What isn't controversial and why it matters

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.

[TheAtheist]

One may agree or disagree with the hypothesis of post-cult trauma. One may dispute the objectivity of journalists. But what is not at dispute is that in the 1970s and 80s, Great Commission employed coercion, suppressed divergent views and dating relationships, and over-administered church discipline. These are the means of control admitted in the 1991 Statement of Church Error, which was referenced again in the 2011 Explanation of Criticism.

As of 2006, I found that dating relationships and divergent views were still being suppressed, but that coercion and excessive discipline were being expressed in a different manner than before. I saw examples of over-reaching discipline administered in a more subtle and persistent manner than what has been described in the earlier era. This is why I am inclined to be open to new accounts of problems within the movement from those who have recently left.

[2xA Ron]

I left in early 2012 and later found my reasons for leaving were practically spelled out in the 1991 Statement of Church Error.  Some were no longer present, but many of the core problems persisted.  Is twenty-one years of admitting that something's wrong and knowing (as the Statement spells out) how to fix it not enough?  Dating was definitely suppressed and young leaders regularly over-reached their authority.  The higher ups in the church seemed a little more relaxed, but that may have been simply because I had little direct contact with people that far up in the hierarchy--which is odd considering how much the GC publication "Leadership: Elders and Apostles" speaks out against hierarchy.

I've never heard of this 2011 Explanation of Criticism before, though.  Sounds interesting.  Do you know where I might find it?

[Linda]

Here is the link. It's on wayback machine and takes a few seconds to load.:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110726080107/http://gccweb.org/assets/gccweb/Explanation%20of%20Criticisms%20final0910.pdf

There are three reasons. First, some bring up issues from the 1970s and 1980s that were either invalid or were corrected many years ago. Second, some people have gone on blogs to take a relationship conflict public rather than follow a constructive and Biblical process of reconciliation. Third, some who oppose God and His word are critical of obedient Christians who are actively sharing their faith in Christ.

So, what this statement says is if you are critical of Great Commission it is for one of three reasons.

1. You are wrong or misinformed. Or,

2. You are acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the Bible. Or,

3. You are opposed to the Gospel.

Which one are you?

Clearly, he forgets that there are more reasons. How about the idea that criticisms exist because people are exposing uncorrected false teaching/error.

If they want the criticism to stop, they need to go back to the beginning and make very public correction for all the bad stuff they have taught for 40+ years. In addition, to correcting it, they need to stop teaching it! Until they do that, they continue to mislead believers and will continue to receive criticism from Christians who are trying to help them see their error and warn others who are being deceived.

[2xA Ron]

When I finally read that statement, I was so mad.  Throughout it, he implied that anyone who blogged about problems with a GC church did so solely because they'd decided not to try to resolve their problems privately with their leaders.  I spent my last two years in the GC doing practically nothing but trying to resolve things with leaders, getting into ever bigger conflicts until my leaders finally had enough of me.  Then I blogged about it!

I was about to blog about the Explanation itself, but I figured just to cover myself I'd shoot John Hopler an email first (through one of those stupid "Contact Us" forms on a GC site) offering to "resolve" my disagreement with him "privately."  To my surprise, he actually listened.  He isn't retracting the explanation, though he assures me it's not on the GC site any more and that he would "write it differently today."  The upshot is that he offered to listen to my problems (possibly because they were fairly recent, early 2012) and actually set up a conference call with my old pastor.  I told them how I'd been kicked off my team and left in the end because my small-group leaders thought I shouldn't be friends with one of the girls on the team anymore and I disagreed and refused to submit.  The pastor promised me he'd contact the leaders involved and help me pursue reconciliation with my friend and Hopler told me to keep him posted and let him know if things stalled out.  I know it's not going to ultimately change the way the GC does things, even if Hopler and the pastor are sincere, but perhaps I can regain the friendship that was stolen from me and hopefully convince my friend that a GC church is a dangerous place to be.

Then again, you'll probably say I'm a naive optimist who's getting hoodwinked one last time.  And maybe you're right.

[Linda]

To my surprise, he actually listened.  He isn't retracting the explanation, though he assures me it's not on the GC site any more and that he would "write it differently today."  The upshot is that he offered to listen to my problems (possibly because they were fairly recent, early 2012) and actually set up a conference call with my old pastor.

I think you have hit the nail on the head when you write "he isn't retracting the explanation, though he assures me it's not on the GC site any more". That seems to be the way they are dealing with people who have legitimate concerns with their theology and practice.

The fact of the matter is that Hopler, etc. committed slander when they made public criticisms of bloggers and forum posters in that statement. The way they handled it was to take down the statement. If they sincerely felt the statement was in error, they should have not only taken it down, but issued a sincere correction and apology on their web page.

The private conversations and "apologies" give them an out. They can say, "Well, we reached out to them, but they keep posting." This is not a matter of "reconciliation". I will never "reconcile" with false teaching/error. What they need to do is correct their error publicly and as often as necessary. And, while they're at it, they need to stop with the public slander of those who point it out.

[Janet Easson Martin]

Hi you Brave & Godly People Exposing False Teaching,

What I am learning now is that SLANDERING is a very necessary and key element in False Teaching!
Try to post about this from scripture in near future, but "Mystery" post introduces this element.

Keep exposing.  Repetition of TRUTH is part of the SOLUTION.

Janet

[Linda]

2xA Ron, Is your blog post still up? I would love to read it.

[2xA Ron]

I haven't taken any of my posts down.  I told Hopler that, if God granted complete and total reconciliation between myself and the church (which I do not expect to happen), I would make no further posts.  But never at any point did I agree to take any of them down!    I have no intention of doing so, though I may append corrections or retractions to them if the church's actions prove I was wrong about them.  Even if the GCx and this church in particular were to do a complete 180 and start doing everything right, I think it would be best to keep the posts up so that history would not be forgotten and could actually be learned from--which is something the GCx seems pretty terrible at.

Right now I have six blog posts on the GCx, which can be found here: http://to-end-of-world2xa-ron.blogspot.com/search/label/Great%20Commission%20Church  The topics are various, but there's two on the first part of the Elders and Apostles publication (never made it to the second part: I gave up), one on Legacy of Leaders, and one on the Statement of Error.

I'll ask Hopler to post a public apology or retraction.  I don't expect to change the false teaching of the GCx, though, and neither will I be reconciled with it.  I may achieve personal reconciliation with a few individuals and personally hope to be reconciled with my lost friend.  Perhaps I may give a few individuals pause and make them think about what's being done and taught in their church, but the reversal of the GCx's stubborn direction is something bigger than and beyond me.

[Huldah]

Linda, thanks so much for posting the Wayback link. I've saved the statement to my hard drive.

These critics overstate Jim's influence in our movement, both in the past and in the present.

Speaking as one who was part of the movement in the late 70's, I believe it's almost impossible to overstate McKotter's influence back then. He wasn't with us in Columbus, but he was constantly quoted, held up as an example, and listened to via cassette tapes that made the rounds.

But the broad-sweeping negative criticisms are not valid. If they were, no one would attend a GCC church.

Now that's just silly. People have attended all sorts of churches and cults in spite of valid, broadly based criticism. (People's Temple, anyone?) The fact that people attend GC churches has no bearing whatsoever on whether the criticism is valid. It was this same lack of critical thinking skills on the part of the leadership that made my time there so unbearable. I'm not just picking on Hopler. It was a systemic problem: Don't think too deeply; don't demand a minimum standard of logic or accountability. Accept what you're told, the way they tell it, no matter how much cognitive dissonance you must overcome to do so. In a word, brainwash yourself.

Sorry for the mini-rant. Had a bit of a flashback there.

Presently, GCC churches are doing a wonderful work for the Lord...Therefore, my hope is that we evaluate each GCC church—not on the basis of some alleged problem with a different church in the past—but on the basis of the marvelous work Jesus Christ is doing through that church in the present.

No, I'm sorry, but if they're still attributing those earlier abuses to "immaturity" rather than sin on the part of the leadership, the problems are neither "alleged" nor "in the past". If a young woman can still be handed over as a reward to any brother who can convince the elders that he has a god-given claim on her, as in this recent post, then the problems are not in the past.

[Linda]

Stumbled across these little tidbits from the "Faithwalkers Journal" last October.

http://gccweb.org/journal/default.aspx?date=10-26-2012

http://gccweb.org/journal/default.aspx?date=10-27-2012

Wow. Clearly, as he posts, he's failing to understand that his posts are, in fact, Internet criticisms of forum posters and bloggers!

His points:
1. Criticisms help him to love better.
2. Criticisms help him be a better leader
3. Criticisms are a sign from God that they are on mission.
4. Criticisms are very common and it is an honor to be criticized.
5. Every criticism is a cause for thanksgiving???

My favorite is number 3 which follows the convoluted logic of: "People who are doing great things for God get criticized. I am getting criticized, therefore, I am doing something great for God."

[2xA Ron]

Just thought I would post a little update here.  The 2010 Explanation of Criticisms has now been removed from the Wayback machine and no longer appears to be available.  Hopler pointed that out to me and since I've had no further contact with him, it appears he thinks that removing an offensive public article and privately apologizing to one of the individuals offended is good enough.  Honestly, I'm not sure why I expected better.

Still talking with my home church and I did actually hear from the friend of mine that I lost there: she actually sent me a message admitting that she and a number of the small group leaders, had done wrong.  Meanwhile, the church has unofficially excommunicated one of her friends and appears to be trying to pin all of the blame for the lost friendship on her and one small-group leader--while remaining itself spotless despite its extensive and documented record for producing similar disasters--, so I'm not sure how much longer their credibility will last with her.  I'm hoping not long at all.

[FeministRebel]

When I left, in 2003...

* I had witnessed them repressing many a potential dating relationship, including a mere friendship I had with someone.
* I witnessed them reprove people for merely hugging members of the opposite sex, among other behaviors which would otherwise be normal
* I witnessed them force two couples to get married -- one of them becacause they had premarital sex and the gal got pregnant, and the other just because they had had premarital sex, and the gal felt guilty -- so she told her mother. Both of these couples were forced to stand before the congregation and beg people's forgiveness
* I witnessed them basically guilt trip a gal to stay married to her abusive husband, who has a felony assault on his record for beating her up, and abusing her
* I witnessed them kick out a couple because they were living together, and had children, and wouldn't get married -- and the church kept trying to force them to get married. Not only that, but the church URGED all of us members to pretend like we didn't know them, after they got kicked out.
* I witnessed how they gave 'special' preferential treatment to a guy -- who was son of people who were leaders in another rival church -- when he confessed he was struggling with self pleasuring, and with thoughts of supposedly assaulting someone. They basically gave him some kind of sabbatical, and then he was allowed to just defect to the other church, instead.
* I witnessed how this 'sister' in our small group, who was emotionally frail and had some bad abuse history in her life, got close to this one guy -- who had a history of missionary parents and whatnot -- was given the cold shoulder when she brought up serious allegations of the guy, basically, raping her, and he didn't deny it ! The church basically still called it like she was exaggerating, and why wouldn't she just accept his apology! I couldn't believe it. Even when I was no longer going to the church... I felt guilty, because she messaged me one day, saying she needed me. She was emotionally lost, and wondered where I went, and I just left without much else. I felt guilty about that for a long time... This is just touching the surface, and in many ways, it's not dissimilar to Catholic minor abuse.

Now, I know we are all 'imperfect' and struggle with some things... but often they'd bring up allegations about people who I just -- through my rational thought, and personal knowledge of these people -- could not bring myself to believe as truth. A lot of it felt like fabricated hearsay.

When they sort of started treating me like I was this... unredeemable woman, with outright disrespect (even in the act of prayer), I knew it was time for me to leave. So I left, and I really just cut ties with a lot of people, for a long time.

I can't fathom... that this type of attitude -- so deeply entrenched in their nature -- would change with a mere 'Statement of Error' declaration. It has only just camouflaged with a sort of exercise of justifications meant to make us believe that things are different, somehow.

[2xA Ron]

It's exactly things like this which make me say that, no matter what is said between me and the church, I will never be able to make peace with it.  I am perfectly happy to make peace with the church and the GCx at large if they change.  But words are not enough.  Even fixing an individual situation (as they are doing, with great lumbering strides, between me and the friend I lost) is not enough.  The church must somehow demonstrate that they are committed to making sure this doesn't happen again.  Even if they were to do so in just one point, I would be willing to make amends and encourage them as a friend to approach other issues with the same resolution.

But there is no lasting repentance.  There is a new case of abuse every day.  The same sad song is stuck on loop, and only the singers change.  It seems to be a deeply ingrained thing for church leadership that they cannot face their congregants and admit they were wrong, admit they made mistakes, and allow others to actually learn from them rather than repeating them ad nauseum.  It would "damage their reputation" and "hinder the gospel."  So instead their reputation self-destructs every time a member becomes aware of their ongoing secret abuses, and the gospel is hindered every day by their sins.

It's just like in the Bible: if you try to hold on to something above Christ, you lose everything.  If you let it go for His sake, then you truly have it.  They won't let go.  They destroy themselves and others no matter what you do. 

[Ned_Flanders]

When I left, in 2003...

* I had witnessed them repressing many a potential dating relationship, including a mere friendship I had with someone.
* I witnessed them reprove people for merely hugging members of the opposite sex, among other behaviors which would otherwise be normal
* I witnessed them force two couples to get married -- one of them becacause they had premarital sex and the gal got pregnant, and the other just because they had had premarital sex, and the gal felt guilty -- so she told her mother. Both of these couples were forced to stand before the congregation and beg people's forgiveness
* I witnessed them basically guilt trip a gal to stay married to her abusive husband, who has a felony assault on his record for beating her up, and abusing her
* I witnessed them kick out a couple because they were living together, and had children, and wouldn't get married -- and the church kept trying to force them to get married. Not only that, but the church URGED all of us members to pretend like we didn't know them, after they got kicked out.
* I witnessed how they gave 'special' preferential treatment to a guy -- who was son of people who were leaders in another rival church -- when he confessed he was struggling with self pleasuring, and with thoughts of supposedly assaulting someone. They basically gave him some kind of sabbatical, and then he was allowed to just defect to the other church, instead.
* I witnessed how this 'sister' in our small group, who was emotionally frail and had some bad abuse history in her life, got close to this one guy -- who had a history of missionary parents and whatnot -- was given the cold shoulder when she brought up serious allegations of the guy, basically, raping her, and he didn't deny it ! The church basically still called it like she was exaggerating, and why wouldn't she just accept his apology! I couldn't believe it. Even when I was no longer going to the church... I felt guilty, because she messaged me one day, saying she needed me. She was emotionally lost, and wondered where I went, and I just left without much else. I felt guilty about that for a long time... This is just touching the surface, and in many ways, it's not dissimilar to Catholic minor abuse.

Now, I know we are all 'imperfect' and struggle with some things... but often they'd bring up allegations about people who I just -- through my rational thought, and personal knowledge of these people -- could not bring myself to believe as truth. A lot of it felt like fabricated hearsay.

When they sort of started treating me like I was this... unredeemable woman, with outright disrespect (even in the act of prayer), I knew it was time for me to leave. So I left, and I really just cut ties with a lot of people, for a long time.

I can't fathom... that this type of attitude -- so deeply entrenched in their nature -- would change with a mere 'Statement of Error' declaration. It has only just camouflaged with a sort of exercise of justifications meant to make us believe that things are different, somehow.

I'll just be honest here: I definitely think GCx had the right idea about marriage being the best place for sex.

But the big problem was the way they tried to enforce this on people and make everyone's lives look the same.  Not to mention making people feel guilty for normal sexual feelings.  

Years after leaving GCx, I attended another Church (in no way affiliated with GCx).  One Sunday after the service, and after all of the 100+ people had socialized with each other in the lobby and then all left, my wife and I found we were the only ones  still there... except for another couple.  My wife greeted them and she found out they were waiting to see the pastor because he was going to marry them in his office.  As I recall, I think they had a child with them, too.  I may or may not have spoken to them; I have no idea what their story was and I have no judgments towards them.  If they were capable of a healthy relationship, I hope they are still together.  I didn't get the feeling that they were "forced' into aa marriage with each other but if they were convicted that they needed to make a committment to each other, I have no problem with that.  

I don't know if you saw the first Spider-Man movie (2002) but there's a line in it where one of the last things Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker is "With great power comes great responsibility."  To paraphrase that, I say With great sex comes great responsibility.  I've also heard this one: "Sex is dangerous; which is why God placed it in the safety of marriage."  Again, I believe GCx had that right... they were just lousy in how they implemented it.  

GCx is the only place I've ever actively seen, to my knowledge, the public banishment of someone from a Church.  I just saw it once.  We were told not to have anything to do with a guy I didn't even know.  I dealt with so much fear, guilt and shame in those days that I thought if that ever happened to me... if the Church was told not to fellowship with me... I would have been devastated and I could never show my face to those people again.  I would have done everything possible to avoid them on the street and I would just feel guilty, guilty, guilty.  

Anyway, the idea of forcing those people to get married or else they would be put out of the Church... I definitely have problems with that.  Maybe they weren't ready for marriage but maybe they weren't ready for sex either.  Two wrongs don't make a right but what do you do with that situation, not to mention if kids are on the way?  If GCx had the wrong idea, fine.  But what is the right idea?  

Like you, I also feel that GCx was a sexist Church.  Although I think it was sexist to BOTH men and women.

* I saw them try to make every man's life look the same.  They always talked about "Every man a leader/every man an elder"  and I feel like they already had their preconceived, narrow ideas about what eldership and leadership looked like.  

* I saw them take a shame-based, judgmental attitude towards men (and women) and jobs.  I think this was a different Church than GCx but a man told me once that when he was unemployed, the elders of his former Church told him that he was "worse than an infidel" if he could not provide for his family.  I definitely heard that same attitude at GCx.  

* One time at a Saturday morning men's meeting, an elder told us "don't ever EVER play with a woman's emotions."  I agree with that.  But the problem was I felt like they often treated men like they had no emotions.  I was interested in a girl who played with my emotions and she insisted I talk to a guy friend of hers (she is on the front line of the whole guy-girl separation thing)... and he treated me like I had no emotions.  He treated me like there was no help for me and never once spoke to me as a friend.  He also had a sexist attitude towards women and is now a pastor of the Church I used to attend.  Just my opinion but the only thing that guy has the qualifications to pastor is a bag of flaming dog doo-doo.

* And the whole "God wants me to be impartial" thing so many women told the guys who approached them about relationships was just a BS line to put a God-label on "I'm not interested in you," often while they showed partial treatment to other guys.  

* I saw where a friend of mine expressed interest in a girl who shared interest in him.  For whatever reason, some of the other girls there went behind his back and talked the girl out of the relationship with him.  She came back to him and said they couldn't be together because "God wants me to be single for five years."  He was pissed.  The only consolation was that she was a nut and they actually did him a favor.

FeministRebel, I'm not sharing these things to minimize your stories... but simply to point out that if we're going to have a discussion on sexism, there is a lot more to talk about than you have shared.  I know you've shared on this forum that GCx tried to make you into a cardboard cutout of their idea of womanhood.  I saw this happen to both men and women- guy gets a job as an engineer; woman stays home to have a whole bunch of kids and homeschool them.  Fine if it works for you... but that will never be my life.  And BTW, like you, I don't know what to say about a Church that may have defended a possible rapist.  

Last story here: I visited my cousin's Church several years ago (jeez, I've been to a lot of Churches).  They had a bookstore in the lobby and my goodness, they had so many books on sex.  I've never seen anywhere a Church have books on sex like this place did.  It was really kind of funny.  You're out there in the lobby after the service... you're socializing with people... you're standing 20-30 yards from the bookstore... and through the crowd, you see this book propped up that says SEX in giant letters on the cover.  I've never seen that before or since.  That was pretty wild but I guess I'd rather see that understanding of reality than GCx's "bury you heads in the sand" and "just don't date" approach.  

[Linda]

GCx is the only place I've ever actively seen, to my knowledge, the public banishment of someone from a Church.  I just saw it once.  We were told not to have anything to do with a guy I didn't even know.  I dealt with so much fear, guilt and shame in those days that I thought if that ever happened to me... if the Church was told not to fellowship with me... I would have been devastated and I could never show my face to those people again.  I would have done everything possible to avoid them on the street and I would just feel guilty, guilty, guilty.

Did this guy ever get to bring his case before the church as Matthew 18 says? Do you know the reason for his being excommunicated? When was this?

[Ned_Flanders]

Did this guy ever get to bring his case before the church as Matthew 18 says? Do you know the reason for his being excommunicated? When was this?

I had never heard of the guy beofre we were told not to fellowship with him, so to my knowledge, he never got to bring his case before the Church as the scripture says.  All I remember is one of the pastors stood up on stage one day and said "So-and-so has been engaged in sinful behavior without repenting from it and we're asking everyone not to fellowship with him right now.  Don't talk to him.  The elders are going to be in touch with him for the time being and no one else is allowed to talk to him."  As I recall, this happened around 1986 or 1987.  I think he was put out because of sexual sin.  Later on, he was restored to the Church and, shortly after that, he got married.  I'm not sure but I think the girl was a Church member. 

[FeministRebel]

FeministRebel, I'm not sharing these things to minimize your stories... but simply to point out that if we're going to have a discussion on sexism, there is a lot more to talk about than you have shared.  

I'm sorry, Ned. I wasn't having a discussion on sexism; I was pointing out the ways in which I don't think they ever lived up to their statement of errors -- from my perspective. Obviously, as a woman, and as someone who was kept isolated from men, and just focused on her supposed gender roles as a woman at that time, it's hard for me to offer a wider perspective. I didn't have much access to men, or to how they treated men. They really separated us a lot. I do appreciate your perspective, and pointing out the ways in which they also manipulated men, or treated them like they were heartless, etc. It's a GOOD thing to have that other half of the story.

As for the role of sex, I have a different view than a theist would on this issue, obviously... I don't consider sex to be evil outside of marriage, and I consider it to be the individual's own business, which needs to be managed responsibly, like many other adult decisions. But even as a former theist, I just never felt it was the place of the church to force anyone to be married.  Admission of errors, and contrition? Sure... I can give you that. But that's no reason to force anyone into an even bigger error. As you said, two wrongs don't make a right. People need to be helped, as human beings, to meet the burdens of the consequences of their decisions -- such as, emotional counseling, and being prepared to either place a child on adoption, or be a proper parent, etc. If -- as you say -- a couple felt it their personal decision to marry, that's fine... But I see it as unfair to marry people who are not on equal planes. I just don't think it's a very loving thing to do to people; nor a very humane thing to do. 

Anyway, again, I was not trying in any way to negate that men were also wronged... I just can't offer a very extensive input into that, and I admit it doesn't come naturally to my train of thought, as I didn't have a direct experience with it. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

[FeministRebel]

Did this guy ever get to bring his case before the church as Matthew 18 says? Do you know the reason for his being excommunicated? When was this?

I believe I witnessed this twice, and in both times, it was given to us as an already reached conclusion, in small groups, or in the congregation. We never had the person present, making a case -- at least, not in public. And I was at GCx a LOT, even as a 'future leader' in so called 'future leader' meetings, etc. I forget whatever they called them, now.

[EverAStudent]

Hi FemimistRebel,

You are right, although alot of people were kicked out, our churches never implemented Matthew 18:17 which allows for the accused person to be given the opportunity and right to tell his/her story and then is also given the time to hear each individual within the church call them to repent, or, to inform the leadership the person is innocent.  In fact, most of the time the GCx "charge" was delivered by a pastor without the accused person present (he had already been expelled from the church) and the charge was always very fuzzy and generic with no specific instances of sin actually cited.

We were told at the time this was for two reasons: 1) to protect the church from being misled or deceived by the sinner (the pastors were somehow immune from deception apparently), and 2) to protect the reputation and private life of the guilty (what? are you kidding me?  weren't we all there being told he was a repobate sinner whose social life we were about to destroy??  protect the guilty??  how?).

Of course the real reason Matthew 18:17 was bypassed was to prevent the congregation from realizing that the pastors were way out of line and were control freaks who used trumped up charges to keep people subserviant.  

Sigh...can't believe what GCx used to get away with...

[Linda]

We were told at the time this was for two reasons: 1) to protect the church from being misled or deceived by the sinner (the pastors were somehow immune from deception apparently), and 2) to protect the reputation and private life of the guilty (what? are you kidding me? weren't we all there being told he was a repobate sinner whose social life we were about to destroy?  protect the guilty? how?).

Of course the real reason Matthew 18:17 was bypassed was to prevent the congregation from realizing that the pastors were way out of line and were control freaks who used trumped up charges to keep people subserviant.

I believe reason number 1, was the reason that Bill Taylor was not allowed to give his defense before the congregation when he was EXCOMMUNICATED FROM THE WORLDWIDE BODY OF CHRIST. From the transcript of the excommunication:

Tim Burnham: [Gives scripture reference; unintelligible on tape, but is John 7:51.] "Our Law does not judge a man, unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" I was just wondering -- is there a reason why Bill was not allowed to speak in his own defense?

Colvin: Well, that's a… that's a good question. His defense, Tim, is what caused me to sin. His defense is the very thing he's getting disciplined for, because his defense is very divisive. And, y' know, like any controversy would have, there's a ring to it, that if you didn't really know the situation, you might say, "Well, y' know, that sounds pretty good..."


Ha! Yeah, I'll bet his defense might have "had a ring to it"

Here's the link to the full transcript:
http://gcxweb.org/Audio/ExcBillTaylor-12-09-1976.aspx