It's funny to see you say "as far as I know" in the same sentence as "definitely". You obviously have no specific knowledge about what is going on, and you have absolutely no reason to doubt. What we do know is that the US-based partnerships made at the same time and for the same purpose as part of the same strategy (to provide continuing education for GCM staff) are operational. So why would you say "this isn't happening" without any evidence of that? And then to question GCM's honesty? That's just immature. I'm beginning to question whether you care what's true in this situation, as you're making an issue about something you have no basis to make an issue about. I thought you were actually asking a question at first, but I appear to have been mistaken. You're obviously happy to make accusations without knowledge or evidence. To reiterate - you admit you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how the Wycliffe partnership is playing out, yet you act as if you're certain nothing is happening. To paraphrase a certain doctor, it's clear somebody needs healing and is willing to place a head on a platter for any or no reason. Pretty sad.
Linda [...] I think you're attributing a simple administrative/bureacratic error to dishonesty, which is a mistake. The people at NAE obviously knew it would be accepted, as did GCM, as was proven slightly later. I do think you're being a big selective in your memory, if I had time to go back and look at it I would. But not today.
Hmm...Randomous's comments aren't really worth addressing THAT much, but...back at Summitview Community Church, Fort Collins, the pastors got together and held a special meeting after a Sunday service to deal with this website when it cropped-up. There they stated specifically--emphatically--that they had a good counsel of references 'see!' and also talked specifically about how GC had sent editors to Wikipedia to (close paraphrasing) 'make the article there more balanced', but of course the Counsel of References is one full of genuine, cautious, deep, worthwhile relationships worth referencing, and of course nobody from GC* who worked so hard on the article was actually sent to do so by the organization, of course not!
Oh, two of those pastors names are John Meyer and Mitch Majeski, among others.
And oh wait...those sent to edit GC* denied being sent, and we don't have innumerable examples of officially being lied to, often with the exact same statements, across the country and decades, to question outright in entirety the integrity of these men.
[I really want to go off on a rant about the character and actions of wolves who destroy their hearers as they are explicated in the NT, but will refrain for the time being.]
Randomous [...] You said that I might be, "picking an area where there isn't likely to be much information available so that I can use that as a way to back up my accusation that GCM is being dishonest."
Of course there isn't much info random., they try to prevent any from getting out, don't record important moments like the myth-telling session where they made-up stories as well as slandered the admin of and other earliest participants who made this site--whom they actually knew personally and had in their own church, and came after: one women (whom I know) even, after he asked her whether anything he had said, published, or discovered was wrong/untrue/inaccurate, or where he had lied, when she couldn't reply, couldn't answer, couldn't escape the objective reality of the facts he had presented with these others (whom that Church rooted out and 'uninvited'--for those treated least brutally), told him something that sounded eerily like the sorts of things I would expect Mr. Meyer to say somewhat privately, 'you're following the devil', which sadly--alarmingly--sounds to me like the very thing the Pharisees attributed to Jesus after which He proceeded to elucidate to them "the unforgivable sin", "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" (notice "the"), not inappropriately since basically the Holy One, He whose name is "Holy Spirit", they had just equated with the devil out of hardness in which they willingly and totally rejected Christ despite knowing full well--by Nicodemus's own earlier admission, in fact, that not only was Christ from God, but the Christ (don't forget that the only reason Jesus may rightfully be called "Christ" as if a name, is because as uppercase, "the" Messiah, it is His title alone): nobody else could have, or since, can be, according to the scriptures and circumstances--according to the foretelling of the very time of His coming by Daniel Himself (who since Christ has been demoted from prophet to story by Jews in large part), be the Christ. Their mistake, however, was to touch that which was Holy, and so maliciously: to so ultimately insult Him.
I find this confusing and, again, I feel like you are accusing me something or implying something negative about my motives. I have already listed my reasons for pursuing this issue (see my post On October 16 at around 2 p.m.). You can follow my posts as I have outlined very clearly and sincerely my concerns over this. I agree too with Agatha's recent post on this thread. It too communicates why I feel this is an important issue.
I would say that likely bothered does have some issues with knowledge to start, but that's why he's asking, and yet the impressions which induce his asking are perceptions most here have already attested to: so it is unreasonable, and downright dishonest, to dismiss him as being shady, ignorant, immature, or merely wanting heads. I repeatedly caught G.C. pastors and leadership lying through their teeth, and also membership alongside them, especially 'core', caring superficially (if at all) and playing losely with the truth: it is one basis upon which I found my questioning the professions of many within GC, especially those who become so intimately and zealously involved, because they demonstrate a spirit and spririts very unlike those found in the gospels or Scripture.
And I dare say that because to fail so could mean so many of them damned. He who does not love the truth (don't just think 'the gospel' or 'Christ', etc., especially since most can't even define those according to the Scriptures in the same sense anymore), is no Christian: he who resists might be shown mercy yet; He who rejects it, is evidently not.
There's a great deal of irony, by the way, in that one sin that will not be forgiven, because those most unbiblical in this last century (the movement we've been calling 'charismatic', which is demeaning to the very roots and even biblical use of the Greek word) when confronted with the Scriptures succeeded in nationally deflecting all criticism, evaluation, and being questioned, in large part by saying those who so did were doing so rather to God, or the Holy Spirit...sounds familiar for those of us who left GC*, hugh? I find this ironic because down in New Orleans the summer post Katrina John Meyer was explaining to a girl there why it was GC* did not hold to charismatic convictions--but I would beg to differ, at least on the point of intimidation tactics.
To the whole Church: those who will not be question, will not be subject to scrutiny, neither walk in the light, nor are Christians: reject them out of hand as wolves and deceivers as they are, for one of the first fruits (among others) of the newborn babe in Christ through maturity and then death is His (or her) openness to walk in the light. By that I mean not that they should lack prudence, nor by prudence mean they should be clever or practice trickery. But we know from the word that those who condemn being questioned aren't just 'may only' be, but 'are to be' rejected on that basis alone.
GC* portends an openness when publicly questioned, but yet divert attention and hide--I watched it repeatedly, watched them hand-down official matter on 'concerns' that people who'd left had, etc. etc., and worse, however, was that often those who repeated it when someone piped-up with some concern did so not to be malicious, but because they honestly (I think in many cases) trusted those highers-ups to be honest and loving with them.
