du·li·ty(krəˈd(y)o͞olitē)  n: A tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true.
Synonym:   gullibility


cred·i·bil·i·ty (kr d -b l -t ). n. 1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief.

Usually I wouldn't comment on a grammatical or vocabulary error, because I make so many myself, but you just kept using it so I wanted to clarify. 

2.  I experienced GC's life damaging practices first hand. 

3.  Scientology has stopped at nothing to discredit cult watch groups for years.  Check out the CAN scandal (if you can, they are excellent web scrubbers too).  It's funny that Linda mentioned it, as that was the very first thing that popped in my head.  I make it a practice to follow cults these days after getting sucked into one for 8 years.  I now am hyper attuned to practices that could lead to more bad practices and so on.  But even there, Scientology can make some great points about the people cutting them down, and that doesn't mean that Scientologists are always lying.  But, they might be biased, don't you think?

4.  GC is messed up so much that they still tell people to quit their well paying jobs (because jobs are our idols, don't you know?), live in someone's living room and work at Starbucks, to serve a church of people several states away.  No matter what they say or what they do to try to convince me otherwise, until I see a public, coherent, thorough, humble, non-defensive, reasonable apology and refutation of the extremely harmful, wrong, and simply "stupid" practices they encourage, I won't believe anything they say.  Sadly, I have witnessed deception and I'm not falling for it again, no matter how much I would like to.

5.  For a group that so publicly endorses candidates focused on "personal responsibility", they sure don't exhibit much in their own lives.  The recent topic of Bill Taylor comes to mind.   They are still blaming him to this day, and didn't seem to show much sorrow or repentance in my mind.  *eyeroll*

[Unknowntoall4ever]

Scientology can make some great points about the people cutting them down, and that doesn't mean that Scientologists are always lying.  But, they might be biased, don't you think?

Exactly.  They can have a bias as do you and I.  There's more than just a scientologist's website to consider (se also http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/CAN_NEWSLETTER.htm, and http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-rick-ross-not-endorsed)

AgathaL'Orange (can I call you Aggie? ) I am sorry for what you've experienced.  Thanks for the vocab lesson.  I've been usign the two interchangeably for a while.

You began your post by saying you had never posted here because those posting here were prone to:
a) ad hominem attacks
b) impulsive criticism
c) were unreasonable
d) hadn't healed

Again there is no across the board indictment against all people in my original statement.  You're putting words there that aren't there.  The list is nowhere near encompassing of all the different people I find on this forum.  It's the particular people who fit these descriptions that are the reasons I have not posted in the past. Do you fit the description?  If not then you are not one of the reasons I had yet to decide to post.  If you do fit the description then you are one of the reasons.  My purpose for such comments was to set a standard of discussion where none of the above said characteristics would be true. 

That is an either-or fallacy for starters

You are correct.  My apologies.  I was near sighted while writing this and not aware of other positions.  Thanks for pointing out my lack of forethought.

Linda, sorry if you had felt pigeonholed or verbally abused here. I was wrong.

It still lacks the qualifications of being ad hominem because there is no positive of negative argument here made one way or another on this basis.

In addition, you made an ad hominem attack on Rick Ross when you questioned his "credulity" [sic]. (I think you meant credibility.) You brought up:
a) past illegal actions (not relating to cult research)
b) current positions on those actions (he regretted the robbery as a youth and said he's changed, he was acquitted of kidnapping charges in a jury trial)
c) lack of formal education (has nothing to do with knowledge of cults)

First off, after thinking about it an attack on a person's credibility will always be an ad hominem attack of the circumstantial.  There's just no way around it (look at the Q&A section here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html).  But when approaching truth from the authoritative method there's room for this kind of attack because the believability of the truth is attached to the person.  The discovery approach to truth seperates teh identity ofthe person from the idea or concept itself.

Secondly, let me reiterate that my argument is not that GC is a cult or not a cult.  MY argument is that taking Rick Ross's word for it isn't a good idea because of who he is (see http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/religious-experts/false-experts/rick-ross/, http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/CAN_NEWSLETTER.htm, and http://www.apologeticsindex.org/132-rick-ross-no-endorsed) and that there seem to be much more authoritative figures on the other side of the argument.

It's trying to come at truth from the authoritative method as opposed to the discovery method.  Logic, which is independent of the arguer's identity, does not allow ad hominem arguments and is a discovery method of coming to truth.  The authoritative method, taking soemone else's word for it, would allow for ad hominem attacks because the basis for beleiving the argument is attached to (though not contingent on) the arguer's identity.

Both methods are used every day and neither is inherently superior to the other.  If I need to buy a new car I could do all the research in the world to find the one that's just right for me, or I could call my buddy who is an expert on cars and he could tell me.  Sometimes I take people's word for the decissions I make when I do not see it worth my time to research it myself.

I can tell by your weak and unwavering defense of the Great Ommission that you have either been in the GCx for a while or you are a pastor in a GCx church. Anyone looking in from the outside can see the flawed logic you use and the blind path of arrogance you continue to follow.

Conjecture. Pigeonholing.  Isn't this the same kind of either-or-fallacy I was accused of earlier of applying to blonde?  I guess what goes around comes around?

It's like you are a member of one of those alien societies from Star Trek where the leaders all are insane.

Insulting and demeaning.

The GCx uses the same flawed logic.

Ad hominem circumstantial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial) and guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association).

Your personal attacks on Rick Ross, Me, Linda and Everastudent do not portray you in a positive light.

I appologized to Linda (see above).  Rick Ross (see above).  I'm sorry if my you take me personal disagrement with yourself and Everastudent on the issua as a personal attack.  I guess I can't do anything about that.  We live in a world where well meaning people disagree with other well meaning people.

Neverbeengcm,
If you loved me you wouldn't call me names.  A lot of the things you're talking about (the "big picture", how I feel towards those who have been hurt by GCM, and the doctrinal issues you mention) I do not address because my argument (and this thread) has to do with Rick Ross's categorization of GC as a cult.  Those discussions would belong in a different thread all together. MY simple point was that I didn't think he was a good person to listen to on the issue.  I'm just trying to keep on point.

[Neverbeengcm]

Linda,

Thank you for pointing out that the Great Commission church is on yet another cult watch list. There is a lot of information on that site.  

I just dd a search for Great Commission and cult.  There were over 7,320,000 search results. Our friend, Unknowtoall4ever, has a lot of work to do to discredit every story related to the great commission problems and their listings on cult watch lists. That ought to keep him busy for a while.  I looked into a few of these sites that came up on this search.   I did not see any one of them that did not seem to be credible.

Just for the record, I never called our friend, Unknowntoall4ever, any names(that I know of).  I called him on his defense of the great commission. I did mention some things that the great commission has done that do not coincide with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ in the past and things that are causing emotional pain to other human beings. I did mention that he does not show compassion or caring for others who have been hurt in his insensitive posts.  I also gave him a chance to show caring for people hurt by the Great Commission doctrine.  

I am sorry if my opinion does not coincide with his. Was it wrong to ask for him to try to show some compassion for those who have been hurt by GCx ministries? I can see that he is not likely to be compassionate.   I feel bad for him. It is so strange to me that Great Commission Pastors cannot ever admit that they have hurt others...only that they pray for the injured people to heal and move on.

On a final note...I may be a little bit rough around the edges.  But, I sincerely do care for all of God's greatures.  Just because I don't agree with you does not mean that I don't have the love of jesus Christ in my heart.  I argue with my father at times.  That does not mean I don't love him.

[Linda]

All blonde did was mention that GC was on the Rick Ross web page. He/she found it interesting and mentioned it.

I know of no one posting here who came here because RR listed GC as a cult. All I have ever seen on the site about GC is a list of articles/links to info about the group and its founder, Jim McCotter.

I found the site many years ago when I Googled the words "Great Commission Association cults". I Googled those words after Mark Darling told everyone that leaving their church was like divorcing their spouse and said he would "die in a Great Commission church". Talk about showing partiality!!! I believe it was from Rick Ross's site that I first heard the name Jim McCotter. (My GC "elders" had forgotten to mention the man.)

Here's my point. I don't think GC is a group to avoid because Rick Ross said so. I think it is a group to avoid because:

1.)  they teach commitment to the group (not just the local church) for life
2.)  they are a shepherding sect
3.)  interfere between Christian parents and their children
4.)  they shun
5.)  they sent a personal letter of rebuke that was written to us to our grown children
6.)  they told people to not ask us why we left
7.)  they asked us to stick to a 2 sentence statement stating why we left "and say nothing more" if asked
8.)  they teach that leaving your church is like divorcing your spouse
9.)  they tried to control us a year after we left, including a personal visit from a pastor delivering a letter of rebuke. Lovely. Just lovely.
10.) they teach obedience to elders ("give the controls of your life to the men God works through")

The "they" includes 2 people on the national board, so "they" are the guys calling the shots for all the local churches.

After all that, I do not hate these people. I believe they are deceived. We approached them personally many times to help them see their error. They did not. All we were left to do was leave and warn others.

Rick Ross, whoever he is, is not the problem. GC teaching and practice is the problem.

[Linda]

One more thing, you put a link to CAN. Did you know that the Cult Awareness Network was purchased in bankruptcy court by the Church of Scientology in the late 90's? The original CAN went bankrupt, I believe, when they (and Rick Ross) were held liable in a civil court case for the kidnapping to deprogram Mr. Scott. I believe he was 18 and his parents hired Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross, as I understand, was acquitted by a jury on criminal charges involved with this case.

Two of the links you provided are run by the Church of Scientology. They have an obvious interest in discrediting all sites that call them a cult.

Again, the main thing is to let people know what GC believes, teaches, and practices.

[Unknowntoall4ever]

One more thing, you put a link to CAN.

http://www.rrexposed.u2k.biz/CAN_NEWSLETTER.htm is NOT a link to CAN.  It is a CAN newsletter on an independent site run by a professing Christian.

All blonde did was mention that GC was on the Rick Ross web page. He/she found it interesting and mentioned it.

blonde's argument was "Wow".  My argument was "non wow" or "not wow".

Again, the main thing is to let people know what GC believes, teaches, and practices.

Agreed! That is a more important item.  Not the topic of this thread, but a more important item.

[Linda]

Correction.
You put a link to a CAN newsletter. The correction still doesn't change what followed which was: Did you know that the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) was purchased in bankruptcy court by the Church of Scientology in the late 90's?

My point again.
I don't think GC is a group to avoid because Rick Ross said so. I think it is a group to avoid because:

1.)  they teach commitment to the group (in addition the local church) for life
2.)  they are a shepherding sect
3.)  interfere between Christian parents and their children
4.)  they shun
5.)  they sent a personal letter of rebuke that was written to us to our grown children
6.)  they told people to not ask us why we left
7.)  they asked us to stick to a 2 sentence statement stating why we left "and say nothing more" if asked
8.)  they teach that leaving your church is like divorcing your spouse
9.)  they tried to control us a year after we left, including a personal visit from a pastor delivering a letter of rebuke. Lovely. Just lovely.
10.) they teach obedience to elders ("give the controls of your life to the men God works through")

[blonde]

Linda is from the Evergreen part of GCx or Great Ommision.  There is so much of a cult-minded, or hive-mind up here in Minneapolis under Mark Darling and Brent.  It is very sad that when one takes a stand that GCx might very well be a cult, that a few blow up at us.  I was trained in college to think through, logically see if it is what it is, and just do some plain homework.  So many of the younger are brainwashed at Faithwalkers.  Should I say the Walking Dead of MarkD.  They just do what they are told and not think.

GCx people are sheeple.  And if you question, like your long list Linda, you are shunned.

I wish you would share the names of the pastors who came to your house to scold you, post-letter writing to you and your kids.  I would really put the nail in the coffin for some, even the person who reacted so strongly against me and did that ad hom attack. 

-Blonde

[Linda]

Hive-minded is a good phrase. I don't like to use the word "cult" because it is ambiguous and inflammatory. Sect is the word I use to describe GC.

We only had one ECC pastor hand deliver a letter (as I've mentioned numerous times, this letter was delivered one year after our departure, so that's kind of a big old red flag). I prefer not to give his name. He is deceived and really thought he was serving God by doing that. Plus, he is a low level player/elder.

When we left, we sent a letter to each ECC Bloomington pastor explaining our reasons because not all had heard our concerns directly from us. Terry and I each signed all the letters so there would be no doubt that we both were on the same page.

In response to that, the ECC Bloomington pastors sent us a letter disagreeing with us. (Normal churches send letters saying, "Hey, we will miss you, thanks for serving. God bless," but obviously, GC churches are not normal.) We thought it was odd to be told we were "unkind" and "inaccurate", but, hey, they can say whatever they want. That letter had the names of all the ECC pastors on it. None of them had signed it. So, we don't even know if they all saw it, or just the big dogs who wrote it.

That was the letter that they, without our knowledge or permission, sent to our grown children. Imagine that, sending a letter to a church member that disses his/her Christian parents. I am shocked!

We also don't know what pastors knew about a copy of that letter being sent to our kids. If they all did, shame on them. If I was a pastor and found out that my fellow pastors had sent a letter like that to someone's children and my name was on it, I would have a little talk with the boys.