The worst of the worst: Serious Error

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.

[newcreature]

Linda's reference to Ezekiel 34 was very sobering, especially verse 5: "So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals."

I also thought of the travesty of wasted lives after reading BTDT's post about the Invasion 85 teams. I knew one couple and two single guys who practically had nervous breakdowns after being sent out with all the fanfare and Jim's glowing praise and his promise of GCI's ongoing support. Within a year those promises turned out to be as empty as all his other schemes and broken promises. GCI's national leadership was sent out to promote the whole thing, calling on all GCI churches to "dig deeper" so they could establish their arbitrary number of 50 new churches. How very sad.

After reading "Marching to Zion," I now realize that a big part of Invasion 85 was to boost Jim's ego and the circulation of GCI's latest newpaper: U.S. Press. It went defunct that same year and so did most of those 50 "churches." I think most of the 50 teams migrated back to other GCI churches, or just quit GCI altogether.

[Linda]

Terry read that to me when everything was hitting regarding his blog post. I agree, it is very sobering for pastors to read that. I also am reminded that people who leave GC tend to scatter. It's what sheep do when they're scared. They take off.

On the other hand, what a beautiful picture of the way God rescues hurting, scattered, fearful, cowering, hungry, weak sheep from the hands of abusive shepherds. It is very comforting. It's a truly beautiful picture to think that when the shepherds don't do their job (either because they are false shepherds, or are lacking understanding) God knows, understands, cares, and rescues.

11 “For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his sheep that have been scattered, so will I seek out my sheep, and I will rescue them from all places where they have been scattered on a day of clouds and thick darkness. 13 And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land. And I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the ravines, and in all the inhabited places of the country. 14 I will feed them with good pasture, and on the mountain heights of Israel shall be their grazing land. There they shall lie down in good grazing land, and on rich pasture they shall feed on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God. 16 I will seek the lost, and I will bring back the strayed, and I will bind up the injured, and I will strengthen the weak, and the fat and the strong I will destroy. [1] I will feed them in justice.

[ISU Alumna]

We attended our church for 10 years. 3 weeks before we left, we found out how the system worked!
....
When we left, one pastor actually suggested that my husband was jealous that he was never asked to be a GCLI guy. We could honestly say that wasn't the reason because we had no idea there was such a thing!

   Aha! So those on the leadership track really did consciously disdain those who were not. That's evident in this person's assumption that your husband could possibly feel "jealous" for not having been invited to party with the cool guys.
   So much is becoming clearer to me, now.
   I recall an odd scene from back when I was an eager young member. Our team had been assigned to do some project together with another team, which suddenly exposed us to a number of young men who were nothing like the guys on our team.
   The brothers on my team tended to be sweet, soft-spoken farm boys who devoted themselves to their studies and spent most of their free time playing the guitar and singing Bible verses. I really did feel like a sister to them.
   But the guys from this other team seemed to be speaking a different language. When we tried to discuss the talk that Jim had given earlier that evening, the people from my group wanted to talk about the content of the lecture, whereas the other guys just wanted to talk about Jim. They were incapable of discussing the subject matter, because they clearly hadn't been listening to the message; and we were incapable of responding to any of their excited comments, because they were involved in something that we didn't even know existed. Well, d'uh!  There was a leadership track.
   How funny, Linda, that we both came up against the same wall, even though we seem to have been involved in distinctively different GCI organizations.

[BTDT]

BTDT, Was this a top down thing? By that I mean, did the "in" group of men (ie GCLI guys) get assigned someone to spend time with while the guy being "mentored/discipled/whatever" wasn't really aware that he was an "assignment".

There was no GCLI back then, but there was the "LTC" - Leadership Training Class - at our church, which was a subset of the pastors, and the home group leaders under them.  It was the home group leaders that made sure new people were followed up, but the elders they reported to often asked them specifically about how the follow-up was going.

A person new to the church typically didn't realize that there was someone "assigned" to them, but if it was a discipling relationship, both knew it was an assignment.  At least that's the way it was in our home group.

[BTDT]

So those on the leadership track really did consciously disdain those who were not.,

Where I was, up until the apology letter, every man was expected to become an elder, by progressing up the leadership ladder.  If a guy took "too long", or worse yet showed no interest, he was seen as not measuring up spiritually.  There was a single home group leader back then, that had some married guys in his group.  He thought the married guys weren't really committed, because they couldn't make every meeting or be involved in all the activities we had going on.  He had no clue about the responsibilities of being a husband and father.  (None of us single guys did...we never do.  )

After the apology letter, individual gifting and individuals' unique contributions were finally recognized and taught, so the whole sorry "every man an elder" thing mercifully went out the window.  Dave Bovenmyer and Dan Baty were prime movers in making that happen within our church, and God bless them for it.  I count that as the start of our healing as a church.

[escapee]

BTDT, Was this a top down thing? By that I mean, did the "in" group of men (ie GCLI guys) get assigned someone to spend time with while the guy being "mentored/discipled/whatever" wasn't really aware that he was an "assignment".

We attended our church for 10 years. 3 weeks before we left, we found out how the system worked!

We knew that they had a system of "recognizing" pastors from within the church (except for the way our church started which was to send up some people from Ames to take over a church that was already going, so the system of recognizing from within was out the window in the genesis of the church we attended, but I digress). We thought that if you wanted to be a pastor, you let someone know and they gave you some "jobs" or something like that to see what areas you might be gifted in.

We had no idea that it was a system where you had to be given a tap on the shoulder by an elder and asked to participate in some type of secret teaching to see if you were "leadership" material.

When we left, one pastor actually suggested that my husband was jealous that he was never asked to be a GCLI guy. We could honestly say that wasn't the reason because we had no idea there was such a thing! You can't feel like you're missing out on something if you aren't even aware of the existence of the thing.

I remember once early on he was asked to be an "apprentice", but we just thought that was some type of training to be a small group leader. Maybe he was being asked to "get under" someone so they could "build into" him and then be more "knit into" the group so he could work "shoulder to shoulder" being sharpened like "iron sharpens iron".

I'm not a fan of "secret" knowledge and I'm not a fan of secret societies.

It seems to me that with all the talk of not showing favoritism and using that as a reason to teach people not to date, they brush right over that in their loyalty to each other. The shepherds (band of brothers) at times seem to love the other shepherds more than they love the sheep.

I have to say that this is exactly what happens. I unfortunately was a part of the secret meetings where we would write down all the single girls names on a sheet of paper, separating them by "core" and "fringe", and assign people to disciple others. We also assigned where people would live, how small group multiplications would go, who would share bedrooms with who, etc.

The only people who knew about this were the people who were brought into this inner circle, in other words, the ones doing the discipling. No one could see (or at least said anything about) the strangeness or wrongness of it because people were flattered by it and honestly because people love power. But, this is pretty much how it works all the way up - it also works this way at the church planting level. So much is decided behind the scenes, then people are just led to believe they had some level of "say" or autonomy. I've seen this stuff really really mess with relationships. People who would try to buck this system eventually got pushed to the edges until they left.

[blonde]

RE:

I have to say that this is exactly what happens. I unfortunately was a part of the secret meetings where we would write down all the single girls names on a sheet of paper, separating them by "core" and "fringe", and assign people to disciple others. We also assigned where people would live, how small group multiplications would go, who would share bedrooms with who, etc.

The only people who knew about this were the people who were brought into this inner circle, in other words, the ones doing the discipling. No one could see (or at least said anything about) the strangeness or wrongness of it because people were flattered by it and honestly because people love power. But, this is pretty much how it works all the way up - it also works this way at the church planting level. So much is decided behind the scenes, then people are just led to believe they had some level of "say" or autonomy. I've seen this stuff really really mess with relationships. People who would try to buck this system eventually got pushed to the edges until they left.

When I was at ECC, I knew people that were on these lists too.  Quite a phenomenon!  

[bothered]

I was a part of H2O in Orlando, Florida in the early 2000s. It was pastored by three guys, but there were a lot of staffers there as well, many of whom wanted to be GCM pastors or elders one day. [Note: so when I say "leaders" in the paragraphs below, I am referring to both pastors and staffers]. The GCM national headquarters had moved to Orlando around that time as well. So, there were a lot of national leaders there and people coming from different GCM churches to be a part of what was happening in Orlando. I don't know where the church is at today, but this was my experience (and the experience of others) during those specific years. So, here it goes:

Some of the key issues:

1.) Attitude of superiority. Issues of Pride and Arrogance. "We're doing it better than other churches and denominations" kind of thing. Made it difficult for leaders to receive feedback about issues. In fact, for about 4-5 years the last line in H2O's vision statement (which could be found on the website) stated "Basically, we're willing to take risks that other churches only dream of."  It doesn't read that anymore.

2.) People who voiced concerns, were basically told, if they don't like it, they can leave. Leadership had a really hard time receiving feedback and were passive-aggressive to those who did voice concerns. There were, for example, kind of "black-listed" or ignored/shunned.

3.) Unaddressed dishonesty, dysfunction, and issues among the national leadership team (of GCM) at the time. (FYI: The GCM headquarters had moved to Orlando and most, if not all of the national leaders were involved in H2O Orlando when they first arrived, but most of them left H2O Church after a few years of arriving in Orlando.

There was no public narrative of the kind of issues going on. It was swept under the rug.

4.) Unaddressed dissension among leaders in H2O church.

5.) Unaddressed concerns (or poorly addressed concerns) in the church led to a huge exodus of leaders and lay-people in the church. I am not talking about three people leaving or something. I am talking about, roughly estimating, 40 people leaving (over a period of about 2 years).

6.) Devaluing of seminary education among some of the leaders. One pastor would even devalue seminary education in his sermons.

7.) "Shepherding movement" view of discipleship. If you wanted to be a leader one day in the church, you needed to find a older, wiser leader and meet with him one-on-one on a consistent basis for a fairly long time. It was a kind of "master and apprentice" relationship. There was also a narrow view of what prepared someone to be a leader (i.e. over emphasis on the role of life-group leader as the stepping stone to being a pastor). Sometimes these leaders had way too much control in the lives of their "apprentice."

8.) Overemphasis on certain gifts over others. Namely, evangelism as being "the" gift or only gift worth focusing on. The ultimate sign of being used by God and being super spiritual was "leading someone to Christ" or bringing people to Christ.

9.) H2O church didn't have a good balance between meeting the needs of growing Christians and reaching out to those who were "unchurched" or "unsaved." It basically seemed like a big outreach service. In fact, I came to see H2O as more of a para-church ministry because it lacked so many things found in a traditional church. For example, it really struggled to develop other ministries besides those geared toward the lost.  Probably why, for example, some leaders, including pastors, sent their kids to other churches that had more developed children's and youth ministries. It never addressed this imbalance, just kept on trucking along.

10.) A system of leadership development that focused almost entirely on farming student leaders who were in college.

Often times a lot of responsibility was placed on these students who did not have the maturity to handle the role. Nor did they seem to have the time either. A student leader's number one priority tended to seem like it was the success of his ministry or the ministry of the church (i.e. his/her life-group) not their studies. Definitely an imbalance there and/or de-emphasis on a student leader's academic responsibilities. Reminds me of those in college athletics; though there is lip service paid to athletes being in college to get a degree/education, the sense you tend to get is that they are only there to play whatever sport they are playing and that is all the college really cares about.

 These same college leaders grow up to be pastors in GCM and they continue the same kind of leadership development because that is all they know.

11.) Questionable use of GCM Supporters financial givings: people were talking their salary, but were not really doing what their support letters suggested. In some cases, people were taking a salary but spending most of their time in seminary. In other words, they were basically getting paid to get a seminary degree, but there were quite a few red flags as to why they were getting a degree during that time and in their particular context (i.e. why is GCM paying for someone to get a degree who is leaving the movement? or why is a national leader getting paid to get a degree when he didn't need one for what he was doing at that time (4-5 years of time)?


So, that is a few concerns from the church I was in during that time.

[Grounded]

All that has been said in these posts are exactly right in how leaders are chosen. The number one thing a man needs to be a leader is unquestioning loyalty to the church (really the pastors). For a long time I wanted to be a pastor. I lead small groups for a few years, and there is pressure to see small groups multiply- to see people saved and new leaders raised up. It was a huge deal if your small group multiplied. To see that happen, countless hours spent discipling people and pushing people to reach out had to take place. I look back on those experiences and I honestly can say that I did not learn more or grow in my faith because I was a leader. I do remember the satisfaction of going to the GCLI meetings and retreats-I was a part of the leadership fraternity.
When I took part in a church plant about five years ago I was not part of the leadership core because the church started really about a year before. I was OK with that because my goals were changing and I was beginning to tire of the GC leadership race to the top. I quickly lost favor when I resisted pressure from the pastor and other leaders to move in with the other single guys. I knew they thought I was being disloyal and selfish. I remember one Sunday before church began, I was talking with a guy who had just become a deacon about my feelings of missing people from the city I recently moved from. He immediatly told me that I need to be loyal to my new church. He showed me at that point what they look for in pastors- don't think for youself and follow the company line. Once he said that I gave him a disaproving look and walked away. All I wanted was for him to listen and be a friend. I knew all the same lines that he or anyone else could quote verbatim from the GC Leadership handbook. Not too long after he became a  pastor, but he never really spoke to me again.

[Linda]

This is a really good thread that I had forgotten about, so I thought I'd post to reopen it.

[Ned_Flanders]

Pat Sokoll's message

People are like sheep.  They are stupid and needy.  GC pastors are the shepherds and you must do what they say.  You should not leave or change your future without their blessing.

Interesting you mention Pat Sokoll.  I think the very last GCx teaching I ever went to he spoke and said this: "And if you don't stop doing (sorry, I can't remember what the "it" was)this; or start doing this; or become this, or that;" basically, if you don't live up to some kind of condition he felt was absolutely important to the Christian life, he said, "then I don't want to have anything to do with you." 


The big problem I see with that approach is that many people, afraid of being rejected for failure to change into whatever he felt was necessary, will often hide whatever was going on he would reject and instead put on a good face in front of people with that kind of ultimatum.  Conformed to Pat's standards, but not transformed by the Holy Spirit.

[araignee19]

Did they actually call the person a "discipler"? Did they use the word "discipler"?

They did in my experience (The Rock - Fort Collins). I was a "discipler" for a few years. Plus, I can vouch that, at least at this particular group, the "discipler/disciplee" relationship was very much assigned. I remember sitting in meetings while leading deciding who would be assigned to who, and making sure the team was well organized. This was often (usually) without letting the "disciplees" know we had assigned someone to them. I certainly didn't know I had someone assigned to me when I first started, but found out later that's why she spent so much time with me (and here I thought it was because she liked me. Silly me!).

[Linda]

They did in my experience (The Rock - Fort Collins). I was a "discipler" for a few years.

Wow.

Anyone know if they still have "disciples"?

I certainly didn't know I had someone assigned to me when I first started, but found out later that's why she spend so much time with me (and here I thought it was because she liked me. Silly me!).

Again, wow. Sorry. Nothing like forced, conditional friendships to make one feel special.

It's sort of like when someone calls you and you haven't talked for a while, but suddenly they want to know how you are and how your family is and go out to lunch and you think, "This is really nice, connecting again after all these years," and then you have lunch and realize they are part of a multi-level sales team trying to sell you their product." If you don't buy it, they drop you because they aren't interested in "you" they are interested in selling you their product. It stinks.

[Huldah]

Very good comparison. The recruitment techniques of MLMs are, in fact, similar in nature to the recruitment techniques of shepherding-type churches. There are often similar hierarchies, emotional manipulation, isolation from family and friends who don't support the new career/religion, financial exploitation, and claims that the whole enterprise is endorsed by God Himself. There's one site I read that's devoted to a particular MLM that sells cosmetics. Some of the former MLM members tell stories are eerily reminiscent of what I experienced at Solid Rock, only they have to do with selling cosmetics and being pressured to recruit additional sales force, instead of "reaching the world for Christ in our generation."

[Linda]

Time to reopen this thread again. Agatha's point #3 is "Plant your flag and die".

[JesusFacePalm]

I've been out of GCM churches and American Evangelicism in general for at least 6 years now, but I'm absolutely exhausted after reading this topic.    It was like reliving all those situations again, especially when specific names of leaders I was blindly obeying were mentioned. 

I remember one of my favorite friends who joined our small church plant and I enjoyed so many activities with him.    Him and his wife had a brutally honest and mutual respectful relationship.   They didn't really buy into the quiet, submissive wife who obeys her husband garbage.

This couple started to have a lot of influence because they were just amazing people who loved.   People gravitated to them and they had a lot of influence. 

I remember the insecurity of the GCLI guys (I was the most recent to be summoned to the almighty table of wisdom) and we had a long discussion of needing to have "a talk" with this guy and  make sure 1. that he knew our cole values and 2.  His wife was silent

We invited him one weekend to our preplanned meeting.   He quietly respected the wishes yet at the same time was like "I can't get on board with you guys" 
He refused to conform, but said he would not be divisive, as this would be the church discipline if he showed authority or too much influence of members.    When he moved, some people loved them so much, they moved all across the country to keep the friendship.   
I remember feeling so gross during that meeting.   I was closest to him and almost felt like I betrayed him so the GCLI guys could put him in line. 

Ditto on the "relationships" section of this topic.    I have my whole testimony in the welcome section of how I gave this whole area of my life up to the Leaders and the assumption it only happens one way and within the safety of my small group and those looking over it. 

"homeschooling" -  the unspoken idea that this is ideal for EVERYONE.   Some people just don't want to.   Others feel since they were brought up that way, there's no other option.   And some people just can't do it well.    I saw my kids learning being neglected because of the amount of other things that needed to be done at the home.   Everything suffered because it was too much to handle.    But it was a non negotiable to my GCM ex and her GCM parents.   She allowed them to get so far behind and the summers became automatic catch up time.    Me suggesting changing to public school ended up being a main reason she took my kids from me and moved into her parents and ultimately ended our marriage.   Along with other Cult things I was no longer on board with and wanted to change.    (all of this was planned in meetings behind my back of course)   

"Spanking and breaking a kids will"  -  I was on board with this at first out of following teachings and following my pastors examples.   I'm glad this was one of the first ideas I refused to do and wish I had from the beginning.   I finally got my ex to stop but only because she was afraid of it being brought up at court and I told the kids to tell me if she ever does.     I hate the idea that you spank because they don't quickly, quietly, Cheerfully and completely obey your demands.    My kids were being spanked for not eating foods the parent knowing knows they can't stand.    And having to sit at the table and the same plate being put in front of you until you obey, and finally if not, Spanked for it.    Pisses me off even typing that.     It's flat out insecurity when a parent needs to abuse their kid because they are not getting 100% happy dances for their impractical demands. 

not sure what number we're on, but this one
ISOLATION- I see a big insecurity from this cult to not allow outside influences.    I'll leave it at that






 

[Janet Easson Martin]

JesusFacePalm-

I am so sorry this happened to you and your family. I can’t imagine the hurt and pain for yourself and your children. Her parents seemed to violate the the God given boundaries of marriage. There seems to be so much unnecessary pain in keeping all these GCx man-made restrictions, and judging divisively toward those who choose to follow their own personal direction from Christ. Those rules do neglect and truly harm others just like those who need healing on the Sabbath. Some were kicked out of the synagogue and even isolated from their own family. Sadly, your story is too familiar to others who read and write here.

[JesusFacePalm]

I was part of the problem.     I allowed and choose it for as long as I did.   My biggest issue was not being allowed to be myself or change.

It's no longer my truth source.   I pick out the things that are loving and resonate with the core of who I am.   the rest can go in the garbage

To that, it was well worth the lessons and freedom.  

[Huldah]

JFP, I just want to say how sorry I am for what you went through. This must have been unbelievably sad for your kids as well.

[Janet Easson Martin]

I allowed and choose it for as long as I did.   My biggest issue was not being allowed to be myself or change.

-JesusFacePalm



JesusFacePalm, you bring up an essential point —boundaries. We should have said “NO” to all kinds of inappropriate and unhealthy things in GCx, and in our relationships inside that group. But that was a forbidden word and stance —thus the resulting robot syndrome. We parroted what we had been falsely persuaded was the “godly” response. People were taught by example from the top down in GCx to ignore, “reprove”, or cast down others’ boundaries, thus disrespecting them. To make it worse, those violating the boundaries pronounced they were doing it by the “authority of God.” They invoked God’s name to very strongly persuade and control our choices. So, it was quite challenging after much time in GCx to separate their will from our own.

You said it well when you stated that you were “not being allowed to be yourself.” We we’re continually told that to say no, or not agree with something being said or done, or not commit “our all” to that Church was selfish, ungodly, and outright sinful. It was pretty hard to stand on our own legs in that miry pit.

A number of people writing here have also experienced heart-breaking things with their spouse and children when GCx parents violated boundaries (expressed in scripture) separating the immediate family from the parents in choices and decision-making. They are hurting their own grandchildren.