Slander (The GC version)

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.

[puff of purple smoke]

How many of you thought slander was "a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation"? Well, I'm afraid Wikipedia and all the dictionaries in the world have lied to us, because according to GC president Dennis Clark, slander could be a truthful statement! Here are some quotes from an old issue of The Cause (a movement-wide magazine) in which GC's elders (most still in the movement) laid out in writing several of their beliefs on this subject:

Dennis Clark, "Evil Reports: How to identify them":
What are the identifying marks of slander? Remember, most of the time it’s not readily discernible. It has no mug shot. It’s usually never caught red-handed. But it always leaves its mark. It has fingerprints. What are the fingerprints of slander? They are the effect produced in a person’s life. At the time it may seem to be only an innocent question or a harmless statement. But what effect did it have in your life? Did it cause you to love the person talked about or feel judgmental and critical of him? Did it produce confidence, trust and loyalty to that person, or did it cause you to even slightly question that person’s integrity? This is the true evidence that will help expose slander — not the exact words, or the sincerity of the words, but the effect in your heart.

Dave Gumlia, "Evil Reports: how to respond":
There are only two situations in which it would be right to listen to negative information about another believer. One would be if you are directly involved in helping reprove the person and correct his weakness or error (Gal. 6:1).
The other situation would be in the case of someone who has been disciplined by the church. In this case, you would be right to accept those facts as confirmed by two or three witnesses and by the church (I Cor. 5:12-13).
In every other case, any negative information would either be gossip (if it is true) or slander (if it is untrue).

Herschel Martindale, "Slander":
Whenever we LISTEN TO IT (Slander), IMAGINE IT, READ IT, OR PASS IT ON, we are always in sin. God calls that person WICKED, EVIL, WORTHLESS, PERVERSE, GODLESS, and AN ABOMINATION.

Larry Pile's comments on this belief, taken from his 2006 statement:
In practice this applied mainly to negative communication about Great Commission or its leaders; a double standard was followed with regard to former leaders of the movement who were critical of it or its leaders.

And for some modern day examples of this belief still in action in the movement:

Steve Nelson, Summitview Greeley, "Slander and the Christian Walk":
So, you’ve got to be really careful what you let into your ear…for that reason I am not going to tell you guys what that web site [Note: he's talking about gcmwarning.com] is because I don’t think it’s good, I don’t think you should go to it…I just encourage you just don’t even entertain it, don’t pursue it, because it’s gossip. ... I am your spiritual father and I encourage you to follow me, not these slanderers not these people who are talking against me, follow me and I encourage you guys as we are a spiritual family be careful not to give your allegiance to somebody who has no interest in your life, to a slanderer, but I encourage you to give your allegiance to us as a church as a family follow our way of life.

“When No One’s Looking - Part 11″ Spencer Bernard (8/27/2006), Evergreen Community Church:
Now, if he takes that personal opinion, that personal conviction, which the bible doesn’t clearly teach, at all, and starts talking to people and trying to rally them around his opinion, trying to convince them to think like he does and it becomes divisive. If he puts up a website [pause] or a blog [pause] that’s openly divisive.. then that’s not from God. … A person who has a heart to be divisive is following his sin nature. He’s not following Christ, it’s not from God. So use discernment.. Be careful what books you read. Make sure it’s God’s opinion, not man’s opinion. Be careful what websites you read because there’s a lot of people with a heart to divide.

Also, as Larry pointed out in his statement, the beliefs on slander were not touched on in the 1991 error statement, and have never publicly been renounced, so one can only assume Herschel and Dennis still believe these things, as do many others in the movement. I know in my GC church these unhealthy ideas were alive and well, and were used to keep critical information away from the congregation. A member of GC during the time the quoted issue of The Cause came out explained it perfectly (in 2003) when he said:
Any totalistic group is going to eventually have defectors that have less-than-flattering things to say about it, and what is said will be anathema to the group unless and until it reforms its self-image and ways.

Links to the full articles in question:
Dave Gumlia: "The Sin of Listening"
Dennis Clark: "Identifying Evil Reports" Dave Gumlia: "How To Respond"
Herschel Martindale: "Slander"

[nateswinton]

So would the next rational step be establishing a neutral definition of slander?  I found a few sources quickly to get the ball rolling:

Wikipedia on slander
Dictionary.com on slander

Does anyone know what the word for "slander" is in the Bible in the original language, or have any insights to share there?

I'm assuming that we're accepting scripture as authoritative, but are going to try our best to interpret it from a neutral point of view, and not add or subtract anything from it's teachings on the subject.

I did a quick search on the word at biblegateway.com, and I think we could all agree that however we define slander, if we view scripture as authoritative, then we could all agree that true slander (however we end up defining it) is wrong, and should be avoided.

I'm also going on the assumption here that most regular posters here are christians - so I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds with bringing the Bible into it.

For the sake of neutrality, would another person be willing to try and briefly summarize what slander would be based on the dictionary and wiki refrences (and anything else anyone might want to add)?

Lastly, I just wanted to say Hi to everybody from De-Commissioned.  I've been alot more healthy these last few days (spring time always makes me feel better!)  Hope you're all doing well.

[puff of purple smoke]

I believe slander is pretty universally understood as the Wikipedia article describes it, saying something false about someone. When you migrate slander into the realm of truth, and then apply it to listening, you are setting up a possibly dangerous system of thought control. It becomes dangerous when the people you are refusing to hear negative information about are actually guilty of that information. The belief on slander was one of the criteria the Cult Awareness Network used when classifying the movement as a cult, referring to its slander teachings in one newspaper article as a "thought-stopping technique." I couldn't agree more. I know people in the current movement who won't even look at negative information on GCM. Nate, under the GC slander logic, you are participating in slander by reading this website!

Being told not to read critical, even if truthful information about any person or organization is very disturbing. How far are we to take this belief? What if I tell a seeker friend not to join a Mormon church? Would I be slandering them by speaking information which caused them to "feel judgmental and critical" of a group of people with religious beliefs I don't believe in? What if somebody teaching children was identified as a sex offender, should I close my ears because it makes me "feel judgmental and critical of him"?

Since leaving GCM, I church hopped for a bit, doing research on many Christian organizations before deciding which to attend. The information I was looking for was primarily the negative, but truthful, information. I wanted to know about their past, and present state, blemishes and all. I wanted to make sure I knew what I was getting myself into this time. Was I disobeying God and being a slanderer by doing so? Under GC logic, I was.

As for the question about the Greek, I was looking around and I found a quote by ex-shep on the subject:

In the Greek the word for slander is “diablos” where one get the word diabolical. ... Before I joined a GC church in 2005, I hid myself in the church library doing extensive studies on slander and gossip. I pulled down every commentary and bible dictionary we had in circulation. In context using slander and gossip is speaking evil of one to the virtual point of devil worship, in short evil accusation. I have a short fuse for soap opera gossip. I find it nauseating. Great Commission has twisted slander as any negative comment. With this line of reasoning, any constructive critique or opportunity of growth by learning from one’s mistakes. I could stay in denial and false doctrine for years by playing the “slander card” If I were to have a drinking problem, the church could practically enable my drinking by playing the slander card. I could theoretically accuse my wife of slander or gossip because she tried to seek treatment for me. I do appreciate the proverb, “open rebuke is better than hidden love; faithful are the blows of a friend, but profuse are the kisses of an enemy”.

[The Clone]

Puff the Magic Dragon,

Slander can be telling the truth even if you are saying the obvious, legally speaking.  It can be saying the truth, and you being the bearer of that reality and still be in trouble for it if it attacks their means of living.  Look in Black's Law Book or an online version at:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1969&bold=slander||

[puff of purple smoke]

Clone,

I looked at that link, but I do not see where it says slander can be the truth. Here is the quote:

slander
n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.

Can you explain what you mean? Thanks.

- Puff The Magic Dragon Of Smoke

[puff of purple smoke]

Here is an additional article you guys might be interested in, this one written as a critical analysis of one of the GC articles mentioned above.

Its written by a guy named Richard Harvey, former elder of GCI who worked with Jim McCotter and other national leaders during the 70s and early 80s. He wrote a paper criticical of the specific issue of The Cause mentioned above. The article I am linking to is of him specifically discussing biblical problems with the "Slander" article by Herschel Martindale.

Nate, you might find this one interesting as it relates back to your question about the original Greek word(s) for "slander". He goes through the various Greek and Hebrew terms used in the Bible, and touches on several other interesting points.

Link: "Slander Examined" by Richard Harvey

[G_Prince]

It seems like the remarks made by Clark, Martindale, and Gumlia condemn those made by Nelson and Bernard. The term “slander” in modern GC lingo seems to be applied in a very slanderous manor. By giving a completely one sided account (his) of this web site, Nelson is committing the very slander the GC founders are warning against.

GC’s use of the word reminds me of our administrations use of the word “terrorist,” which they employ to detain or hold anyone they wish. Once the term is out there it completely destroys the accused’s credibility. It’s very stigmatic.

Nelson can use the term slanderer and instantly erase the integrity (at least in the minds of his congregation) of this or any other site critical to GC. The word is really loaded in GC lingo. It is one of the worst sins a member could commit. When they say, “slander” the congregation hits the floor.

[jehu]

Yes, faster than you can say Lashon Hara at a briss.

[namaste]

Steve Nelson, Summitview Greeley, "Slander and the Christian Walk":
So, you’ve got to be really careful what you let into your ear…for that reason I am not going to tell you guys what that web site [Note: he's talking about gcmwarning.com] is because I don’t think it’s good, I don’t think you should go to it…I just encourage you just don’t even entertain it, don’t pursue it, because it’s gossip. ... I am your spiritual father and I encourage you to follow me, not these slanderers not these people who are talking against me, follow me and I encourage you guys as we are a spiritual family be careful not to give your allegiance to somebody who has no interest in your life, to a slanderer, but I encourage you to give your allegiance to us as a church as a family follow our way of life.

Perhaps someone ought to forward this individual the "error statement" where it was pointed out that a key failure of GC* at that time was chronic failure to differentiate between a scriptural principle and a biblical command.

And more than that, someone seriously needs to intervene and take away whatever books on mind control this guy has been reading (I'm only half joking).  I don't think that I've ever read a statement in my entire life that is so clear in its attempt to manipulate and control its audience.

Yeesh- he dehumanizes participants here by labeling them "slanderers" (I can only imagine the tone of voice it was said in)- the gcm "sin du jour."  He goes onto point out that these "slanderers" aren't concerned about you the way *he is.*  And then of course, you're supposed to do what he says to do...and he even invokes love and the images of a family (and the feelings of loyalty to family) in an effort to guilt people into following his lead.

It's outright nauseating.  I think I could write a book several hundred pages long on everything biblically, philosophically, and morally despicable about that statement.

[exshep]

So would the next rational step be establishing a neutral definition of slander?  I found a few sources quickly to get the ball rolling:

Wikipedia on slander
Dictionary.com on slander

Does anyone know what the word for "slander" is in the Bible in the original language, or have any insights to share there?

Yes, can do.  The greek word where slander comes up in the NT is the word  diablos. It is where we get the word "diabolical"  It translates as evil accusation.   In the Greek it is evil almost to the point of devil worship.   If I love a brother and concerned for his walk with the Lord, then I cannot slander.  The two are incompatible.

I confess I have not researched it in the OT. If I were to join a GC church, which I did in 2005, then I was going to be prepared for that eventuality.  Oddly enough, the topic never came up.   The only reference to slander was in a passage in Ephesians.  The pastor commented on the verse and then moved on.

[The Clone]

is telling the truth slander, even if it looks and smells smeary?

[nateswinton]

there's a difference between saying "your breath smells like ass" and "you might want to brush your teeth".

[AgathaL'Orange]

Slander, legally speaking, is always false.  A true statement cannot be slander.  Now, biblically, I can't say, but Ex-Shep sounds like he's done the research.

Now, there are times when the truth could be gossip.  But I don't think you can gossip about an organization.  And accusing someone of leading Christians away from traditional, orthodox Christianity would not be gossip in my book...  wouldn't you all agree?

Speaking the truth is a good thing.  It's not a sin.

[nateswinton]

i agree with most of what you said, agatha.

i'd like to point out, though, that an organization (especially in this case, where the org. is a group of churches) is a collection of people trying to accomplish a common goal.  that common goal is (for the most part) very similar to the goal of the rest of the evangelical world.  it can be very easy to say "they're not people, they're an org" - but that's a cop-out.  would you gossip about a church, because it's not someone specific?  would you gossip about the Church?

i also stand by my above statement about telling people about their breathe.  there is a good way and there is a bad way.  we can edify everyone, even if they don't edify themselves or anyone else, or deserve our edification.

[The Clone]

In Paul’s epistles, selective, unbalanced interpretation seems to come easy, but even Paul balances himself out. He is zealous and ambitious for the gospel but unimpressed with his own work, leaning on and resting in Christ alone. In this case he advocates a rather peaceful approach to life seemingly out of character with what we see him pursuing elsewhere, but of course, it’s not:

I Thess. 4:11-12 “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business an to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”

[Janet Easson Martin]

BEWARE of This Twisted Teaching

Reading on this site several times of a "National" Leader of GCx who used to have a different view of discernment and truth (very likely before encountering the unbiblical and aberrant "teachings" and practices of Jim McCotter) should send up a red flag for us. He came right out and said he used to think one should hear both sides of a dispute before coming to a conclusion. But then he "realized" that nearly anyone bringing a grievance concerning a leader (especially in GCx) was in the wrong. Here is a portion from the well-researched paper (which Puff highlights in a prior post) by Richard Harvey regarding the serious error and danger of this twisted teaching on "slander" by this National Leader.

Here is an additional article you guys might be interested in, this one written as a critical analysis of one of the GC articles mentioned above.

Its written by a guy named Richard Harvey, former elder of GCI who worked with Jim McCotter and other national leaders during the 70s and early 80s. He wrote a paper criticical of the specific issue of The Cause mentioned above. The article I am linking to is of him specifically discussing biblical problems with the "Slander" article by Herschel Martindale.

Nate, you might find this one interesting as it relates back to your question about the original Greek word(s) for "slander". He goes through the various Greek and Hebrew terms used in the Bible, and touches on several other interesting points.

Link: "Slander Examined" by Richard Harvey

http://gcxweb.org/Misc/TheCauseAndEffect/CAE-SlanderExamined.aspx


Beware

There are grave dangers lurking in Martindale’s view of slander, and those who read his article without a discerning eye may be in for serious trouble. In the first place, he gives the reader a definition of slander which is unbiblical, unworkable, and leads to unrighteousness. It is an understanding of slander which includes many things as slander which are not slander. Hence, many very innocent individuals can be marked as slanderous who are only voicing valid and true criticisms or charges about another, which need to be addressed. Instead of being addressed, however, the charges are dismissed as slander (more on this in later chapters), and the one bringing the charges is labeled as a slanderer.

In the second place, Martindale places an emphasis on slander which is all out of proportion to other vital issues in the Word of God. Hench, the hapless individual in our last paragraph, who brings criticisms or charges regarding another finds himself being considered the most dangerous person to the body of Christ. There is much room for grave injustice here. Let the reader of Martindale’s article beware!


Is it any wonder that GCx did not really change? If there's "no problem", why would you fix it? According to them, most testimonies were exaggerated, false, from the sinfully bitter, or those who hate the gospel. Not too many on here would waste their time and energy to make up this stuff, much less want to bring disgrace upon a "Christian" group. Our motive is not malice; it is to expose harmful spiritual abuse; and to assure innocent victims they are not imagining their "cult-like" experience, nor are they "rebellious" believers.

Might they be the ones who were actually slanderous
rather than victims of spiritual abuse who have spoken out?

 

[Huldah]

That's really interesting, Janet. On this forum, we've always acknowledged that if it's true, it's not slander. Slander by definition is a lie. But now I understand why so many GC supporters accuse the forum of slander: they've been taught that truth can be slanderous.

As Christians, we are to be People of the Truth, not People of the Pastor's Good Reputation Whether He Has Earned It Or Not.

I hate it when protecting the pastor's reputation gets mislabeled as "protecting the church." The church consists of all true believers, not just the leadership. When a leader's teaching harms the everyday guy or gal in the pews, then that leader is the one damaging the church. Not the whistleblower. Not the people who insist on fixing the problem or holding a wrongdoer accountable.