Why would you go to a "good GC 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.

[puff of purple smoke]

This is something I've wondered about for quite some time. Occasionally somebody from GC will come here and admit that even though they know there are problems with the movement, and acknowledge "bad churches", certain problematic leaders, and a history of abuse within the movement, they assure us they are in a "good" GC church that doesn't have those sorts of problems. The standard response to these people has been a gracious: "if you are happy, you shouldn't leave!"

I question the logic of joining/staying at a "good GC church" when you know the movement as a whole has so many unresolved issues.

Do you really want to raise your children in a church movement where if they ever decided to pursue leadership they will be trained in LT by the movement and not that local church? Are you really comfortable with the future possibility of your children going out on a church plant (something held up by GC as a pinnacle of spiritual growth) knowing full well they may end up serving under "bad GC leaders"?

Would you want to invite any of your friends to a "good GC church" when you know every December they are going to be invited to Faithwalkers to hear Darling and Whitney and others speak on "the good old days" of the movement, topics like unquestioned obedience to GC elders and commitment for life to GC? What will you do when Mark Darling or Tom Short or some other GC big-wig comes to your town for a weekend talk, and it just so happens to be a "bad GC" type of message? Are the leaders in the "good churches" actually willing to point out flaws in teaching done by GC elders, or is it more likely that they in a position of leadership within the movement because they know how to submit to the national elders on these matters?

Are you going to spend time explaining to every person you invite to your "good church" that although you love your church, they should be careful of the other churches in the movement? Or are you going to be put in an awkward situation where you mislead your friends and avoid talking about GC's issues in conversations?

Every year we post links to the Faithwalkers talks on lifelong commitment and submission and so forth.. yet we are supposed to accept the premise that there are somehow "good GC churches" completely unaffected by the rest of the movement's dysfunctions? Are these "good churches" not inviting their members to Faithwalkers and LT and following the GC conferences? Are the "good churches" not also sending a good portion of their money to GC (as required by membership)?

Unless you simply cannot bear to leave because of the friendships you might lose if you left, why in the world would you want to "plant your flag and die" in a "good GC church" when you know how many problems exist in the larger movement?

As EverAStudent stated so elegantly:

Given the proportionately large number of excellent mainstream and independent churches that still exist here in the States, I am certain that I would not recommend a shepherding movement-GC church to anyone to "try" or to "wander into" without prior education.  In fact, once one knows what is at the heart of their pastoral philosophy I am uncertain why anyone would intentionally commit at all since the shepherding movement philosophy violates 1 Peter 5:3 and thus makes the man unfit for the pastorate--why intentionally put unfit individuals over you?

[wastedyearsthere]

I couldn't say this better than Puff said it.   I agree wholeheartedly.

But I would also have to wonder if the people saying there are GCI churches that are "good" whether they are only involved in a marginal manner.  Once you become involved with leadership or GCI starts preening you for leadership - that is when the major dysfunctional aspects of the church becomes apparent.  You can go on Sunday mornings and nothing else and I've had friends not notice the dysfunctional aspects to the church. 

They tend to leave (to quote a word that is used often there) the fringe people alone. 

Even though I was involved many years ago - from what I can tell from the people involved in our local GCI church -- NOTHING has changed.

[Linda]

Are the "good churches" not also sending a good portion of their money to GC (as required by membership)?

Great post. Does each local church send a certain amount per member to the national organization? Just curious if anyone knows how much of local church contributions are not kept at the local church.

[EverAStudent]

Linda, in the McCotter days, especially when he and Dennis Clark had risen to the status of apostle, the national elder board demanded a 10% tithe of all the collections that the associated local churches took in.  I have no idea if that practice continues.

[Linda]

Since there is no meaningful financial disclosure to members, I would imagine no one would ever know if the practice continues today. A section from McCotter's Apostles book that caught my eye was:

Nonetheless, the apostles’ financial support should not stop when they leave a church, any more than physical children should stop honoring their parents and grandparents by sharing with them (1 Timothy 5:4). Paul does not indicate that financial support should stop, even years later and countries away.

I've always wondered whether or not this meant that founding apostle McCotter was still on the payroll.

[Rebekah]

I suspect McCotter is still on the payroll. How frightening!

I agree with wastedyearsthere that people can attend on the fringes and not be aware of how dysfunctional it is. I think it's easier to stay on the fringes and be left alone when you're a family, though, than when you're a single college student. As a student, it seems like you're a lot more likely to be pounced on and heavily pursued until you either get more involved or leave completely.

Once you're married, though, they leave you alone a little more (in my experience anyway) and recognize that you have other responsibilities and can't do everything all the time like they expect single college students to do.

In my experience, the whole atmosphere of the church is so combative, joy-less, guilt-ridden, and overworked, that I'd be hard-pressed to apply the term "good" to the GC church I attended--even if it wasn't still struggling with all the errors from the past.

[Linda]

Wonder how one would go about finding out if McCotter was on the payroll. Anyone have any first hand knowledge?

[TerryD]

Sort of picking up on this and the previous thread…good post, by the way, Puff.

For me the problem with Great Commission has never been much about hurts and offenses. It's been about theology and ecclesiology, the theory and practice of Christianity.

Without a doubt all sorts of harmful relational things result from bad teaching—ideas do have consequences—but at the core of GC oddness and dysfunction is an aberrant view of two things: 1) The nature of the church as the body of Christ and  2) The nature of biblical leadership. BTW, problems well articulated by folks coming out of this group decades ago.

Inevitably from these errors flow some pretty dangerous possibilities; high-control "discipleship" practices, shepherding, cult-like demands for life-time loyalty to the organization, suppression of questioning and dissent, and perhaps more subtle, a maturity-paralyzing atmosphere of condescension produced by a preposterously elevated "clergy" over members of the group. And the list could go on.

Do all these things manifest themselves to the same degree in all branches of the group? Probably not. The culture medium is ideal for it however, and historically there is plenty of evidence for dysfunction and real harm done in many different places--to young believers particularly.

Could there be a "good GC church" here and there? Well, certainly places where the gloves are softer, the more controversial beliefs and practices better packaged or perhaps better disguised, large numbers of attenders might have a pretty normal experience week to week.

It's always great to hear that a group like GC is "talking", "open to change" (as one GC poster recently indicated) and still looking to mend their reputation, but of course talk is cheap. Only deeds matter. Unless there is real, tangible, structural, systemic change, the status quo continues and Great Commission and groups like them will continue to carry the same baggage, do the same things, and people will need to be alerted and warned.

What sort of tangible changes? Remember the two issues: The nature of the body of Christ and the nature of Christian leadership. Clearly without a seismic shift in the way churches are governed, and the way the role of members is perceived, nothing changes. A church's constitution and bylaws are a good barometer of what leadership REALLY thinks about these matters. In GC, meaningful accountability of leadership to the church would have to be the new foundation of everything.  Unchecked power always corrupts, all the tenderness and sentimentality and claims to humility in the world expressed by an autocratic oligarchy leave it an autocratic oligarchy still.

Before we left GC a few years ago, I remember telling one of the many leaders we appealed to that, "the first time a congregational meeting is held within GC, and a meaningful vote is taken, the windows will open and a whole new life will flow into this church." There would have been a great deal of work to do in addition, given all the structures and habits in place and all the years of damage, but it seemed feasible.

I don't think it will happen. What GC thinks and does is deep in the DNA of the group. My guess is that leaders are for the most part too intellectually isolated, invested and steeped in their own teaching--and frankly at this point have too much to lose--to ever initiate such a reformation. My impression at the time we left GC was that (despite any apologies or corrective statements) those in power within GC had walked with their "apostle" founder and still loved pretty much all he believed and taught. Does a leopard ever change her spots?

[MidnightRider]

For me the problem with Great Commission has never been much about hurts and offenses. It's been about theology and ecclesiology, the theory and practice of Christianity.

Without a doubt all sorts of harmful relational things result from bad teaching—ideas do have consequences—but at the core of GC oddness and dysfunction is an aberrant view of two things: 1) The nature of the church as the body of Christ and  2) The nature of biblical leadership. BTW, problems well articulated by folks coming out of this group decades ago.

I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum that these bad teachings flow from a core teaching of GCx: That the church is to reach the world with the gospel within our generation.

That means there are a whole lot of people to reach, and not much time to reach them. There is not any time to waste on discussing and thinking. So there is a push toward authoritarian leadership.

On a less theological level, when I read Marching to Zion and found out that McCotter had developed the "business model" for GCx when he was barely out of his teen years, I could see how that would cause problems.
 

[BTDT]

I'm not sure how I managed to miss this thread.  Having finally read it tonight, I must admit to some frustration, being one of the folks saying I've seen a "good" Great Commission church.  You all can read my other posts to see what I said; no need to repeat it all here.

As I mentioned in another thread, maybe it's relevant that the good church is GCM (a student church) as opposed to GCC/GCAC. Maybe it's that the lead pastor, according to his own admission, is sometimes considered a bit of a maverick by GC management.  I don't know. I do know that I'm pretty likely to recognize the old harmful stuff, having lived and breathed and bought into -- and yes, even taught -- it for years.

Here's what I saw:
- students were strongly encouraged to put their studies first
- students were not encouraged to ignore their families, but encouraged to nurture those relationships
- good relationships with other area churches and organizations
- just before I left, one family was "commissioned" and sent off to help lead a new church in a completely different denomination.  (Our family moved to that new church a few months later.)
- seminary and other theological study was encouraged, for leadership and non-leadership

Lots of other stuff I can list here. 

I just don't buy the leopard/spots thing.  Some GC churches changed, some didn't. Some changed more than others. Valley Brook (Silver Spring) changed, but ultimately left GC because the change wasn't as much as it needed to be. Oak Ridge split from Valley Brook because a couple of the pastors didn't think any more change was needed.

Is the movement as a whole better than it was? The composition of the GCC board is probably telling; notice the predominance of the "old guard".  Compare the board members with the churches that have been discussed in this forum. But also notice that, except for Dave Bovenmyer, the GCM board is completely different.

In my opinion, we should not paint all GC churches with the same brush, the way we could before the 90s.

BTDT