Signs of a Cult

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.

[Linda]

After reading about the unhealthy church in Elk River, MN (again, this is not a GC church, but I noted many similarities in philosophy and teaching with my experience at a high control GC church), I came across this helpful link on "Cult Watch".

http://www.howcultswork.com/

I was struck by how many of the signs listed were part of my experience with GC.

Here are the "Key Points" the sight lists as things to watch out for (boldface) and my comments.

No legitimate group needs to lie or mislead you about what they practice or believe. I had no idea till a few weeks before we left how the leadership system worked. Didn't know leaders had to be "hand picked" by the current leaders to be on the pastor track. I had never heard of Jim McCotter till 9 years into our GC experience and only learned of him when I Googled "Great Commission Churches and Cults" because of a bizarre talk on commitment to the church for life that was given by Mark Darling.

Any group which says you must belong to their organization to be saved is almost certainly a cult. (Be very suspicious of any group that claims to be better than all the others. A religious group may say that other groups following the same religion are OK, but they are the ones who have a better grasp of the truth and they are superior to the rest. This is often just a subtle version of exclusivism.)How many times did I hear that my church "wasn't your parent's church"? What an arrogant assumption. So much is implied in that. First off. Your parents attend an inferior church. Secondly, all other churches are bad. Then there were the comments about how their music was cooler. Or, how other churches don't do church like Acts. Or, how other churches are worldly, caring only about buildings. Such pride. I now see through it. I can remember other Christians being offended at the arrogance of the mailings that implied every other church was shallow, or boring, or irrelevant. Putting down other churches and denominations is the ultimate form of disunity from a group that takes pride in preaching unity.

Character Assassination is a sure sign of a cult.Yep, disagree and we will call you a slanderer. We have it in writing from several pastors.

Cult members are usually very fearful of disobeying or disagreeing in any way with their leadership. Healthy organizations however are not threatened by openly debating issues.When you see that others who have disagreed are called divisive slanderers, who would want to disagree?

Beware of "instant friends", remember true friendships  develop over time.Amazing how those instant friendships end quickly when you leave the church.

Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.

If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.Classic example is the Steve Nelson "sermon" where he tells the congregation to not even look at this web site! Huge red flag on that one.

Legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them.Every leader should be able to give an account of why he believes what he believes. If he has to resort to calling people who challenge his ideas "slanderers", he is not doing his job. You don't win a debate by calling your opponent names.

Is information you expected to be kept confidential reported to leadership?  If so, then it's a cult.

Never-ending compulsory meetings and tasks is a sign of a cult.

Research the group independently of the group.How many times are people told, if you have any questions about GC, just ask a leader. Guess what, leaders lied to us!

Be especially eager to surf the net if your leaders have told you not to.When leaders control the information you are receiving, there is a good chance they are hiding something.

[Huldah]

A few of those things gave me a real sense of deja vu.

I would add to the list, beware of any group where there appears to be a spy network. Be very cautious even if, or especially if, they are spying on you for your own good.

True example. If someone says points out a flaw in the church to you, within earshot of other members, and then the leadership shows up unannounced later on to question you in private about "how the criticism affected you," that's a huge red flag.

Danger, Will Robinson!

[Innerlight]

Interesting article, the last paragraph is the key.  I will have more to say after I let it sink in. 

A recent CNN report by Eric Marrapodi noted that "shortly before announcing her White House bid" on June 27, Rep. Michele Bachmann "officially quit a church she'd belonged to for years." The religious affiliation and involvement of politicians has long been of interest to most American voters, but what caught our attention in this piece was the enormous amount of ink Mr. Marrapodi spilled in detailing church membership.
 
It's no secret that the American church is in decline. Statistics have belied this truth in the mainline denominations for many years. But the decline has recently been catching up to conservative denominations and non-denominational wings of Christianity as well. Now, as David Olson has noted, "the vast majority of Americans are absent from church" (The American Church in Crisis).
 
Because of this decline in church attendance, church membership, to an increasing number of Americans, must seem strange, antiquated, or at the very least, quaint. Mr. Marrapodi had to explain church membership in detail, as if he were describing Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, because most people have no idea what it is. But it's not only outsiders who are clueless about church membership; many insiders are as well. We've entered a post-membership era.
 
When I (Kyle) was in seminary, Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Church had just burst onto the scene. Seminarians and pastors were intrigued by the high bar he set for church membership. "Nothing good comes easy," we're often told. Yet, church had seemed to be an exception to that rule. Warren gave permission to make church mean something for those who longed to belong.
 
Some years later, Robert Webber, in his book The Younger Evangelicals, pointed out that many younger evangelicals—a precursor to the emerging church—were dissatisfied with the "pragmatic," seeker-sensitive, mega-church model of their parents' generation. Under the pragmatic model, the congregation expected to be passive observers of the Sunday morning worship performance. While the professionals did their thing on stage, people were by and large content to watch, listen, learn, and sing. Younger evangelicals, however, wanted to participate and to produce. They wanted to know that their presence, or lack thereof, made a real difference to the life of the community. They wanted to know that the church valued not only teachers, preachers, and musicians, but artists, poets, accountants, and engineers as well. More broadly, they wanted to know that the church valued their distinctive contributions.
 
Yet increased participation does not always work itself out in positive ways. Too often, valuing church membership can turn pastors into politicians whose primary job is to keep its members happy. It can also minimize the ability of the church to hear the increasing volume of the voices swelling outside its doors. Yes, "our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil 3:20), but that doesn't mean that the purpose of the church is to make church more "heavenly" for its members. Rather, it means that the church is to go into the world as an anticipation of heaven coming to earth (Rev 21:1-2). Sometimes the desire to participate in the church is driven by this motivation. Other times, however, it simply reflects yet another power-grab.
 
At the same time, many have noticed a celebrity leadership culture within Protestant evangelicalism. In some prominent recent cases, pastors have publicly repented of issues of pride and abuse of power. In one of those cases, it appears that present and former congregants made use of social technology to call attention to problems of leadership. Especially for leaders, power is a temptation and, left unchecked, can be difficult to overcome.
 
The church plays a vital role in God's plan for the redemption of the world. The church is not synonymous with the Kingdom of God, but it is a crucial—though imperfect—medium through which God is making reconciliation known to the world. The church proclaims through its inner life and its external witness the Gospel of both horizontal and vertical salvation and fullness of life. As such, the official leaders (pastors, staff, elders) of the church and its members need one another in order to stay accountable to that mission. They remind each other by their actions and their words that the church does not exist for itself, but for the sake of the world as witnesses to God's presence.
 
To accomplish this, church leaders and members need to create a culture of participation, production and continual input. Rather than begrudgingly accept feedback, leaders should encourage it. And congregants should be reminded that, while their leaders are as human as they are, they are tasked to provide vision and to guide the church. The mission of the church precludes everyone getting their own way. Having a culture of participation means that whatever you 'do' (or don't do) in the church, your presence counts. However it is articulated and practiced in any given church or denomination, in a culture of participation under a common mission, membership matters.
 
Note: This piece was co-authored by Patheos columnist Kyle Roberts and Adam Rao, the Pastor of Teaching and Strategic Leadership at SafeHouse Church in Minneapolis.

[Innerlight]

sorry, fourth paragraph from the bottom is the one to look at...please read the whole article.

Should sound very familar. 

[EverAStudent]

At the same time, many have noticed a celebrity leadership culture within Protestant evangelicalism. In some prominent recent cases, pastors have publicly repented of issues of pride and abuse of power. In one of those cases, it appears that present and former congregants made use of social technology to call attention to problems of leadership. Especially for leaders, power is a temptation and, left unchecked, can be difficult to overcome.

Celebrity leadership is a pet peeve of mine.  Once you become a Christian celebrity leader you become almost a mini-god, unable to be approached or even criticized in public; people will jump in to vehemently defend the celebrity against even the most inocuous criticism, even if that criticism is valid and well deserved.  Eventually followers begin imitating everything about the celeb, including their errors.  That is just one way a cult begins.

Matthew, the writer of the gospel by that name, repeatedly told unfavorable things about Peter.  Many conservatives believe he did this intentionally (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to shock the 1st Century Christians into realizing that Celebrity Peter was just another fallible Christian leader who sinned and made mistakes just like everyone else.  Such scholars feel Matthew was trying to head off a cult-of-Peter that was beginning to form, as alluded to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:12, "...I am of Cephas..."  

If Matthew thought that was necessary to do with Peter, is it not even more important to do with celebrity leaders today who are not even apostles or prophets?  Was Matthew using social media to keep Peter in line?  I wonder...

[Innerlight]

Please indicate your scripture references for Matthew criticizing Peter, or are you referring to Paul's letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 1, where you find "I am of Cephas".  That is Paul clearly addressing divisions that have arisen in the church.  It may have been cliques forming around the leaders, but that probably had more to do with the congregation than with the individuals (church leaders) mentioned.  Notice they also say, "I am of Christ", well that trumps them all.  That particular group thought they were better than the rest. 

 

[EverAStudent]

Please indicate your scripture references for Matthew criticizing Peter

Keep in mind that Matthew had the choice to include stories that put people in their best possible light, or a less favorable light to serve a greater purpose.  Matthew had so much material to choose from, having been an eyewitness as an apostle, yet he chose to use stories about Peter that emphasized Peter's fallible side:

Matthew 14, Peter shoots off his mouth and asks to walk on water, initially he succeeds, then sinks due to fear
Matthew 15:15, Jesus rebukes Peter (as group spokesman) for not understanding the parable
Matthew 16, Peter is called "Satan" by Jesus when, lacking faith, Peter told Jesus not to go to the cross
Matthew 17, Peter is in the group that saw Jesus transfigured along with Moses and Elijah, shoots off his mouth that they should make "tabernacles" for each of the three, as if Moses and Elijah were in some way equal to Jesus and deserved equal honor, then God rebukes Peter by virtually telling him to shut up and listen to Jesus because only Jesus is His son (not the other two)
Matthew 17:24+, Peter shoots off his mouth by answering for Jesus instead of letting Jesus answer for Himself about paying the optional temple tax (as the Son of God and ultimate High Priest the temple tax would not have applied to Him)
Matthew 26, Peter brags that he will never forsake Jesus, yet we know later Peter denies the Lord three times on one night
Matthew 26, Peter and the two sons of Zebedee are given a position of honor in the garden as Jesus prays, but they still fall alseep

This is not to say that Matthew disliked or hated Peter, not at all.  But clearly Matthew desired to show that Peter was just as problem-prone a human as all the rest, if not a bit more so.  Was it that the Peter-faction of 1 Corinthians 1:12 was coming into its own when Matthew wrote?  Were people putting Peter on too high an adoration platform?  We can only speculate.

[Innerlight]

And speculate we shall….

How I learned it was the earliest written record is Q (Quelle), the earliest record of Jesus’s teachings.  I’m sure you know what is meant by “synoptic gospels”, Matthew and Luke draw heavily on Mark’s gospel, which is generally accepted as the first gospel.  There are passages in all three which are virtually identical.  Certainly you could argue Matthew polishes, and both he and Luke begin to add more theology to their accounts.  I’m sure you also know it was written with a heavy Jewish slant.  Matthew is drawing from both Mark and Q, polishing his gospel in Hebrew, for his Jewish audience. 

I know you know all this…..

There are those who consider Mark’s gospel a written account of Peter’s teachings on Jesus.  That is to say, Mark’s record of Peter’s stock stump sermons on the road, and Peter refers to mark as “his son”.  (1st Peter 5:13).  I’d be hard-pressed to believe that it was Matthew’s intent to denigrate Peter in any way, no matter how slight, since he is drawing from Mark.  Paul certainly confronts Peter in the Epistles, but over Jewish Law and freedom in Christ. 

Putting it all together, I guess I’ve never heard that take on Matthew, and I’m not sure what to take away.  Is this argument being put forward in reputable commentary, or is it a secular historical piece on Matthew.   I’ll have to ask around….thanks for sharing.  I’ll have to think about it. 

[EverAStudent]

Hello Innerlight.

I think our conversation just entertained two levels or kinds of speculation.  With regard to Matthew, he wrote what he wrote, the stories factually show Peter behaving and saying things that are constantly being repudiated by Jesus or by God or for which Peter must apologize.  That part is NOT speculation.  What is the "speculative" part is conservative scholar Craig Blomberg's (et. al.) search for Matthew's motive in writing up Peter in this way.  In this case Matthew's stories are real, Matthew did write them, and the stories have a negative cast on Peter; the speculation part only revolves around the "why" of their being written that way.

The second level of speculation, the kind of speculartion I do not like to engage in because there is no extant evidence of it, is whether there was a Q or whether Mark came first, or, among the most speculative statement of all, that Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew language instead of written in Greek or Aramaic.  (Note: Regardless of the language he wrote in he did use the well established semetic couplets poetic style in his prose to highlight comparisons and contrasts--a highly unusual stylistic approach for any narrative writer, semitic or otherwise, to employ Jewish poetic technique so extensively.)  It is my opinion that never should theological conclusions be based on those kind of second level speculations.

Finally, it is virtually irrelevant whether Matthew used earlier writings to help in his composition of his gospel.  If he had found the earlier texts satisfactory to his needs, he would not have written his own version, he would have simply used the earlier version (e.g. Mark's for example).  Matthew was an eyewitness of the events he wrote about, whereas Mark was not.  Matthew wanted to emphasize events, attitudes, and doctrines which he personally observed that earlier writers did not emphasize.  So Matthew constructed a personalized account to meet his needs.  It is in THAT vein one must ask, Why did Matthew include so many stories that had Peter shooting off his mouth, being rebuked by Jesus, and being repudiated by God?

[Innerlight]

Well, we will have to disagree, as most of my professors see it differently.

Here is the larger question to the group, and why I brought up the whole article.  It would appear that the author of the article is either referring to this blog, or the blog that has popped up in regards to a church in Elk River, MN.  That particular issue has gone viral on Facebook.  There is now another site (which I won't disclose) where a person has taken it upon himself to listen to pastors, critique them (although he never discloses his credentials to do so to do so), and proceed to point out all of their faulty theology on facebook.

Given all that we know about how Christians should interact with each other, how we should handle conflict, deal with leadership, deal with unbelievers, resolving conflict and showing grace and love to all....most importantly love....

Is creating a blog, facebook page or website appropriate?  Would Jesus be supportive and proud of what's going on?  Would He see us as damaging HIS church, regardless of the personal or hurt feelings? 

I guess I ask as there are many people of different backgrounds and experiences who read and post on this site.  Are we being fair to them?  Are we building up the church or tearing it down.  What example are we setting for new Christians who happen upon this site.  Has anyone considered how this site might damage the personal feelings of leadership at GCC, regardless of their faults or bad theology.  How about people who have been hurt emotionally, is constantly re-hashing the issues worthwhile? 

Are we taking it to the Lord in prayer, asking for his direction and letting Him deal with the problem, or have we taken it upon ourselves to solve this issue, leaving him out of it by creating blogs and websites, publically taking on our church and it's leadership.  How does this look to the outside world.

I realize this is a lot to take in, and I suspect will keep the server busy this weekend.  Personally for me, after much soul searching, and I believe a word from the Lord, I know longer feel it is appropriate to criticize GCC and it's leadership on this site.  I do not want to be part of a movement where any disaffected church member can start a blog or facebook page, and publicly criticize an individual church or its' leadership.  I feel it is damaging to the body at large, and sets both a bad example and a precedent for others to follow.  I do not want to be part of that, and feel God is leading me to distance myself from this. 

I will sit back and watch the posts, but for the most part I wish you all the best, and  please search your heart, and ask if this is something that builds and edifies, or something that you would have a hard time defending, when we all give an account. 

Best Wishes!

[Linda]

Those who teach are held to a higher standard. When teaching is public and false, it is our duty as Christians to correct it.

What you may not realize is that, many of us posting were quite patient in our questioning of false teaching. In our case, we spent nearly 2 years and my husband took over 40 hours of work off for meetings with ECC elders. That doesn't include the hours of researching that we had to do to get the other side of the story as we were given misinformation and half truths from GC elders. (It is my belief that some of the elders we talked to were and still are in the dark about GC because they are told to not read any criticism of the group so I really don't hold them accountable for the misinformation. They didn't know any better. Well, they are still accountable, but what I mean to say is that their misleading was not intentional.)

The example being set in the hypothetical of new Christians who visit, is that we are saying theology matters. The gifts of the Holy Spirit matter and don't just fall upon GC elders. It is a kindness to warn people of danger ahead. It builds up the church to expose false teaching. In the end, it helps people and purifies the Church.

I am reminded of a message John Piper gave on criticism vs. gossip. In the explanation he said it is not gossip to criticize President Bush (at the time he was president) or John Piper with regards to things they say/teach publicly. He went on to say that public figures, subject themselves to public critique in regards to their beliefs and actions.

Also, I find it interesting that "feelings" get merged with truth/theology. I have lots of Christian friends who have totally opposite views of what I consider significant issues. (Abortion, absolute truth, things like that). We have had some animated discussions. I remember one time a friend stopped by to drop off some Christmas gifts. The discussion turned to politics (he voted for Obama) and he looked at me and said, "You see, Linda, you see things as black and white and I see things more gray." Then he looked at me and saw the panic in my eyes and I said something like, "I'm hyperventilating!" We both laughed, and then I handed him the Chesterton book Terry had gotten him for Christmas and we said God bless you and went on our merry ways. It is possible to disagree with people and still like them.

I guess what I'm saying is that the personal feelings of the leadership in GC is secondary to the fact that while they get a lot of things right, on some fronts they continue to publicly teach things that are contrary to the Gospel. For example, we are never to give the controls of our life to another man. Matthew 23. Make no man your master. When someone teaches that, they may be a great guy, they may be fun to have dinner with, it is not a personal issue. They simply need to correct their bad teaching. If they refuse, others need to be warned.

[EverAStudent]

Linda, your last post is correct.

Celebrity leaders have gained their celebrity status by going public with their own teachings, opinions, and philosophies.  By public I mean that they have published their personal views to a vast anonymous community of uknown individuals.  As such, their celebrity views by necessity become subject to the same anonymous critiques of those same unknown individuals to whom they have published.  How could it be otherwise if the public is to be in any way discerning?

Every book of the New Testament (except Philemon) warns all Christians (anonymous and well known) to critique every teaching they hear because many false teachers have gone out into the world.  Please consider the dramatic implications of that outrageous statistic:  every book of the New Testament warns Christians to be alert against false teachers!  How many other truths have that much emphasis given to them in the Bible?

It is not only proper to critique celebrity leaders, it is a God ordained mandate.  By extension, those who critique the celebrities must themselves be critiqued by the public, and so on.  GC failed miserably in allowing their congregations to pursue freely that God ordained mandate to discern, judge, and critique the public teachings of their celebrity leaders.

[Innerlight]

Let me be clear:

Are you accusing GCC and it's leadership of false teaching and heresy, thereby justifying a blog devoted to monitoring their every movement? 

or

You are saying in general, well known public speakers who sell or provide their teaching on TV, the web or other mass communication are subject to crticial review by unknown peers in the arena of social media or print publications, who take issue with their theology.

those are two different things. 

Correcting false teaching and heresy are to be corrected, no doubt about that.  Doctrinal differences (e.g. rapture, baptism) or a misspoken word can be discussed with civility and love and grace for all.

Which category does GCC fall into? 

[AgathaL'Orange]

Hmm.  I don't care too much what GCx's theology is because there are as many ways to interpret the Bible and Church History as there are fish in the sea it seems.  What I stand against is someone's bad theology ruining someone else's life.  It's a warning.  Of course I don't want GCx people to have hurt feelings.  I want them to change.  I'm not sure that leaders in GCx have given full weight to how many people they have hurt by having people drop out of college or not marry the love of a lifetime or to stay in a home or city that didn't fit or to have children they really didn't feel at heart they could raise properly or to not have children because they were never really matched up with another GCx person to love forever.  I do not like it when people personally insult or pick on anyone in GCx for the most part, but when we speak generally, I think that is fair game.  I wouldn't want to be the kind of person who says, "Harry is an abuser of the flock," publicly.  I might say instead, "The teachings at Beulah Crossways Community Worship Center (Harry's church) could encourage, foster, and hide abuse and I think they are dangerous."  There's a real difference there as with one you are imploring people to examine their teachings without attacking the person like the first statement did.

I've noticed that any people who have suggested this forum is a bad thing, often are heavy handed leaders or are under heavy handed leaders.  It's been a helpful litmus test to me, actually.  I've had people suggest that perhaps this wasn't a good thing and that person is a micromanager who constantly has struggles with getting people to follow him, being quite nitpicky and perfectionistic.  Another leader thought it was a good thing and I've found that he was an excellent leader and counselor.  For me, I think this forum is great.  We'll miss you Innerlight!  Enjoy your time away.

[Innerlight]

For me personally, I'm having a hard time reconciling it with my deep-seated feelings of forgiveness, turning it over to God, and moving on.  I guess it was a help at some point, as I found shelter and a sympathetic ear, but now it's time to move on.

I'll have more to say at some point, but it's too nice of a day to be sitting inside

[Innerlight]

Linda,

Please provide your scripture reference to your first sentence.  Again, I ask the question, is GCC teaching destructive and false heresy, or did one of their pastors make the mother of all misstatements by claiming that the church was his bride. 

there is a large difference how we go about approaching both of those scenarios...

OK, I really am signing off to go outside

[MarthaH]

I greatly have appreciated this forum. For years I was in depression, beating myself up and feeling as if I was never good enough or doing enough. When I found this forum, I realized that all of the things I had been experiencing were not just in my head. I remember reading and reading with tears in my eyes thanking God that I was not crazy or insane. Through the forum, I was able to find others who could walk me through my experience and point me towards resources that have helped me heal.

I don't know what other people have thought of my posting here. I think I might have moved to "regular" status. I internalize so many things and it is difficult for me to discuss things openly with people who can't relate to what I have gone through. Writing has helped me find my voice again. Still, I look back and see a lot of anger in my earlier posts. I also see more grace as I have moved forward and I have been able to forgive many people from my past and have pity (I hope that's not too condescending) on others who don't see what is so obvious in GCx.

I will take everything to heart that you wrote, Innerlight. How many times have I lashed out from anger and without prayerful consideration to my words? Will the Lord be pleased with my words when I stand before Him? Were they motivated out of a true heart and desire for people to change? I would like to think that for the most part they were. Many words came out of a heart to alert people of a dangerous precipice they are heading towards. Still, some of it may have come from a heart that had not forgiven.

On my own part, I wish that a healthy dialogue could have taken place when I left. I never felt that I had been heard by the leadership there and that they were more concerned about protecting each other than they were in protecting the flock from bad practices. Then again, from their perspective they would probably say that they were concerned with protecting the flock from me.

I don't post as much anymore. Don't know if I need to. I've found a place to be heard and I'm fine being alone with the Lord and giving it all to Him. I think I'll still be around, but don't know what else I could add that hasn't already been said on the public boards. I will still probably reach out to people that I see that are new here if they have experienced something similar to what I went through to let them know they are not alone. I'm so glad I was never alone! When I got a personal message from "newcreature" last year, I was able to interact with a caring and listening fellow believer in the Lord who gave me hope to heal. Maybe someday somebody on this forum will feel that way about a note of encouragement that I write them.

Blessings! God is still so very good!

[Innerlight]

Martha,

You and I are very similar in our feelings.  Please understand, if it is cathartic for anyone who reads these posts, well I'm thankful for that.  It has been a help and blessing for me as well.  I truly have enjoyed the back and forth. 

What deeply concerns me is that a new christian could stumble on this and his faith being weaker, and seeing the back and forth, walk away even more confused.  I want no part of that.  It may have happened, and we don't know it.  What does this express to the outside world?   

The bigger danger is a precedent for any dissatisfied member of any church, rather than working through the issue (Matthew 18), starts a blog, and proceeds to tell their side of the story.  The biblical mandate is for the offended parties to work it out, privately, witnesses, and involving the church.  Unity and love take precedence, not blogs and whispers.  Forgiveness and turning it over to God the final course. 

I stand by my decision.  I feel I can no longer defend this to my Lord.       

[Linda]

Innerlight,

James 3:1 (Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness) is the verse I was referring to.

Yes, I am accusing GC of false teaching. No, I don't monitor their every movement and blog about it.

There is a big difference between a personal offense that needs to be forgiven (Matthew 18 applies here) and a false teaching that needs to be corrected (Matthew 18 does not apply here).

False teaching should be exposed and corrected. It should never be forgiven.

[MarthaH]

What deeply concerns me is that a new christian could stumble on this and his faith being weaker, and seeing the back and forth, walk away even more confused.  I want no part of that.  It may have happened, and we don't know it.  What does this express to the outside world?          

I think I am in very strong agreement. If a non-believer were to come across this forum, they may find reason to accuse Christ as well. I think of that sometimes and believe I have shared that concern with a few others on the forum. Not everyone who posts on this forum is a Christian, but this is good for Christians to keep in mind as they post.

Much of my frustration came from trying to "handle things the right way", according to the church I attended. I spoke with those in leadership that I trusted in private, only to be accused of being divisive and deceived. Some of the difficulty I had in retrospect was that I allowed them to spin the situation and control the information I reported, which is what abusive churches do.

When dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ, we are to point out their faults in a very gentle and loving way, being fully aware of the log in our own eye and doing it with a humbleness of heart. I told a friend of my frustrations. They in turn encouraged me to speak with a leader in private. The leader listened at first, but then turned on me and several others. We didn't gossip. We tried to handle things the way we were taught in Matthew 18:15-17. That passage was drilled into my head through the pulpit, leadership conferences and leadership programs etc.

I do believe now that appointing elders is a very sobering task. They have a tremendous responsibility to teach the word of God accurately. They are held to a different standard. Paul gave Timothy specific instructions to show respect to elders, but also direction on how to keep them in check (slightly different from Matthew 18). I Timothy 5:17-20 says, "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.[/u][/b]"

Here we see that we are to give honor to those who preach and teach (which I may add is the primary duty of an elder and not evangelism). If there is a legitimate charge, there must be evidence from witnesses, and if the behavior persists, the elders are to be publicly rebuked! What has angered me so much is that there have been so many witnesses to these charges. However, in the system which we were fed, the evidence of multiple people was never allowed to come forward. The people were controlled by fear and the information itself was controlled because we approached them one by one...and we were dispensed of one by one  

If I could go back, I would publicly rebuke the elders out of love for the church. I cannot as I am no longer welcome in the doors. I have tried to tactfully raise concerns here. Again, I am in agreement with you, Innerlight, in that I am weighing how effective it is to post on the forum. I will say that occasionally I hear of a person who is struggling (either through the forum or facebook and the like) and the Lord moves me to pray for them. I have truly found that the Lord delivers better than any of my letters can. God brings people to my mind every day, and I pray for them that they would be brought to a place where they can grow closer to Him and know Him better in grace and freedom and with abounding joy! By His grace, many have walked away from the bondage they experienced

Thanks for your encouragement to seek to please the Lord first!