Weekly Discussion: The Downtown Church

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.

[Captein]

I hope to address each sermon in an objective manner, and hear a wide variety of opinions reflected back. This is not an attack on the DTC. It is an evaluation by an open minded observer.

Here is my earlier post on Sunday's sermon, and my first visit to the DTC:


06/23/2012
---------

Into the mouth of the lion, so they say.

Captein, what you will find in this forum is a general complaint that GC pastors have often demand to be obeyed in personal matters (apart from biblical doctrine) and have demanded far too much personal labor from church members than is biblically healthy for them to give.  Moreover, the pastors are ill-trained as pastors and ill-trained in how to read and interpret Scriptures accurately, leading to further misleading of the congregants at a spiritual level.

Well said. For those who are not overly zealous, I can see the appeal of the Downtown Church: very young, friendly people; modern grassroots ambiance; trendy (generic) Christian folk rock band; hip, professional graphic design work; good coffee and doughnuts-- it's worse than I feared.

Just kidding.

That being said, I can't say I was happy with what I saw, either. Pure neutrality. On the surface, there was no hatred, no disparaging offhand remarks, no ignorance, not the slightest hint at even a mild bigotry. It was pleasant. Dan Rude's sermon was... interesting to watch. It was a sermon on leadership. Church leadership. Not about who should lead, or why, but more on the how a pastor should lead. At first, it sounded nice. Lead by example. Practice what you preach. Hypocrisy hurts not only the church, but more importantly it also hurts the message it is trying to teach.

[[[edit: 1 Timothy was referenced to support this. The second half of the sermon, when he tried to explain it in a situational sense, appeared to veer from this message]]]

Long story short, he claimed he was able to lead by example. That he had carved the correct path that people should follow, although there were other correct paths as well. The funny thing is that he stated this after briefly mentioning "the blind leading the blind." I may not know what I'm talking about, but if the blind knew they were blind, they wouldn't be trying to lead anyone anywhere. But then, nobody thinks they're blind. Of course that means that any type of sermon would simply be hubris. But then he could also be right, and somehow leading everyone down the right path to salvation. It's not my place to say, I guess. I, like everyone else, am blind.

The most important part of the sermon to me, however, was a ten second tangent he took to undermine the importance of critical thinking. After stating that he had carved the right path to Christ-like living and spiritual maturity, he said that those who chose to make their own choices instead of following a correct path (previously defined by himself and church leadership) were most likely going to end up wandering the proverbial forest. When it was in context, it was subtle. But it was very clearly a swipe at independent thought.

Now, I don't think it was intentional. I don't think Mr. Rude was consciously trying to soften up the congregation for manipulation. He believed what he was saying. That doesn't make it right (obviously critical independent analysis is an absolutely essential part of truly learning who you are and what you believe), but he did not say it with malicious intent. What it does show, however, is how Dan justifies his style of leadership. After all, if the sheep can find their own way, what need is there for a shepherd?

Please, post thoughts comments and concerns. I'll come back and update this thread after each visit and I would be glad to hear as many opinions as possible.

[DevastatedTC]

I've been rethinking a few things (or maybe a better way to put it is thinking about things a bit more). Some of the topics seem to come up in sermons over and over. I feel like I've heard a lot of the principles on leadership preached over and over. Not to exaggerate things, but it is like a broken record (other topics like evangelism come up more often than they do when I read the Bible, for instance).

While I agreed with most of the message given by Dan, I also noticed the tangent towards critical thinking. That comes up in other circles as well, not just from the stage. My curiosity is whether or not it is due to self-awareness of a lack of education and ability to tackle the deeper doctrines. What I mean is that a lot of teachings on these areas of leadership seem to be done from a defensive position.

Anyhow, good discussion. Not sure where it will lead. Am curious as to what you will notice at the DTC. There are a few things that bothered me up front. Not going to tell you what they were as I'd like to see if you are seeing it or if I am just imagining it all (part of me hopes that I am). Too bad there isn't a like button on this forum.

[curious]

I've been rethinking a few things (or maybe a better way to put it is thinking about things a bit more). Some of the topics seem to come up in sermons over and over. I feel like I've heard a lot of the principles on leadership preached over and over. Not to exaggerate things, but it is like a broken record (other topics like evangelism come up more often than they do when I read the Bible, for instance).

While I agreed with most of the message given by Dan, I also noticed the tangent towards critical thinking. That comes up in other circles as well, not just from the stage. My curiosity is whether or not it is due to self-awareness of a lack of education and ability to tackle the deeper doctrines. What I mean is that a lot of teachings on these areas of leadership seem to be done from a defensive position.

Anyhow, good discussion. Not sure where it will lead. Am curious as to what you will notice at the DTC. There are a few things that bothered me up front. Not going to tell you what they were as I'd like to see if you are seeing it or if I am just imagining it all (part of me hopes that I am). Too bad there isn't a like button on this forum.

I am current GCC member. The topics that my pastors have discussed, usually end up being repeated several times. I have noticed that sometimes they target people or are used to make examples of others. I would agree that the topics usually come from a defensive position. I have seen that they use it to control, not trusting that God will work in our lives, and like a parent they need to have faith that believers will follow the foundation laid.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Wow, what a great idea!  I can't wait to read more of your analysis.

[Captein]

Unfortunately I was not able to attend this week's service. However, I do have some updates for everyone.

[EverAStudent]

Captein, thank you for posting.

I think I said this to you on another thread some weeks ago, but it is worth repeating:  Faith is a game changer when it comes to values, character development, and even to personal growth; your best approach is to support your friend's search for faith and not to attack it.

It is good to continue to ask questions:  How can you love the people in the world if you do not spend time with them?  Will our relationship continue or will you have no time for me?  What does the Bible say about how you and I should interact?  Are all those ex-GC'ers on GCMWarning crazy or was this a pattern of the GC church movement?  How is DTC different from the GC historical pattern (and are you sure it is?)?

Though I do not know DTC first hand, I do know something about the Emerging Church Movement and the Seeker Church Movement.  The social gathering you describe would fit it well with both:  young pretty professionals looking for meaning and deep friendships but not knowing much about how to go about it.  Nothing cultish there, but my biases and sensitivities (as an old person) leave me cold about youth-centric churches.

In every era GC social gatherings also did double duty as church gatherings.  Always.  Social events were often a platform on which to demonstrate one's fitness for leadership so the outside observer will note that some attendees  will act as though they have something to prove to each other (i.e. show their outward friendliness overly much, show their outward holiness overly much, etc).

Also, in every church social gathering (from any denomination) genuine believers will explain to you why they believe and how you can attain forgiveness from God.  That is part and parcel of true faith universally.  If you hang with believers and if they care about you at all as a person, you will be told about the mercies of God.  No apologies from me for that. 

[Captein]

EverAStudent, when it comes to supporting faith I'm afraid I must remain neutral. Telling a friend to take a second look, and sharing perspectives from the side she was not aware of is not an attack on her faith. I never claimed the DTC was a cult, even if some of the stories I shared do. I want her to make her own choices, and I put a strong emphasis on that. There are certainly cultic elements to the community, but that could be said about many different organizations, including secular. The church is not evil, and the people mean well, but it does perpetuate an environment that people in the right situation can fall victim to, regardless of what movement they belong to, and I have not seen that acknowledged by anyone here in Des Moines.

You have to remember that I am not Christian. I respect religion, and I respect faith, but I am not religious. The same reason a Christian friend would want to tell me about the mercies of God is the same reason I feel the need to help them avoid pitfalls in their life. Although faith may be important for personal growth, when it comes to worldly problems, it is not the only solution. I have suffered in life just as others have, and faith did not dig me out of that hole. That's not to say that faith has no merits, and cannot bring relief to pain. That is not for me to decide, but I'm sure it can. However, to say that the peace within me is somehow not as real as the peace a faithful person experiences would be a terribly arrogant thing to assume. The spiritual and the worldly do not necessarily have to clash.

[newcreature]

You have to remember that I am not Christian. I respect religion, and I respect faith, but I am not religious.

Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere posts, Captein. I hope M continues to value your friendship  and I hope she can objectively reflect upon your conversations and the testimonies you presented to her.

Faith is a very interesting subject to me. I don't know how you define faith, but most Christians define it according to a passage in the Bible: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

On a day to day basis, I believe we all operate on a more generic definition of faith. When I sit down at my desk, I have faith my chair will hold me up. When I pay my bills, I have faith the utility companies will keep me connected. When I board the plane, I have faith in the mechanics, the air traffic controllers, the pilots, and the laws of aerodynamics and jet propulsion.

Ultimately, the object of my faith is the real issue. That is especially true when it comes to my Christian faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ really died for my sins and really rose from the grave. The first-hand reports of those historical events are the foundational tenets of the Christian faith. If those Biblical accounts are false, then I am a fool for believing them. The corollary is equally poignant: if the Bible is true, then I am a fool if I don't believe it.

However, to say that the peace within me is somehow not as real as the peace a faithful person experiences would be a terribly arrogant thing to assume. The spiritual and the worldly do not necessarily have to clash.

Again, thanks for expressing your beliefs. And since you candidly state that you are not a Christian, I would ask you to reconsider your response to EverAStudent when it comes to your definition of arrogance. The Bible says that through faith in God, Christians will receive a peace from God that surpasses mere human comprehension. It goes on to say that this peace of God will guard our hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Therefore, you have no personal basis to compare the difference between your non-Christian peace and the peace that God gives to a Christian. Obviously, not all Christians experience that peace on a perfectly consistent basis, but they can personally compare both sides of the coin, so to speak, and there is a world of difference.

Christians aren't "better" than non-Christians; however, we are spiritually "better off" because we simply accepted what God freely offered to every person on this planet. God still offers eternal, spritual life which outlasts and supersedes this temporal, worldly life. It would be selfish of us to keep that good news to ourselves.

[Captein]

I apologize, I did not mean to be belligerent. Everyone has been nothing but accommodating, I did not mean to be disrespectful, and I appreciate the candor within this forum. There are a couple of points I would like to address, though, if this is to be an honest spiritual debate (which is always fun and healthy):

Therefore, you have no personal basis to compare the difference between your non-Christian peace and the peace that God gives to a Christian. Obviously, not all Christians experience that peace on a perfectly consistent basis, but they can personally compare both sides of the coin, so to speak, and there is a world of difference.

That is something I do not believe, simply because it is based on the assumption that someone outside of oneself is able to feel what one feels. A Christian who has experienced both forms of peace may find a gaping chasm between the two, but that same person will not be able to know what level of peace another human is experiencing, regardless of the origin of it. That is what I meant by arrogance, and I apologize for the poor choice in words.

Christians aren't "better" than non-Christians; however, we are spiritually "better off" because we simply accepted what God freely offered to every person on this planet. God still offers eternal, spritual life which outlasts and supersedes this temporal, worldly life. It would be selfish of us to keep that good news to ourselves.

I have no ability to say your perspective is not valid, but keep in mind that as a human it can only be a singular perspective. I was talking to a friend earlier, and used this example:

If two people see a ball, and one says it is red, and the other says it is blue, then what right do either have to claim what color the ball is? On the other hand, if one person saw a cliff, and the other did not, should the first person try to stop the second from walking toward it? Both examples are valid, and I have absolutely no qualms with a Christian friend (or stranger) trying to help me, but you also have to recognize that as a conscious entity with a unique point of view, I can only take that warning to a degree. Other evidence both for and against must be considered as well, and the choice is ultimately mine to make. Of course, in reality it is very frustrating when you are confronted with the same evidence over and over again, and sometimes I can't help but roll my eyes because of it, but if we were all so robotic life would not be nearly as much fun, I suppose.

Ultimately, the object of my faith is the real issue. That is especially true when it comes to my Christian faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ really died for my sins and really rose from the grave. The first-hand reports of those historical events are the foundational tenets of the Christian faith. If those Biblical accounts are false, then I am a fool for believing them. The corollary is equally poignant: if the Bible is true, then I am a fool if I don't believe it.

Fool is a strong way of putting it, but yes I agree. Wrong, but not a fool. From the entire scope of evidence, you could make a reasonable case for either instance to be true. Just because a person has only been presented with evidence that leans one way or the other, does not make them a fool. That only happens when a person stops searching for the truth.

[EverAStudent]

Hello Captein,

First, I really have kept in the front of my thoughts the reality that you are not a Christian, but rather are an atheist.  In fact, I do appreciate that you have been respectful and polite in your postings here, as all of us try to be as well.

Second, when I said to support her in her search for faith I did not mean you have to tell her that God is real.  What I meant is that you need to support her search for her faith and try not to discourage it.  Your faith that God does not exist is not "provable" any more than her faith that God does exist is "provable."  I would urge you and encourage you to continue to search for the truth behind your belief system even though I do not believe your present understanding has come to the right conclusion.  By encouraging your friend to do the same (and not discouraging her) you will remain her friend and will keep the communications flowing (the essence of genuine relationship).

Third, "peace" as used in the Bible most often means a peace between God and man, not an etherial "felt" peace.  I do not know who "feels" more peace, and I do not care who does.  Peace is a state of reality.  Peace is the end of the war between a God who hates sin and a sinful man who loves sin and hates holiness.  That peace, that truce, is only enacted when a person surrenders to God who has made all the provisions for peace (having sacrificed His own Son). 

It is truly a silly errand to try to show that belief engenders more feelings of peace than does atheism or that holiness gives more feelings of pleasure than does sinning.  Feelings are never the goal or the issue and neither is making someone feel "better."  Attainment of truth and reconciliation with God are the goals, not feeling better than an unbeliever. 

Enjoying the discussion. Keep posting.

[DevastatedTC]

I think for the most part, I was able to understand the heart of Captein's post and his perspective since he was up front that he is an atheist. Maybe in the future, if you feel there needs to be clarification, send it to him as a personal message so that he can edit and clarify his remarks and keep the public forum more focused. Just a suggestion and no offense meant by that.

Since you were not there, I think I will give a little insight on the message last Saturday. Some of the same things were brought up over and over. It was supposedly exegetical (I'm told that is the style of preaching they use). I'm not sure if I have a good understanding of what "exegetical" means, but I think you are supposed to stick with what is in the text and not go beyond it. Upon reflection and a little more study (by that I mean I listened to a message on the text by John Piper and used a concordance) my observation is that the message really did vary from the text and added a lot of preference and applications that went well beyond the scriptures. Whether or not it was ALL correct, I cannot say. My concern is that some of the applications COULD allow people to not critically think through some issues.

I'm not a scholar and I don't want to cast stones, but just want to add to the discussion. I also feel this discussion, if handled correctly, COULD help the pastors see the concerns and actually address the concerns. I have noticed a difference in thoughtfulness between the pastors and even a difference in the degree to which they stick with the text when teaching. I'm not sure how to bring it up to them.

Anyhow, if there is someone who is better at handling scripture out there who can give a critical listen to the message without having a critical spirit (I think there is a difference), I would love to hear your thoughts.
http://media.thedtc.org/index.php/media/file/the-church-part-11-leadership-by-example/

[Captein]

Second, when I said to support her in her search for faith I did not mean you have to tell her that God is real.  What I meant is that you need to support her search for her faith and try not to discourage it.  Your faith that God does not exist is not "provable" any more than her faith that God does exist is "provable."  I would urge you and encourage you to continue to search for the truth behind your belief system even though I do not believe your present understanding has come to the right conclusion.  By encouraging your friend to do the same (and not discouraging her) you will remain her friend and will keep the communications flowing (the essence of genuine relationship).

I agree whole-heartedly. I would just like to point out that while I am technically an atheist, by the dictionary definition, that is not a tag I like to apply to myself. My belief system is not centered around the absence of God. I do not have any faith that God does not exist. Rather, I simply 'believe' in what is. It is more of an understanding of what I do not know, rather than what I do know. This is a part of many faiths, including Christianity (i.e. not knowing God's ways). To me, as of now, because of the evidence I have been presented with, I cannot say for sure that Christianity is true. For example, because of what I have seen and what I know, the Bible is much more reasonably explained as a by-product of man, not the supernatural. That's not to say that it is impossible and cannot be historically accurate. It is completely possible that tomorrow I will have an epiphany and decide to become a monk. Again, neutrality on faith. The search for truth is the very definition of spiritual/philosophical maturity, and whether that is best accomplished through faith and religion, or through something else, is not a question I can answer.

Third, "peace" as used in the Bible most often means a peace between God and man, not an etherial "felt" peace.  I do not know who "feels" more peace, and I do not care who does.  Peace is a state of reality.  Peace is the end of the war between a God who hates sin and a sinful man who loves sin and hates holiness.  That peace, that truce, is only enacted when a person surrenders to God who has made all the provisions for peace (having sacrificed His own Son).  

It is truly a silly errand to try to show that belief engenders more feelings of peace than does atheism or that holiness gives more feelings of pleasure than does sinning.  Feelings are never the goal or the issue and neither is making someone feel "better."  Attainment of truth and reconciliation with God are the goals, not feeling better than an unbeliever.  

It appears I have minced my words again. Once more, I apologize. When I say "feel" peace, I use the term lightly. Peace is an understanding. An elimination of cognitive dissonance. It can be achieved through multiple channels, including those neither of us would agree with. Negative emotions are the common outcome of conflicting truths, and so "feel" was a rough way of describing that.

As soon as this week's sermon is online, I will post my thoughts. I was there for part 11, but part 12 has not been uploaded yet. I did find this little gem though:

http://vimeo.com/43229525

I will avoid dissecting that for the time being, and spare everyone here. "Unbelievers." Ugh.

To anyone who might be lurking, I would love to hear your positions. Don't be shy.

[newcreature]

I apologize, I did not mean to be belligerent. Everyone has been nothing but accommodating, I did not mean to be disrespectful, and I appreciate the candor within this forum. There are a couple of points I would like to address, though, if this is to be an honest spiritual debate (which is always fun and healthy)

Hi Captein, first and foremost, I want to assure you that I never thought you were belligerent or disrespectful; in fact, that thought never crossed my mind. The care and concern you have shown for M is very honorable in my opinion. And just as you appreciate the candor within this forum, I equally appreciate your candor. In fact, your candor and respect for others prompted me to respond to your post in the first place. I also want to assure you that I didn't take your hypothetical statement about arrogance as a personal insult to EAS, or to me, or to anyone specifically. I was simply asking you to reconsider your definition of arrogance. We may come to different conclusions based on our belief systems...  so, c'est la vie!

Merely communicating through a few pixels with strangers on a forum can leave a lot to be desired. Parsing words can also lead to a lot of questions, explanations, and clarifications which are then followed by more questions, explanations, and clarifications. That is not a bad thing by any means, but it is much more efficient in person. Such is the nature of communication and friendship, and you are experiencing that with your friend M. I hope she is able to someday appreciate your friendship even more.

As for your possible future epiphany and life in the monastary, I would ask you to reconsider that stereotype of Christianity as well.   

By the way, have you recently read the biography of Jesus written by his close friend, John? It is only 20 to 40 pages long (depending on the font and page size) and primarily focuses on the last few weeks of Jesus' life on earth. If it is historically accurate and if all the events are factual, wouldn't that show evidence of supernatural forces at work? I was in college when I first read that biography with an open mind. After a considerable time of thoughtfully considering its implications, I eventually became a Christian.
 

[MarthaH]

Okay, so I went to look up the DTC website and clicked on the WTC instead. I'm assuming that this is the latest building project some of you are mentioning. I listened out of curiosity to a message called "The Epicness of God". I believe it was by a Pastor's son (go figure) and it was a medley of verses put together to motivate people for an upcoming blitz of evangelism that they had. I swear I've heard that message a million times (only the speakers change). He spoke for an hour and beat the same old principles into their heads over and over again.

The part that really irked me was the groupies in the audience who could be heard cheering the speaker on. It was like being back in that good-ole boys club all over again. The faces in their pictures on the website were of the "committed" from back when I was there. I knew many of them when they were freshmen, young and impressionable (much like myself). It is all about commitment. The speaker has no qualifications to teach scripture, except that he is a 'yes-man' and has drank the Kool-Aid.

They also have a verse memory challenge. Out of all scripture, they cut and paste together a string of verses to fit their modus operandi of: 1) God is God, 2) Get the gospel out, 3) Lay down your lives, submit to leadership and serve, serve, serve.

I feel sad. I wish I could have a conversation with them all. Part of me wants to get a hold of their directories and send an email to everyone in these churches warning them. This is where I begin to struggle with wondering if they are a cult. If I did confront them, I feel they would be conditioned to reject any criticism. I'm sure if a leader from the DTC or West Town Church were to read these posts, they would instinctively misapply some verse and rejoice that they are found worthy of persecution to reinforce their twisted thinking and continue with their horrible practices.
 

[newcreature]

Okay, so I went to look up the DTC website and clicked on the WTC instead. I'm assuming that this is the latest building project some of you are mentioning. I listened out of curiosity to a message called "The Epicness of God."

And here I thought WTC was an acronym for the World Trade Center... silly me! It seems GCx has always had a fondness and a propensity for creating new acronyms: GCI, GCM, GCC, GCAC, HSLT (or should that be THISTLE?), etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Adopting new meanings or coining new words still appears to be in vogue at GCx: e.g. "Epicness." I looked in several resources, but that word is not in any standard online or hardbound dictionary that I could find. However, I did find it in the online "Urban Dictionary" and another ubiquitous Wiki site. Reaching the "unchurched" has apparently morphed into yet another form.  I still cringe everytime I think of "The Phone's for You!" It was a mass marketing scheme that GCx adopted back in the mid 80s and early 90s.

C'est la vie... I guess that's less abhorrent than the ultra-conservative political activism GCx once preached and practiced.

For a longer list of GCx terminology, refer to this older post: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/gc-terminology/

[FeministRebel]

I think you really hit the nail on the head, describing the atmosphere of the 'social gathering,' and the change taking over M.

When I look back at my time at my local GCx church, I feel this sense of personal inferiority. The church always made me feel inferior, and like I always needed them, and God, because I was inferior. I really felt like there was an unhealthy tearing down of good self esteem -- and it was often confused, or labeled as arrogance, and a desire to rely on oneself, and not God.

Gatherings were always tense, because there is a 'social hierarchy' of the people who are 'favored,' and yourself... and you feel you're always being ranked on your level of 'goodness,' and leadership worthiness.

You always felt like you needed to find bad things in everything -- in the world, to just... justify that you need them, and God, because people and the world can't be trusted. Almost ALL their youth services, especially at the Rock, had to do with how the world had hurt us...

[Captein]

As for your possible future epiphany and life in the monastary, I would ask you to reconsider that stereotype of Christianity as well.  

Isolated monasteries are out of style? Great. Now I have something to store all of my bell bottoms in. What a waste of money...

By the way, have you recently read the biography of Jesus written by his close friend, John? It is only 20 to 40 pages long (depending on the font and page size) and primarily focuses on the last few weeks of Jesus' life on earth. If it is historically accurate and if all the events are factual, wouldn't that show evidence of supernatural forces at work? I was in college when I first read that biography with an open mind. After a considerable time of thoughtfully considering its implications, I eventually became a Christian.

I read it last week, actually, along with the synoptic gospels, and you are correct. If it is historically accurate, then I would have no choice but to join you. I did notice John was more focused on depicting Jesus in a supernatural light. What that means is anyone's guess, but you should also take note that John is generally considered to have been written after Mark, Luke, and Matthew, and to have been written independently, meaning that he did not draw from the other three directly (there are sufficient similarities in literature form and style to conclude that Luke and Matthew both incorporated the Gospel of Mark as a source). Best guess is that the original copy of the manuscript can be dated anywhere from 90 A.D. to roughly 150 A.D. However, history was mostly passed at this time through oral tradition. Let's assume that the author was 40 when he wrote the original gospel, and he remembered without flaw the story he had been told as a boy at 10 (unlikely, but we can give the benefit of the doubt). That means the author heard the story in A.D. 62 at the earliest, only thirty years after the death of Jesus. Historically speaking, that's not long, but thirty years is plenty of time for legendary material to make its way into the story, particularly in this time period, when many many figures were considered to be superhuman in some way (Zoroaster, Apollonius, along with numerous kings, leaders and Roman characters, just to name a few of the more famous ones [we can ignore any 'similarities' among the stories of Jesus and any of these figures for now-- personally I find that argument a bit of a reach]). That's not to say that the Gospel of John can not be one hundred percent accurate, there is a chance it is, but it does offer one reasonable explanation for the parts of the story unique to that particular gospel in relation to the other three. Just some wandering speculation I had when reading/researching it.

If at any point I make an unfair argument, please let me know. I realize that this is not a forum for debating religion, and is a place to discuss GCC and stories relating to it, and the last thing I want to do is cause grief to anyone through this.

You always felt like you needed to find bad things in everything -- in the world, to just... justify that you need them, and God, because people and the world can't be trusted. Almost ALL their youth services, especially at the Rock, had to do with how the world had hurt us...

I shared one of your posts with her:

I appreciate folks who are fighting for a true rectification of GCx's actions. I don't think I see myself as ever reaching a "reconciliation," though. As a young adult, I lost many years of my life that were CRITICAL to learning about myself, and my purpose in life... to this church and it's cultish grip, and we only have ONE life. I will NEVER get those years of my life back... so I can't see myself reconciling with that any time soon. I am trying to recoup those years, and figure out my life while I'm still somewhat young, but it's a lot harder now. I just want my 'mistakes' (aka, their brainwashing) to be an example and a wake up call to others... to help others walk away from this while they can, even though it seems awesome, and wonderful. It's not. There are healthier places to grow close, or closer to God without compromising our identities, and being made to believe convictions from a few elders (I don't even feel comfortable referring to people who are NOT formally ordained as "pastors") need to be commandments for our lives...

The confusion and hurt this church brought into my life is very real... And I'd almost see it as reconciling with an abuser. It will never happen, for me. God can deal with me as he wishes, but I can't just forgive and forget.

I wish she could read it with a clear mind. Unfortunately she is still very much in that phase we all went through at her age-- the I-only-take-advice-from-people-who-say-things-I-agree-with phase.

[Captein]

I listened out of curiosity to a message called "The Epicness of God". I believe it was by a Pastor's son (go figure) and it was a medley of verses put together to motivate people for an upcoming blitz of evangelism that they had. I swear I've heard that message a million times (only the speakers change). He spoke for an hour and beat the same old principles into their heads over and over again.

That would be Dan Rude, son of Tim Rude, pastor of Walnut Creek Community Church. The DTC is an official offshoot of WCCC. I haven't been able to find much information on the subject, but I believe Tim was either mentored by McCotter personally in Ames (he would be the right age), or at least within two degrees. If anyone can correct me, please do.

They also have a verse memory challenge. Out of all scripture, they cut and paste together a string of verses to fit their modus operandi of: 1) God is God, 2) Get the gospel out, 3) Lay down your lives, submit to leadership and serve, serve, serve.

Absolutely scary. As a policy wonk and political geek, this is something that has always been disheartening. If someone is trying to persuade a group over to their ideals, thoughtful reasoning and intellectualism are of little significance when compared to redundancy. Speaking strictly from a political standpoint, it is something you can witness in the Republican Party on a daily basis. That is one of the reasons why the party as a whole is much more effective with ad campaigns. They tend to run a tighter ship.

[newcreature]

I realize that this is not a forum for debating religion, and is a place to discuss GCC and stories relating to it, and the last thing I want to do is cause grief to anyone through this.

Thanks for your reply, Captein. I also realize the main purpose of this forum, but with over 1,000 topics and 10,000+ posts devoted to the main topic, I hope other Christians don't object to a few posts discussing the veracity of Jesus Christ. However, since I am not the owner or moderator, I will cease if I am told to do so.

I wouldn't call your arguments "unfair," but I do differ with some of your assumptions and conclusions. For the sake of brevity, I will just mention two.

If it is historically accurate, then I would have no choice but to join you.

You do have a choice. Accepting or rejecting God's gracious offer of eternal life is the choice we both have. I accepted his free gift, and as of now, you haven't.

You may have read it already, but "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is a well-known book written 40 years ago by Josh McDowell. He was an agnostic who decided to write a treatise to examine the historical evidence of the Christian faith in order to disprove it. However, he became a Christian during the process because of all the evidence he found in support of Jesus Christ.

Since you appreciate thinking critically and searching for the truth, I highly recommend that book, along with the Bible. After all, Jesus said he is "the truth." If that's not true, then Jesus was an arrogant liar, or a full-blown nutjob.

Let's assume that the author was 40 when he wrote the original gospel, and he remembered without flaw the story he had been told as a boy at 10 (unlikely, but we can give the benefit of the doubt). That means the author heard the story in A.D. 62 at the earliest, only thirty years after the death of Jesus.

That's a faulty assumption if John is to be taken at his word. He is known as a close personal friend of Jesus Christ. He also said he was an actual witness to the events as they happened. And he said he was telling the truth. (John 21:14).

Of the accounts I have read, most historians believe John was closer to 20 (born 6 A.D.) when he became a disciple. But for the sake of your argument, let's say he was only 10. If that's true, then that would make John's story even more remarkable because he was already a businessman when Jesus called him and his business partners (Peter, Andrew, and James) to become disciples.

Furthermore, even a 10-year-old boy would remember details to phenomenol occurences such as water turning into wine, Lazarus rising from the dead, or his best friend (and likely cousin) being crucified right before his eyes. I was only 10 when my father died and I still remember that night. I still remember seeing him in his open casket at the funeral home, and I still remember watching them lower his casket into the ground and covering it with dirt. I have visited his gravesite during the passing decades, and there has been no evidence of him rising from the grave.

After watching his close friend's gruesome death and burial, I imagine it was even more amazing for John to see the risen Christ, to talk with him, to walk with him, and to eat breakfast with him.

[EverAStudent]

Greetings Captein and Newcreature,

In my opinion (which is not worth a cup of coffee at Starbucks) this is a fine place to discuss the veracity of God, Jesus, and the Bible

Newcreature, I agree, simply because something is "proven" does not mean we will accept our place as subjects of God.  For example, if the miracles in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are accurate, virtually none of the big showy supernatural events resulted in all the eyewitneses becoming lasting converts:  immediately after leaving Egypt in the midst of the miraculous plagues and parting of the sea the Jews forgot God and worshipped an idol, the prophet called down fire from heaven but ran off in fear of his life, the thousands were fed dinner by Jesus when no food was available and abandoned Him when He told them He would not be their political king.  Yes, discipleship is a choice, even when the evidence would seem to be overwhelming.

It is common practice today to assume that all the New Testament letters were faked by alledgedly well meaning Christian zealots, and that none of the books were written by and when they claim.  Aside from the obvious inconsistency of perpetuating a false religion with false histories and faked letters of doctrine there are the external surviving evidences.  Hundreds of copies of pages of validated writings by secular and early pastors of the 1st through 3rd Centuries survive to this day discussing which pastor of which church was trained by which disciple of Jesus or friend of a disciple of Jesus.  Some non-Christian histories even mention the "four accounts" of Jesus being in wide circulation before the close of the 1st Century.  So, if you do not trust "the Bible" then the vast array of extra-biblical writings must also be explained away (at the personal peril of intentionally dismissing all kinds of genuine recorded history).

Sorry to bust into your discussion, but that's me....

Blessings.