walnut creek community church - DesMoines

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.

[grandslam]

upthecreek:  Have you found a church to attend since leaving?  Where are folks going who leave WC?

[LucyB]

I go to Lutheran Church of Hope and I have seen a couple of former Walnut Creek friends there, but I am sure they each find the church that suits them.

[MarthaH]

There was nepotism there and favoritism.

Yes, I would have to agree that there is a lot of nepotism that takes place within GCx. If you are a pastor's kid, you get the special treatment (and maybe you make a few bucks when all is said and done). I think there is rhyme and reason as to why this takes place. GCx is a movement that has at its core the value of commitment and loyalty. If you are a pastor of a GCx church, who will you see as most loyal and committed to your cause than members of your own family? Therefore, I think that the scales will always be tipped in favor of the kids of the great leaders.

[Rebekah]

Yes, I would have to agree that there is a lot of nepotism that takes place within GCx. If you are a pastor's kid, you get the special treatment (and maybe you make a few bucks when all is said and done). I think there is rhyme and reason as to why this takes place. GCx is a movement that has at its core the value of commitment and loyalty. If you are a pastor of a GCx church, who will you see as most loyal and committed to your cause than members of your own family? Therefore, I think that the scales will always be tipped in favor of the kids of the influential leaders.

Fixed that for ya. 

[wounded]

If you are a pastor's kid, you get the special treatment (and maybe you make a few bucks when all is said and done).

I guess I never questioned why our church employed so many kids of pastors (5 PK's on the payroll)

Yes, I would have to agree that there is a lot of nepotism that takes place within GCx.
Thing is, our congregation never really had a say in who was hired or got money. I will be sure to ask next time someone who wants me to stay in town and work asks me for support.

There was nepotism there and favoritism.

It would be interesting to make a list of all the GCx churches that have appointed a PK as an "elder", and at what age they were an "elder" and how many others were in line as well to be an "elder" (since everybody is supposed to at least want to be one). I can think of several churches that have these young men as "elders". Good observation as far as a PK having an advantage in the loyalty/commitment department.

[Linda]

The thing to remember about GC churches is that all financial decisions are made by the pastors/elders or by men who they appoint who are directly accountable to them.

It appears to me to be a big conflict of interest. If a pastor wants to bring a friend or child onto the payroll (and there may be perfectly good reasons for that, not judging anyone just cuz they are the kid or friend of a pastor), it would be really hard for the financial board to say, "No." First of all, I don't think our financial board had the power to hire or fire and secondly, this is a somewhat "elite" group of men who have been "chosen" by the pastors. Not only does being "chosen" (by an church where the rest of the congregation has no say in anything) make one feel important, if you question something, you might lose your spot on the board.

Another thing, how much do these pastors make? In all the other evangelical churches I have attended, the pastor's salary is not only public, but voted on by the congregation. If leadership of any organization asking me for money doesn't tell me what the leaders make, I assume they are hiding something and proceed with caution.

[wastedyearsthere]

I would also worry about MORE immaturity.  Doesn't 1 Timothy warn against elders and deacons being too young (not tested) or a recent convert (?)

I know of some of my friends kids that are now elders that are in their early 20's.  And then there are those in GCx churches trying to be  elders in their 40's and 50's who have the character but for some unknown reason haven't been "raised up"! 

[Linda]

At the risk of having a GC leader read this and accuse me of being jealous that my husband wasn't ever given the tap on the back to be asked to be mentored by a GC elder (well, maybe he was, but we were too dumb about the ways of GC and busy raising our family and doing our best to live for God that he didn't realize what was going on and just said, "No thanks." ), I happen to think that the reason that people in their 40's and 50's are not "recognized" is that they are going for malleable young (20 something) men who are new believers and willing to take "unreasonable" orders from their "superiors" as proof of their loyalty, commitment, and devotion to the movement (which is different than loyalty, commitment, and devotion to God, BTW).

After we left, my husband was accused by an elder of being jealous. Since we had no idea how the system worked till we had decided to leave, we could honestly say that wasn't the case.

[nelliepooh]

I have been wavering about posting about this for a while but I stumbled upon a blog that a former leader of wccc campus fellowship that was utterly revealing and I won't provide a link to it at this point but basically the leader is apologizing for all of the wrong doing that may or may not have happened from their involvement.  Do the admins of the forum think its appropriate to share the blog if the writer asks for it to be shared and is publiclly available? I had wondered why this leader had left and why it was so hush hush but I know now the reason. I do wonder now about how it all went down, there seams to be a lot of secrecy. I don't know if its appropriate to post because I am almost certain they know of the forum (who in leadership wouldn't?) And I have reservations because if they wanted to post it here that they would and I don't want them to be persecuted for their honesty and humbleness by people committed to the group. 

[puff of purple smoke]

Make a new post, but yeah. Let's see it.

[Grace]

I have been wavering about posting about this for a while but I stumbled upon a blog that a former leader of wccc campus fellowship that was utterly revealing and I won't provide a link to it at this point but basically the leader is apologizing for all of the wrong doing that may or may not have happened from their involvement.  Do the admins of the forum think its appropriate to share the blog if the writer asks for it to be shared and is publiclly available? I had wondered why this leader had left and why it was so hush hush but I know now the reason. I do wonder now about how it all went down, there seams to be a lot of secrecy. I don't know if its appropriate to post because I am almost certain they know of the forum (who in leadership wouldn't?) And I have reservations because if they wanted to post it here that they would and I don't want them to be persecuted for their honesty and humbleness by people committed to the group. 

I know the leader and blog post that you're talking about. Maybe it would be good to ask that person first.

[Linda]

I saw that post last summer. Grace, what was communicated to the students about his departure? I do wonder why he has it on a public forum if he doesn't want people to see it. Perhaps a link would be the way to go. I can say that when we left and my husband blogged months later it was to set the record straight in a public way because leaders told people not to ask us and the reasons they gave were not the reasons we left.

[frmrblldg]

Greetings,
I have lurked for a while but thought I would chime in on this one. I have read the blog and spoke with the leader who left. I was very thankful for it as it helped me get some closure and as I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and his family.

His reason for leaving was that he felt he was at a different place theologically than the other leaders and that because of what the church believed, damaging things were taking place that he didn't want to be a part of. He sent me a personal message with his post apologizing for things that may have hurt me. Also, he mentioned that it wasn't a public post but a letter to friends. He did mention that the people whom he sent it to could let others know if they thought it would benefit people. I think his words were that he needed to move forward and didn't feel he could unless he rectified relationships.

Given that, I don't see how posting what he wrote on this forum would serve that purpose. I would recommend against it.

[Linda]

fmrblldg, I do wonder why it was on a public blog if he meant it to be private? Why wouldn't he just e-mail the content to his friends?

Do you still attend the church/college group? If so, what were you told about his departure? How was it explained to the group?

Update: I just went to the blog and think the post has been removed. I still am interested in what leadership told the congregation about his departure. The reason this interests me is that within the past year I ran into a ECC person at the grocery store. In the course of our conversation, she asked me why we left. As I explained (through tears) she said they had been told by leaders not to ask us why.

One of the things that was most odd and sad about our departure is the silence from our church friends. People we had been close to for 10 years NEVER ASKED US WHY WE LEFT. I assumed they didn't care, but in the back of my mind always wondered whether or not a control move had been executed from the leaders. The conversation in the grocery store explained a lot.

About a year after we left, a few people said some things that implied that we left because we didn't like the youth group, so my husband set the record straight publicly with his blog post. We didn't want to call people and say, "Read this," but we did want to set the record straight in a public manner for any who had been misled by leadership about the reasons for our departure.

I would encourage people who are wondering why someone left, to ask the person who left and not the church leaders.

[frmrblldg]

Emails can be forwarded and passed along in mass. Also, blog etiquette says that blogs aren't "public" unless a person publishes the blog for anyone in the public to find. In this case, I was sent an email with a link to a blog which I couldn't find without the email and the blog stated that it wasn't a public letter. Anyhow, I won't answer for him. I'm sure he knows of this forum and chose not to post on it for his own reasons.

I left a while ago but am still friends with a few people there. What they told me in general was that it was because he was a calvinist. He told me he left because he wasn't united with leadership and that there were things he disagreed with. From what I heard, it wasn't explained to the group as far as I know because a friend of mine at a different congregation had no clue he left when I spoke with them last month. I'm not there anymore, so I could be wrong. Maybe they did tell everyone and my friend just missed the meeting.

[Huldah]

Good rule of thumb to keep in mind: never post anything to the Internet that you wouldn't want to read on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow morning. Even a password-protected site is only as safe as the weakest link there (whether that link is the ease of guessing a user's password, or the integrity of the least honest member). Whatever you write is never more than about seven keystrokes away from going viral.

[LucyB]

It wasn't password-protected. I saw it. It was an honest and humble gesture from a good and wise man.

[Huldah]

It was an honest and humble gesture from a good and wise man.

So I gathered. I was just saying that if he meant his words only for a limited audience, posting them on the Internet (aka "The Worlds' Biggest Copy Machine") was taking a risk.

[nelliepooh]

Well the fact that the post was taken down from the blog it is clear that the writer did not want the post to go out.  I was confused because the blog was public, it did say that he made it private but it wasn't really private and that it said to show it to those who may need to see I thought it may be something they wanted to be shared.  I found it from messing around and finding the blog, no one told me about it I just found it one day.  Anyway I am sorry to the writer if they are upset that I brought up the post here. I really do wish them all the best and for God to bless them in whatever new opportunities He brings their way.  This leader is a truly great Christian leader, if only some of the other leaders in this church could see their errors.

[puff of purple smoke]

Blogs are by definition public, so if the post is readable by the public it's designed (via the way blog software is written and designed) to be read and linked to. But if the writer took the post down then we should respect that, perhaps he didn't realize he had the option to post it privately. The whole idea of a blog though, is a journal you let everyone read.