The entire holiday weekend?

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.

[2xA Ron]

I would offer advice to you back that if you weigh out letting people figure out for themselves what a church does and believes, versus potentially being found out as a gossip and slanderer (if that "if" is right)... I'd take the former every time. God never wants us to badmouth other believers, even under the pretense of "warning" and "encouraging to think outside the box".

I've been thinking about things like this recently.  I'll agree with you, provisionally: gossip certainly is a sin and one that, unfortunately, is treated very casually in some Christian circles (especially compared to "sins" that the Bible does not explicitly condemn, such as smoking or showing up to church improperly dressed).  The provision, I think, has to be that the church is not sinning or leading others to sin, whether directly through the action of leaders or indirectly through the encouragement of the culture of the membership.  I think this makes the other side of the "what if" dilemma.  *If* another Christian is purely exercising the liberty they have in Christ to have a different opinion, then it's wrong to badmouth them for it.  *If* another Christian is engaged in a private sin, it should, in accordance with Scripture, be something one confronts the other Christian about privately first (I think 1 Timothy 5:20 may be used to make an exception to this for elders, but I haven't looked into it that much).  However, *if* another Christian is (willfully or ignorantly) engaged in sin or leading into sin publicly or to the harm of others, then we have a duty to protect those other people by warning them.  If we know the driver is sauced and insists on taking the wheel, but when we have opportunity we don't warn his friends not to get in the passenger seat, we are culpable for their deaths.

Knowing when it's a warning and when it's gossip can be a delicate balance at times.  When is it better to run the risk of guilt of gossip rather than the risk of partaking in the guilt of someone else by silence?  I don't think there's a clear-cut answer.  Certainly, though, there is a time to speak out against others either in public rebuke or public warning.  The epistles are full of such things (2 Timothy 4:14-15 and Galatians 2:11 as two examples, off the top of my head).

I will say I think we shouldn't paint all GCx members or member churches with the same brush (I try to avoid it these days).  At the same time, as someone who left only last year, there are places where and people with whom some of the damaging and dangerous old sins of the movement are still current, and still harming people.  If such places cannot be restored, they must be warned against lest they harm others.

[AgathaL'Orange]

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227407/k.9467/Abusive_Churches.htm

[maranatha]

http://vimeo.com/43777476

Good article, Agatha L'Orange.  This part reminds me of the above link that J. Hopler greatly encouraged leadership(GCLI) to watch the past couple weeks.

"The third characteristic of abusive churches is the rigid, legalistic lifestyle of their members. This rigidity is a natural result of the leadership style. Abusive churches require unwavering devotion to the church from their followers. Allegiance to the church has priority over allegiance to God, family, or anything else.
Often members are required or pressured to attend Bible studies five, six, or seven days a week. There is a requirement to do evangelism; a certain quota of contacts must be met, and some churches even require members to fill out time cards recording how many hours they spent in evangelism, etc. Daily schedules are made for the person; thus he is endlessly doing the church's ministry. Former members of one church told me they were working for their church from 5:00 am to 12:00 midnight five days a week.
Members of such churches frequently drop out of school, quit working, or even neglect their families to do the work required by the church. There are also guidelines for dress, dating, finances, and so on. Such details are held to be of major importance in these churches."

~~~

The Henry Cloud video he's exhorted people to watch says that if someone in your organization doesn't respond with a smile to something you've said, they are either a fool or evil.

[Linda]

The real question, I guess, is... for the sake of argument, lets say that people in leadership at Walnut Creek aren't people with agendas or even just severely misled. A kind of "what if" if you will. If that were the case, then they are just good natured Christians who are doing things with a clear conscience but whom you would disagree with. And if THAT were the case, then saying a lot of the things that get said on this website, telling new believers and new attenders of WC that the church is dangerous and should be avoided would then be something God would be very displeased with.
Now granted, thats maybe a big "if" for people here. I respect that.

On the other hand, if we are operating on speculation, IF the teaching of WC is damaging to people's faith and misrepresents the Church, God would be very displeased if we knew and didn't speak out.

So, there you have our dilemma, Tyler.

I have resolved this by attempting to put all speculation aside and just go with the facts of GC teaching and practice. It is not slander to disagree publicly with public teaching. Example: I don't call up Benny Hinn or Mike Murdock before I make public statements about the errors of their theology. Those who teach need to be held accountable for what they teach.

A wise and humble teacher will be able to defend his theological position without calling it "persecution" or calling the one challenging it a "slanderer" or questioning the character of the one making the challenge (a big one for GC is to disregard the comment by questioning the character of the commenter because the person making it is "anonymous", this is a type of ad hominem). A wise and humble leader will understand that a theological challenge is a good thing.

[DevastatedTC]

Tyler, I really respect you and hope I haven't upset you by leading people here to your blog. Regardless, you have handled yourself with a lot of grace (at least from what I can tell).

I have to be careful, because a friend of mine had an episode with your church  recently that really angered me and I want to protect their identity (although you are now in another location, but it is still DTC). Basically, something really bad happened to them and they are having a hard time functioning normally and a third party with credentials has identified a works based church atmosphere as the source of their problems. My feeling is that there was a lot of pressure put on to perform and that if you didn't do certain things, you were kept at arm's reach. I often found myself doing things for the wrong reasons and wrestling with guilt if I didn't do enough of fill in the blank.

From what I know of you, you are a pretty nice guy and you have good intentions. You brought up on your blog that you were seeking counsel for starting your church. Whom did you seek counsel from? Does your church have a pastor or is it a pastor from another church location? Who is going to lead this church and what credentials do they have? What qualifies them to lead? It is a fact, is it not, that out of eight pastors, only one has a degree from a seminary? The main question I would like to know is, again, what qualifies them to lead?

[Tyler Johnson]

Thanks for your feedback guys. I feel like I addressed already what everyone has said in what I said before so I won't say too much but basically I just want to reiterate that it could be the case that you are right, and I eat my words, and our church sucks, and the movement sucks and you really are warning people away. However God judges the heart. If you were to take a non-biased third party and have them look over the things you've said publicly here, privately, and in your heart, what would they think? God is not only unbiased, but holy and knows all. Maybe your intentions are pure and all will be well, I am praying for all of you as I hope you are praying for me and our church you are so concerned with. A litmus test may in fact be to take a non-Christian through your site and see what they think. I, in fact, have already done this with a coworker of mine who regularly makes fun of my Christian faith. He was outraged when I took him through this site, and I had to specifically tell him not to create an ID and start freaking out on everyone. This is a guy who has long held the position that he'll never set foot in any church as long as he lives. So maybe try this just as a fair and balanced way to look at your own words, not by people who already agree with you.
Agatha, the real reason I'm back on this site is to say one final thing to you actually! If you ever want to talk in person (if you still live in Des Moines, I mean) definitely get a hold of me! I'd love to. I remember you said earlier it may be good to talk in person with people who there are issues with. I'm touched by your responses to me thus far and and your humility and honesty. If you ever wanna grab coffee with my wife and your husband we could all chat and you could maybe even meet my new Emmylou. (she is super cute, I'm sure your kids are too) My email is aeon123go@gmail.com if you ever want to use it!
Anyway have a great rest of your day you guys and I've been praying for you and I'll continue to do so. And I'm not praying that God would strike you down, in case you were wondering. haha. Praying that our words would align with our hearts and any sin would be repented of so we can move on with clear consciences before our loving God who redeemed us. Mostly praying that I would make real friends out of some of you, that would be my ideal scenario. Loved talking with you!
Tyler

[Linda]

Basically, something really bad happened to them and they are having a hard time functioning normally and a third party with credentials has identified a works based church atmosphere as the source of their problems.

Not sure if it's the same person, but I am familiar with a similar and recent situation. Perhaps it's the same situation. It is heartbreaking.

[Linda]

However God judges the heart. If you were to take a non-biased third party and have them look over the things you've said publicly here, privately, and in your heart, what would they think?

I'm not sure if you are still reading this, but if you are I wanted to address this comment.

First, you are correct, only God can judge a heart. That is why it would not be profitable to run this forum by "a non-biased third party", whatever that means. I surmise from your comment that you have taken it upon yourselves to judge those posting on this forum, found our "hearts" in the wrong place, and have decided to rebuke us, and then leave. That's fine. Just wanted to point out what it looks like.

Second, I question the wisdom of running this by a non-Christian who has no possible understanding of theology and what the Bible says about false teaching and could only be confused by this forum.

Third, I wish you only the best. Congratulations on your daughter and God bless your family.

[Huldah]

God never wants us to badmouth other believers, even under the pretense of "warning" and "encouraging to think outside the box".

"Pretense," huh? Wow.

Tyler, you seem like a nice enough guy, and I do wish you and your family all the best as you seek to serve the Lord. It was brave of you to come to this forum and interact with us. I don't know whether you're still reading here or not. Either way, I'd like to reply, in the hope of being useful to others who read this thread.

I would offer advice to you back that if you weigh out letting people figure out for themselves what a church does and believes, versus potentially being found out as a gossip and slanderer (if that "if" is right)... I'd take the former every time.

But I wish someone had warned me. I do truly wish someone had sat down with me and given me the whole story, before I threw away my scholarship and my education and my dreams, and broke my parents' hearts. It's true that there were red flags which I ended up ignoring, but still, I wish there had been something like this forum available back when I first felt drawn to join my GC church. It probably would have changed my life.

Slander is saying things that are untrue. Gossip is saying things that are none of someone else's business. Neither describes this forum. Have you seen the various posts by worried friends and parents whose loved ones are undergoing drastic personality changes (not for the better) after joining GC churches? Where else should they turn with their concerns?

I will leave you with these thoughts:

Ephesians 5:11, "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them."

2 Timothy 4:14-15, "Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm: the Lord will repay him according to his works. Be on your guard against him."

Or was Paul slandering Alexander?

[2xA Ron]

However God judges the heart. If you were to take a non-biased third party and have them look over the things you've said publicly here, privately, and in your heart, what would they think? God is not only unbiased, but holy and knows all. Maybe your intentions are pure and all will be well, I am praying for all of you as I hope you are praying for me and our church you are so concerned with. A litmus test may in fact be to take a non-Christian through your site and see what they think. I, in fact, have already done this with a coworker of mine who regularly makes fun of my Christian faith. He was outraged when I took him through this site, and I had to specifically tell him not to create an ID and start freaking out on everyone. This is a guy who has long held the position that he'll never set foot in any church as long as he lives. So maybe try this just as a fair and balanced way to look at your own words, not by people who already agree with you.

Let me see if I follow the logic here...

• God is unbiased in that He loves us all equally and perfectly, and He knows everything and is our rightful final judge.
• A non-Christian you know is unbiased in that he already despises all Christianity equally, knows nothing of our situation, and is in no way qualified as the final judge of any of us.
• The non-Christian co-worker really hated what we were doing on this site.
• Therefore anyone unbiased must really hate what we're doing on this site.
• Therefore, God really hates what we're doing on this site.

Is that about the gist of it?  If so, you realize you've just brushed aside more than one Biblically-supported defense given (on this thread alone) in favor of the assumption that the personal opinion of an anti-Christian non-believer more accurately reflects the moral will of God than does God's Word?  Did you not even consider that a major factor in this person's angst could be his well-established dislike of all things Christian and that he may have reacted exactly the same if you took him to a forum where ex-Mormons warned others about the cult and helped each other recover from and recognize its abuses (assuming that you would agree that Mormonism is a cult and that exposing a cult and helping others out of it is a legitimate practice)?
 
I'm sorry, but that's what it looks like you've done, though perhaps you would disagree.  Perhaps you feel like you've responded to the Biblical arguments adequately already, since you say you feel like you've already addressed everything we've said.  If so, I would love to see where you gave analysis of these arguments and found them lacking.  It seems you did not post any such thing here under your current forum name...  Perhaps also you have some proof that your co-worker was not (as it appears from your description) predisposed to misunderstand and hate this forum simply on the basis of the faith of the majority of its participants (which, from your description, he greatly dislikes for his own reasons).  If so, that might help to bolster your logic.

But while we're on the topic of an unbiased perspective, perhaps you could explain why it is that the only people who ever seem to raise the issue of whether or not my criticism of the GCx counts as gossip or slander are all individuals with a staunch loyalty to the GCx.  No one outside the GCx or even loosely connected with the GCx has ever questioned the validity of my criticism on such grounds.  When I took the issue to the pastor of another church and asked him if he thought it was gossip or slander, he dismissed the charge using much the same arguments (both logical and Biblical) as have been presented on this thread.  If God is unbiased and we are to take any unbiased third-party's perspective as potentially reflecting His moral will, then what are the implications of the accusation of slander coming only from persons with a definite bias in favor of the party being criticized, and never from unbiased third-parties?  Does that not imply (along with our Biblical arguments) that God approves of what we do?

I do pray for the GCx and the people I know in it.  I prayed for you and your family when I first saw your blog.  I have also (and continue to) interacted with its leadership on the highest levels in order to voice my concerns and, hopefully, bring about positive change.  I am not a perfect person, just a sinner saved by grace, trying to do the right thing as God enables me.  I am sorry that you can only see me as someone who attacks your church without cause under the pretense of warning.  I can only hope that others from the GCx may be more unbiased in their judgment.