We Did it Our Way...

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.

[Linda]

As we were leaving church today, we were commenting on the message, which was everything a Palm Sunday message should be. First of all, it mentioned Palm Sunday! The pastor went through the events of that monumental week, describing it as the most significant week in all of human history. When he got to the Good Friday and the cross, he began to weep and had to compose himself. This message was all about Jesus. Not about the church, or commitment to it, or the leaders of the church, and commitment to them, or giving to the church, or serving the church. It was about Jesus and what He did.

Then, I remembered something. I remembered the Easter Sunday when we went to our GC church and no mention was made of Easter! There was normal music, a skit of some sort on evangelism, and I believe a message on Islam. No reading of the Easter story, no "Christ is risen" being sung or said, no Easter lilies even, no mention of the resurrection, nothing. I know of one family that visited that week and left halfway through the service because they wanted to attend an Easter service and I know of another family for whom that was the last straw.

I then remembered a Mother's Day when the same thing happened. My husband was at "rehearsal" for the music and the pastor walked by. They were planning the announcement time and someone said, "Oh, it's Mother's Day today, do you want to mention that?" The pastor said, "No, I'm not going to say anything." Don't get me wrong, not mentioning Mother's Day is not nearly as big a deal as not mentioning the resurrection of our Lord. But nevertheless, it was odd.

Another time, about two weeks before Christmas, my daughter's future in-laws were visiting on a Friday night. About halfway through the service, the pastor announced that "they" had decided to buy a building (they meaning the pastors, I guess) and "they" had hired a big buck consulting firm (without any congregational input on a HUGE expense, tens of thousands, I believe). The consulting firm thought it would be a great idea to ask the congregation what they wanted in a building. (Having forgot to ask the congregation if they thought a building was a good idea in the first place.) All of a sudden, the lights were turned on and surveys were distributed to everyone (including all visitors). I don't even think there was much of a message that week--just sing a couple of songs and fill out a survey for 20 minutes on how big you want the nursery and what color carpet floats your boat. How odd.

Did anyone else ever find that holidays were minimized? Just wondering.

[DrSam]

Linda... don't be hard on pastors if they don't necessarily get a high from doing the traditional Easter, Mother's Day, St. Patricks Day, Afro-American week, Hispanic Week, 4th of July, on and on...

I've been on both sides when I did my "pastor" thing. On one hand you become a people-pleaser by celebrating these times, hugging the grannies and holding the babies. It's a game that sometimes it is meant well and other times a necessity because your paycheck depends on it. On the other hand, and this is one of my biggest gripes about "church"... It has become a business of 5-second handshakes that are supposed to be "koinonia." What a joke! My personal opinion is that all this falsity causes the newer generation to not give a damn. They see the sham of it. Don't get me wrong, those holidays can be made meaningful in terms of loving people and eternity but most of it, in my humble opinion is a sham. Christians have become constipated with form to the point that they miss love via relationships and are clinically empty.

As a pastor I sometimes celebrated these events and sometimes I did not, especially when we were trying to put on a show. Though I am committed to the "eklesia" lots of what you see today is not that. My kids have a deep passion for Christ and constantly seek relevancy in relationships. They are extremely effective with the heathen and yet don't care for my generation's structures and forms that appear to be hallow and without life. I concur and know quite a few former pastors and church planters that have given up on the "church" as we know it. We don't see ourselves as Evangelicals because that carries so much negative baggage that causes people to run away in the opposite direction. My pastor buds tell me that young people are leaving the church of their parents in droves. In my classes on a secular campus I see it. They want true relationships and real people... not fakes and can see beyond the "special effects." and "CGI" (Computer Generated Imagery).

Here is a very thought provoking article about the "coming Evangelical demise":

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

[Linda]

don't be hard on pastors if they don't necessarily get a high from doing the traditional Easter

Huh?

As a pastor I sometimes celebrated these events and sometimes I did not, especially when we were trying to put on a show.

Huh?

[blonde]

Dr. Sam, Easter and Christmas?  Wow?  I don't think I would have like to go to your church either.  Linda is speaking about the Evergreen church systems.  They were big on entertaining, and AW Tozer wrote about this years ago.

+ Linda, I feel for you .  Glad you left Evergreen.  It is a messed-up church with Brent and Mark at the helm.  I remember fighting with a liberal Luthern that believed in gay marriage who yet still LOVED high church days, meaning Christmas and Easter, talk about Jesus and the Bible.  I got her half-way, but not the gay marriage thing.

+ Dr. Sam, you sound like Mark Darling a bit.  Entertain the masses with a song-and-dance.  Leave the Bible out.  (From my memory, Linda goes to Bethlehem Baptist Church with Pastor John Piper.  I can see him cry over the Cross, but not Mark Darling.  He would cry about how Twitter or Facebook is a waste of time.)

[AgathaL'Orange]

"Here is a very thought provoking article about the "coming Evangelical demise":

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html"

Sam, that article is very sad and I think very true.  I've certainly found it to be true in my own life.

Linda, I had the SAME conversation with my in-laws today.  Apparently there was no mention of Palm Sunday today and next week's sermon won't be about Easter at their church.  In the same conversation they told me how much they dislike the "old hymns."  And this is not intended to fault my wonderful inlaws at all.  But it struck me how both the lack of hymns AND the lack of commemoration of major Christian feast days are two side of the same coin.  The evangelical church is sorely lacking an evangelical liturgy and calendar of sorts.  They wanted to engage the culture in the early days, to throw out the unnecessary things unsupported by scripture and they DID.  Unfortunately the evangelical tradition of throwing out things seems to cause some (please note that i am saying some!!!) (GC and other churches) to throw out EVERYTHING.  

But these aren't just songs and holidays.  They can also be tools to disseminate the faith to the next generation.  Hymns are absolutely loaded with theology and tradition.  Feast days (major Christian holidays) allow the Christian story to be told again and again ensuring that each generation knows the incarnation, the Passion, the resurrection.  Liturgical churches for centuries have been repeating this every year with the remembrance of Pentecost, Mary saying "yes" to carrying the Son of God, martyrs, practically EVERYTHING is there in the ancient church calendar.  There were marriage sermons that cover Hebrew history AND the picture of Jesus and the church (we are HIS bride not our pastor's), the baptism liturgy that tells the story of Christ's baptism.  It's all there.  That's why they had liturgy.  So we can't mess it up!    Well, maybe not quite, but it does have that effect!

This is where evangelical churches can (please note I'm saying CAN here!  ) break down and where GC breaks down even further.  Instead of focusing on the basics and allowing the Holy Spirit to do the work of change from within as we choose to go higher up and deeper in, they SOMETIMES focus on topics (relevant, practical, pragmatic) or small passages that can leave a good part of our Christian education out.  It's missing.  And with no catechism or creed, even more can be lost if we're not careful.

GC is an extreme version.  But I do appreciate a liturgical calendar and meaty hymns. I love the thought that if I participate, I will hear the message again every year.  

I'm sorry I got carried away here, but it IS sad... I agree!  They should cover the resurrection of Christ AT LEAST once a year.  And not only that, on Easter seems an appropriate time.

I don't get it!

[AgathaL'Orange]

In my GC church they did remember holidays.  They had a lot of Christmas songs, the kids did a little show.  It was pretty classic Christmas fare, which is what it should be!  On Mother's Day they gave out flowers to all women not just moms and I thought that was neat.  Wow, why did I stop going there... I'm remembering it so positively right now.  Maybe all the time and distance has eased the painful memories!   But I did miss the huge Christmas and Easter celebrations at my childhood "Bible" church.  There was always a huge Christmas cantata and Easter play.  It was really fun and I usually cried!  Not that that means anything, but I really did connect. 

Another point on the value of holidays is that often that is when unsaved people or lax attenders tend to go to church.  Wouldn't they want to spend those days telling the importance of that day?

Also, the using a Sunday as a business meeting to pick carpet is strange. I totally agree.

[Linda]

But I do appreciate a liturgical calendar and meaty hymns. I love the thought that if I participate, I will hear the message again every year.

Nicely said. I appreciate the church calendar, also, for the same reasons.

The Jews had many celebrations and feast days that were required by God and used to remind the people of His faithfulness. One of the last things Jesus did was celebrate Passover. He was killed on Passover. This is in itself rich with meaning and worthy of explanation and remembrance.

As far as not mentioning special days, it wasn't consistent. Most often, my church did celebrate Easter and other days. What strikes me about it looking back was that it was a pastor control thing. The pastor decides if he will celebrate Easter, not the congregation and most definitely not some old, musty church calendar.

Also, Sam, church isn't a "show" and it certainly shouldn't be something based on what the pastor gets "high" from doing so I don't understand your comment.

Also, in the interest of honesty, that survey that took the place of a sermon two weeks before Christmas, wasn't to come up with specifics, it was more of a dream/wish list, as I recall...asking things like "What would you like to see in a nursery?", "How many kids do you have and what are their ages?", "What rooms are important in a church?" It was one of the few times they asked our opinion...of course, they made the decision to purchase the building and cancel all winter Wednesday kids activities to gear up for fundraising, and hired a consulting firm without the input of the faithful givers, so it was kind of too little too late.

Blonde, it wasn't Piper. I do visit Bethlehem on occasion and recommend the Maundy Thursday Communion service this week if you live in town. It is very meaningful. We have been attending Grace Church and appreciate their new pastor Troy Dobbs.

[DrSam]

Perhaps I did not share clearly and I think my position is misunderstood.

Basically, I've been on both sides of the equation as a pastor. I've done the "symbol" thing with church and I've done the non-symbol thing with church. Both sides have their pros and cons. I think we can do "church" and not "be church." That can happen with liturgical forms or with "modern forms." When the form or the system dilutes or replaces passion for Christ and our personal responsibility something is wrong. When we go to a "church" or lead a "church" and do certain culturally expected things such as hear or preach the yearly "Mother's Day" sermon and it is rote or to satisfy people to give them good feelings (Christians with their hyms and Easter Day sermons) and it does not result in each believer growing and taking on the role of a priest/minister then something is wrong. Same goes for the other side. Been there on both sides and have the tee shirts to prove it.

I believe that both the MegaChurch/Seeker Sensitive churches and the traditional Hymn-loving churches are in a downward spiral. We are entering a post-Evangelical era where folks don't care or give a damn about what we have loved. These will become small groupings and the Spirit of God will move masses of the newer generation in other ways Evangelicals will miss and have difficulty accepting. Like the churches of old so will the Evangelical churches go and become a thing of the past. Honestly, I'm glad cuz it does not work well any longer.

[lone gone]

Sam, Your prediction of a possible future movement sounds so much like men's love  growing cold and they will all seek their own ways. New touchy-feeling ways to connect and interact with each other are doomed to eventual failure. Cutting themselves off from the past will only expose them to making the same mistakes that were made in the past. Too much of what passes for "the leadings of the Spirit" are ultimately exposed as the wishful thinking of humankind.

Regarding celebrations of traditional church holidays.....I can see both sides. Churches other than GC choose their own ways to worship.

I choose to celebrate the reality and personal presence of my risen Savior along with all the angels and archangels and the company of heaven along with those departed souls in the ever present NOW of heaven along with my fellow celebrators at the church building where I attend divine services ( what God is doing for me, not what I am doing for God) on Easter Sunday.
Nothing is a symbol for me, it is real.
 
 Regarding the practices of "to celebrate or not"...I attribute the weaknesses of each "celebrational system" to a real genuine lack of awareness about WHY we do things, not just HOW we do things.

Any system we erect for ourselves is nothing but a shortcut to a goal. By eliminating all side issues we hope to reach the end faster and with less effort. It is reasoned that you don't have to teach anyone why if there are no alternatives to how.

It's the same as cutting your family off from society in order to keep it pure from worldliness. (Home school your kids, only do business with other true believers, live in a community of like minded folk and never be exposed to false teaching or led into temptation.)

It's when there are differences in practice or understanding that we are all thrown into a discussion about why. This applies even with non Christian influences in our communities.

In the end, you have leaders, followers and non participators.   Leaders will lead, each in his or her own way, Followers will follow because that is what they think they ought to do, and non-participatpors will exist on the fringes and occasionally show more or less enthusiasm for what they choose to participate in.

Sorry folks, this is the same in any human religion, not just ours. What GC does or does not do isn't much of an issue but I can understand how people can still be upset or concerned about it.... even if they don't  attend a GC church any more.

[Linda]

First of all, Sam, I don't look at Easter as a "symbol". I look at it as the essence of Christianity

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.  If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Easter is a BIG deal. It's not a show. To ignore the passion of Christ demonstrates a lack of passion for Christ.

Having said that, Easter was only "forgotten" one year, so the leader must have concluded it was a bad idea to not mention the resurrection on Easter.

I think we can do "church" and not "be church." That can happen with liturgical forms or with "modern forms.

I agree.

When we go to a "church" or lead a "church" and do certain culturally expected things such as hear or preach the yearly "Mother's Day" sermon and it is rote or to satisfy people to give them good feelings (Christians with their hymns and Easter Day sermons) and it does not result in each believer growing and taking on the role of a priest/minister then something is wrong.

First of all, in GC a believer can't take on the role of priest/minister unless he is a "he" and is a "recognized" he. (Never mind what 1 Peter says).

Secondly, I really don't care whether or not someone says "Happy Mother's Day" to me. Or, "Happy Thanksgiving", "Happy Valentine's Day", or "Happy Birthday". These are just cultural things. However, Easter is not a cultural thing. It's a DEAL. Some people say they are Christians and don't believe in the resurrection, Sam.

The only thing I can conclude is that ignoring Easter was an act of control--the pastor was saying he had something different planned, he was the leader, and that was that. At the time, I thought it was weird, but didn't question it. We just went home and read the Easter story to our family.

[EverAStudent]

Linda, of course the resurrection is the keystone of Christ's work.  It is for this reason that it is to be remembered every time we eat the bread and drink the cup instead of waiting just once a year.  It is that important.

In the early church there were no prescribed holy days.  When the Law became obsolete each church established their own feast days (if any -- Colossians 2).  There were certainly no Christian-wide holidays.  With time, that changed, but the change was not ncessarily "biblical" in nature, more like tradition or convention.

My personal feeling is that Easter and Christmas are wonderful opportunities to present the truth claims of Christ to the unchurched, the unsaved, and to remind the faithful, because those are two of the days when "everyone" packs into the church for that very reason!  What a shame to miss the opportunity.

I cannot condemn a pastor who feels like an Easter (the name of the dawn goddess) celebration is pandering to commercialism.  Yet, I also personally feel that taking advantage of a cultural event to expose the community to the keystone truth of Christ's work is wise and prudent and makes good use of the short time we have.

As for the hatred that the youngest generation of "church" has for hymns and doctrine, that has been coming for decades.  GC was a catalyst for it (why do you think that GC churches rarely sang hymns, favoring instead praise songs, or that they so despised seminary training?).  Today's "young" church has a disdain for the older generation (driving them off with extraordinarily loud rock music) and sees church as a way of meeting their youthful interests instead of seeing church as an entire community of discples dedicated to becoming bondservants of Christ.  It is a shame, but the youngest generation of "church" is self-involved and has lost both my respect and my interest.  We serve at a church that seeks to minister to the entire community of believers, all ages.  That is as it should be.  There are both oldsters and youngsters active in the church, and as a result, the zeal of youth is exposed to the wisdom of those who have studied doctrine for a lifetime.  We have forgotten the Ephesians 4 mission of the church in gathering itself together:  speaking the truth in love so that we grow up in Christ to maturity, able to teach each other, build each other up, and able to withstand unsound doctrine. 

[DrSam]

Again it is so easy to misunderstand points when you are not face-to-face. Even then it still happens.

I never said that Easter is not important. Of course, the resurrection of Christ is paramount to the Christian faith. It is highly questionable whether Easter as a holiday is a mandate from God. 

When a cultural holiday becomes empty, mechanical, clinical, and "nice" because it is simply a tradition then maybe it is time to revise it, change it, or drop it. That is not equal to disbelieving in the resurrection of Christ. I hope that is clear.

I love hymns and know many by heart but I also realize that unless I am going to reach Old Baptists in the Bible Belt then it can be a deterrent.

Also, I think Linda mentioned that the priesthood of all believers/everyone a minister was not followed in GC. Again I would present that this was not the case in the churches I started, hence you cannot generalize this point to all GC. I also know other pastors who did the same as I did.

Lastly, here is an interesting link to an article in Newsweek on "The End of Christian America":

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

[Linda]

I cannot condemn a pastor who feels like an Easter (the name of the dawn goddess) celebration is pandering to commercialism.  Yet, I also personally feel that taking advantage of a cultural event to expose the community to the keystone truth of Christ's work is wise and prudent and makes good use of the short time we have.

In the case I was referring to, this wasn't done to make a statement against commercialism. Actually, I think the guy simply forgot it was Easter!

I agree, the "cultural" aspect of Easter and other "Christian" holidays are wonderful opportunities to share the gospel--especially churches that present themselves as "seeker" churches, as ours did.

The unique thing about Easter is that the emphasis is on the resurrection. During communion, I think mostly about the sacrifice Jesus made. Maybe that's just my faulty thinking, but the emphasis at Easter is that Jesus rose from the dead. And in a day when people deny that He did or think that living in "community" is what really matters, I think it's a shame to not emphasize the resurrection.

Of course, it doesn't matter when you do it. For example, I mostly say "Happy Birthday" to people on their birthdays. If I forget to say it, my friends probably won't feel betrayed, and I can always say it later. But, if I remember it is their birthday while I am with them, why wouldn't I say "Happy Birthday"?

My bigger point was the control thing and the inconsistencies. Sometimes we celebrate Easter, Christmas, Mother's Day, Memorial Day (actually this one usually gets a mention!) sometimes we don't. Depends on what Pastor decides.

A secondary point was that I thought it was really odd to use a seeker church service during Advent to announce that a decision to purchase a building and hire expensive consultants had been made in executive session. Even odder and more telling was that visitors to the service had just as much input (which wasn't much!) via the survey as members. Kind of spoke to the idea that everyone who isn't an elder is viewed the same whether members or not. Really, in a GC church, there is no point in membership.

[nolongergci]

The GCI church I attended was (as Sam's was) one that taught and practiced the priesthood of all believers. I've never been in a church gathering since that practiced it, even though a number of them have it in their belief statement.

[Linda]

The GCI church I attended was (as Sam's was) one that taught and practiced the priesthood of all believers.

Great! Just curious as to how they did this?

This topic (the priesthood of the believer) came up in discussion at our last meeting with Mark and Spencer. I can't remember how they explained it away, but they had a different take on what it meant.

Their conclusion was that God speaks only through the elders. To obey an elder IS to obey God. To disobey an elder is to disobey God. To question something an elder said or did is to question God. Watch out, the earth might swallow you up!

I always likened it to them being stuck in the Old Testament and forgetting about Pentecost (I wish that they would on occasion teach what happened at Pentecost!). The Holy Spirit speaks to each believer directly now. It was a different deal with Moses. Disobeying Moses WAS disobeying God.

[EverAStudent]

Kind of spoke to the idea that everyone who isn't an elder is viewed the same whether members or not. Really, in a GC church, there is no point in membership.

I once asked a pastor what the difference between "being a member" was compared with just "being a regular attender."  The answer, "We'd have more trouble subjecting a regular attender to discipline than a member."    hmmm........  In GC, viva the regular attender status!!

Sadly, many churches are moving away from membership, allowing anyone to teach or hold office, with or without baptism, etc.  To be sure, I am not in love with certain formal membership concepts (especially taking pledges to join), nor did I appreciate the "you must be one of the elders' in-people to teach" approach that GC had, but I am also not in favor of allowing untested individuals from off the street to simply begin hanging with my children or teaching undisclosed doctrines from their past to the adults.  There must be some type of evaluation and oversight.  Often, application for memebership can be used to facilitate that evaluation and disclosure process, as it is in our present church.

Linda, like you, the GCI churches we were once invested in (Bethany Bible Chapel and Trinity Bible Fellowship) were governed by elders who knew the proper lingo regarding the priesthood of all believers, but their authoritarian and autocratic rule allowed them to dominate all decisions and to crush the spirit out of that biblical concept.  They knew the phrase, and talked big about believing in it, but they lacked action that was informed by the concept.  Rather than embrace the need for every believer to use their Spirit-given spritual gift, they delighted in demanding obedience to themselves, telling you what gift you had, telling you what ministry role to pursue, who to marry, where to live, etc.  Seems a proper understanding of the idea of the priesthood of all believers needs to result in compassionate and loving action and not a demand for obedience, assumining it is well understood.

[nolongergci]

Priesthood of all believers - there was an open-sharing time each week which was open for anyone to share on an area that was on their heart. No need to get approval ahead of time from anyone. Sometimes one would take the whole time for a teaching. This time was not when the "leading brothers" taught (unless no one had anything to share), but was a regular meeting of the church. There was much open prayer time in these meetings also.

Decisions of the church were made at weekly brothers' meetings. Any could come and present an idea and have imput. A discussion and question time followed and a decision was reached.

[EverAStudent]

Decisions of the church were made at weekly brothers' meetings. Any could come and present an idea and have imput. A discussion and question time followed and a decision was reached.

At our churches, the leadership meetings were always closed; locations, times, and topics were always unpublished.  All decisions were simply announced to the church/student organization by the elders. 

there was an open-sharing time each week which was open for anyone to share on an area that was on their heart. No need to get approval ahead of time from anyone. Sometimes one would take the whole time for a teaching. This time was not when the "leading brothers" taught (unless no one had anything to share), but was a regular meeting of the church.

Again, at our churches, there was also an open ministry time (15 minutes), where "brothers only" were permitted to share mini-lessons.  This practice represented the best and worst of GCI in those days.  The best in so much that those who had studied some topic from the Scriptures could share their fruits with everyone else.  The worst in so much that if a topic was delivered by "a brother" that was unsound biblically, but was simultaneously enthusiastically supportive of GCI, it was tolerated and left uncorrected.  Also the worst in so much that if the mini-lesson was biblically sound but contradicted an elder or a GCI teaching, the "brother" was taken aside and severly rebuked for rebelliousness, not rebuked for his doctrine, but for his attitude.  Over time, with this type of heavy handed manipulation/guidance, open ministry simply turned into a monotonous shallow parroting of "why I like GCI" and stopped being a time of deep sharing from the Word.

[DrSam]

To EverAStudent,

So you were at Bethany Bible Chapel? I assume that was Winona Lake, Indiana. I attended there with the original elders Ray Moore and Mike Royal. Were you there then or after they left? I knew the guys that came after that also. We were students at the seminary there.

Was Trinity at Purdue U?

[LucyB]

Sam:
As a pastor, did you ever sense that you were a fellow laborer with pastors from all over the world and connected though faith to those who had gone before in past generations?  The concept that the pastor is a little monarch in his own kingdom, deciding when and if he will preach the gospel or celebrate Easter seems so superficial and shallow—not worthy of the calling.