Can you help with research for my dissertation?

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.

[JohnS]

I am in the process of writing my doctoral dissertation for my studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. The topic of the project is "Cult-like Characteristics of Theologically Orthodox Churches". These are churches that have evangelical doctrine, but have unhealthy tendencies like legalism, autocratic control, poor communication, etc. So the churches are not full-blown cults like the Mormons or JW's.

Part of the research requires that I have people who have been in an abusive church setting answer a survey. The respondents & their former churches will be anonymous. The survey is 30 questions. Let me know if you are eligible and willing to help out. You can respond to my e-mail address or let me know on a post. Thanks!

[Angry]

I'd like to do your survey, but I fear you may be a little off track.  GC* is as cult-ish if not more so than JW's.  It is probably a little less cult-ish than the Mormons.  I have never met a "mean" Mormon, yet the gc* is filled with guys yelling at you and cutting you down.

You're asking about gc* with pre-concieved notions that it is not that dangerous.  Please re-think this, or attend a cult meeting at the gc* near you.

[theresearchpersona]

You're asking about gc* with pre-concieved notions that it is not that dangerous.  Please re-think this, or attend a cult meeting at the gc* near you.

Well, problem is, it can also be very very very sublte, and sometimes you have to be around the environment in order to be "initiated". Mark the Bible's words to mark false teachers and "AVOID" them, for obedience, for your sake, and for not partaking in false worship at all.

Anyway, just look-up "Kairos L.A." for a nearly full-blown nearly emerging/ent neo-orthodox, open-theist, NPP, etc. environment, (a "mosh pit of teaching"). Basically it's pastored by a bunch of men who like to look hip and schway because they "read 100 books a year" and link to the newest and novel-est teachings, as well as the "thought provoking" (read "men who can make decent diagnosis, with a lot off, and horrible prescriptions to the problem) in GC. Cool dissertation, though: I'm thinking of doing some studies in writing/etc. to write-up about the subtleties of this kind of thing, though writing on such things, and fairly, and without misattributing/analyzing/etc. requires, I think, a higher degree of finesse, ability, and maturity than I'm yet to attain to.

Angry is right about warning-off the notion that this group's teachings aren't dangerous. And step on a JW's toes, and he might smile at you. Step on a GC leader's toes, and he'll smile, then go-out and warn everyone against you, that you're in sin, unrepentant, rebellious, proud, unteachable, divisive, a slander, etc.. This could be over something as simple as insisting "we must obey God before men", to which you'll get a chain of messages preached thereafter on "you must trust God through your leaders", "don't dare say anything to [leader's name] if you have a concern, and don't be horizontal (say anything to anyone else), instead 'take your anxieties to God' (horrendous abuse of those scriptures)."

Also, think for a moment, define "evangelical", and how broadly is it applied? If not for relational abuse, many these days are subject to what I'd have to classify as theological and doctrinal abuse, whereas Paul puts it, we ought to grow in the "real/right/true/accurate knowledge" of God, not just things going-round the periphery, the applications thereof, or the (worse) philosophizing about God rather than teaching about Him (theology) verily from His word.

[anonymoustoday]

And step on a JW's toes, and he might smile at you. Step on a GC leader's toes, and he'll smile, then go-out and warn everyone against you, that you're in sin, unrepentant, rebellious, proud, unteachable, divisive, a slander, etc..

Actually, what you get with a JW is exactly the same as with a GC leader.  He goes back to his Kingdom Hall and warns everyone about the sinful, unrepentant, rebellious, proud, unteachable, troublesome sinner at xyz address.  Of course, every time he sees you he smiles in your face and pretends he has not spread the alarm about you, you troublemaker. 

It is all about control.

That is why GC is so cult-ish to start with.  Manipulation and control. 

The difference between GC and the JWs or Mormons is that GC names Christ as their Savior, and most of their doctrines align with that reality, whereas the false religions will see you go to hell in a heartbeat with their false Christs and false gods. 

But control of the individual is the name of the cult game.  So while GC may have true religion, they are cultic in their aberrant desire to control and manipulate for their own ends and the good of their own leadership. 

[JohnS]

Yes, "anonymously today" hit the nail on the head, by "evangelical doctrine", I am referring to the basic truth that evangelical Christians hold to (inerrancy & inspiration of scripture, Trinity, deity/humanity of Christ & eternal security). I am not referring to all of their teachings, I am only referring to their basic beliefs. This is what sets them apart from the Mormons and JW's. "Angry", you may be right that the GC people are more cultish than the Mormons and JW's. I am not disputing that, but am only sharpening my focus of study.
The point I am trying to make in my project is that even good doctrine can be misapplied and misused...the problem is not just what we may see in a "full-blown" cult. "Cult-like" churches can have the same characteristics as a full-blown cult. Those characteristics are ones like autocratic control, little or no communication, leadership sin ignored or wrongly handled and legalism. I hope this helps focus what I'm shooting for in my dissertation.
I appreciate the "researchpersons"s directing me to the Kairos-LA people. Would you still ay they fit into my dissertation topic (now that I have explained it in more detail)? Are they abusive or just misguided? Thanks for the interaction!  I am sorry you have gone through such a negative "church" experience. I, too, have gone through a horrible experience in a non-GC church, which is the reason why I am studying this topic more deeply.

[theresearchpersona]

I appreciate the "researchpersons"s directing me to the Kairos-LA people. Would you still ay they fit into my dissertation topic (now that I have explained it in more detail)? Are they abusive or just misguided? Thanks for the interaction!  I am sorry you have gone through such a negative "church" experience. I, too, have gone through a horrible experience in a non-GC church, which is the reason why I am studying this topic more deeply.

Depending on the GC church, it may actually be that some of them fall outside the basic beliefs part. Hauling-up an old topic, but central to "Evangelical" (that is, gospel) Christianity is that same thing central to the protestant Reformation, that man is justified by faith through grace, and that Christ is central to that grace. If that grace is turned to license, that faith subtly to something else (like the early 20th century social gospels--common in GC now, especially in the "emerging/ent" churches, easily seen in Kairos--a whole group with leadership that neither watches out for the flock, that urges them to consume everything, nor centers on gospel preaching it seems--they're all about social stuff "in the name of Christ" so to speak), or "Christ" re-defined (theology, etc.), then one has a real problem. That's why a group merely affirming the bare-minimums of "evangelical" christianity above, without probing into how they are used, defined, etc., is excessively simplistic and direly dangerous. Alter theology and you change Christ and His Father; de-emphasize holiness, or the sinless nature of Christ as God in order to make Him someone "to relate to" (vs. He can relate to us, but He's still God to approach in reverent worship and awful, terrible, fear, and total love) and you warp who He is (Mark Driscoll does this: seems to totally forget Christ's Deity so that He becomes one's "homeboy" and then goes-off preaching a Jesus that strangely resembles Mark Driscoll: Reformed but not Reformed, Reformed-Emergent who mocks holiness; it's rather like Pelagianism, though rather than denying Christ's deity explicitly, it is done implicitly, subtly, or just avoided).

The problem with those "evangelical" minimums is that in the proper use of the term, which is a noble definition, they purposefully avoid context, such that anyone can agree to them, but define them however it is convenient such that nobody has to obey the command to contend for the faith, be conformed to the image of the Son, come to a true/full/right knowledge of God (Colossians, see NASB marginal notes), and have unity in the same mind speaking the same things not upon whim or "this is just how we understand it" (like GC's leadership told people, "it's find if you understand things another way, but THIS is OUR way, so it's fine if you LEAVE"), but rather by taking-hold of the Scripture and carefully drawing-out the meaning, proving everything, etc..

Thus GC* declares the obligatory "The Bible, the Word of God, composed of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, the Inspired of God and innerrent, is the sole source and foundation of our faith and practice"; yet with a little examination, it's quickly apparent that is not true: probably 99% of those who declare this about faith and practice, once examined, are found to be lying. (Frustrating and heartbreaking.) I bet they don't even realize that to some extent (not necessarily about normative things) they're declaring the out-of-vogue regulative principle.

GC* also seems totally unaware about any biblical doctrine on the Holy Spirit, such that its upholding of the Trinity is superficial: as too many have noticed, when what is preached is the semi-pelagian-like teachings and practices attributable to Charles Finney, that it is "all up to us", Finney put it something like that salvation is merely "the right use of the proper means" (Rick Warren puts it "if you only find the key to someone's heart"), then it's a trampling over God's Spirit, and makes all a work of the flesh. This is not evangelically orthodox: the noble term "evangelical" is a term from the Reformation for Gospel, Christ-centered, Worship (i.e. true Christianity), not man-centered theology (thrown upon us sourced from Schuller, who argues for this explicitly, who applied it practically, who taught all this to Warren and Hybels) or "sociological" (vs. and opposed to theological) "ministry" (Donal McGavran, intellectual father of "Church Growth").

I'm tired of these things parading as if legitimate Christianity: they are not. The thin patina cannot hide that. There's a lot of sentimentalism, emotions about some dude called "christ" that half the time isn't even like He spoken of through Scripture.

And take "Eternal Security". That is not evangelical. So-called "Evangelicals" make it one of their tenets, but they do so to get people to pray their prayer to get their tickets through the gate. Thus out of self-comfort GC leaders, I've heard teaching, might tell a story of such and such who fell into gross rebellion and unrepentant sin, divorced such and such wife, entered and remains in an affair, but having known that person and their zeal for x years, at least they know they're eternally secure. This is the primary meaning and use of these terms, and what those terms properly suggest. They also throw-out the Spirit, and they also are legalism: it is not "the Spirit who is given as a deposit of surety in the believer to keep him, indwells the believer to keep him in holiness, chastise/discipline him when he errs, bring remorse when they sin, etc.", but "they prayed the prayer, God is bound by His promise, they are eternally secure"; that's the suggestion, original use, and predominant instruction of "Eternal Security".

The Scriptural form of that was the doctrine captured in the "Calvinist" "P" of TULIP. But as logicians, theologians, philosophers, etc. have pointed-out, that "P" stands or falls depending on the preceding "letters", and those being unpopular, that P is hardly teachable in the churches anymore, at least with consistency of teaching (and I don't expect everyone to be ever-fully perfect or consistent, so there's much room for grace, patience, etc. with them).

Strangely, though, teachers of GC who've taught EC, have also been those to turn-around and assail those who have stepped on their toes or challenged them about something unscriptural, and scared congregations (at least, according to the testimonies people have bore here) saying such and such "have fallen away". What's very odd, too, is that even now that it seems this is denied (that is, that it's not explicitly taught that way, at least openly), that seems to be the attitude still prevalent, even in young GCers that aren't raised in the organization: I've only had one explicit comment to that end personally, but I have noticed the disproportionate number of people that leave GC often fail in faith, which biblically does indicate "they were not among us" (but that verse is only applicable to a valid, truth-based, faith community): in any event if the faith is corrupt or in untruth inside, and the people who cease their claim to be following "Jesus" (please define), then GC should seriously wake-up and take that as an indictment as "how many of us in this organization even believe the biblical gospel"; when they turn to flesh-works for sanctification, the Quakerism of Dallas Willard and his mysticism to introduce "Spiritual Formation" because their members who profess Jesus just aren't holy or sanctified, they should examine the efficacy of their gospel, realize it's powerlessness, and cry-out for truth in the terror it should burden them with: "what are we believing/preaching".

I'm not saying they should throw baby with the water, but they should not assume "baby", "water", especially when baby="this is just our understanding", "our way", "our experience", etc., rather than "how does our understanding conform to Scripture or not, what in it is condemned, where are we a lot, and where a little, off". Heck, someone could preach just the word, and yet if they're the teachers of 2 Peter, they're wresting the word to their own and their hearers' destruction: it is not efficacious preaching (though in whomever God wills to grant right understanding, discernment, etc., then it's efficacious: it is His Spirit, after all, that does the work, who is transforming, disciplines, etc., so their "spiritual" formations/disciplines, etc. are really worth laughing at as utterly vain demonstrations of lack of faith in God).

We can't keep labelling groups that vomit-up the same statements as everyone else are "evangelical". What about those who turn grace to license? Scripture explicitly states they utterly false and to be avoided. Are they "evangelical", then? Linda has had no less than a few revealing examples of GC's words and track record on doing just that.

[saved]

I might be interested in your survey, but I'm trying to stay anonymous here.  We experienced as much or more spiritual abuse at the non-GC church we attended when we left GC.  (But then, we were in a "good" GC church which had very little abuse [because of its humble leaders].  The GC we were in before that, though, was rife with it [which I pin, once again, on the leaders.)

Power corrupts...

[jaywalker]

Depending on the GC church, it may actually be that some of them fall outside the basic beliefs part.

Might as well add into the mix the emerging church doctrines of soul sleep and no real hell.

[theresearchpersona]

Depending on the GC church, it may actually be that some of them fall outside the basic beliefs part.

Might as well add into the mix the emerging church doctrines of soul sleep and no real hell.

Someone in GC* teaching or advocating it? I wouldn't be surprised with all the mixture, the emergings/ents now in GCM and related Churches (even as teachers), and etc., but specifics would be nice if available.

I know that some GC* teachers have begun harping on the reality of hell, maybe it's in reaction to other leaders in the group?

[Mr. Toad]

trp said: "I know that some GC* teachers have begun harping on the reality of hell, maybe it's in reaction to other leaders in the group?"

And maybe it's in reaction to a desire from the Holy Spirit to preach the whole of God's word, in spite of the crap that we see from the past (1991 paper) that still lingers.

[theresearchpersona]

Certainly in GC's past the preaching of hell was not a problem, however: at least from what I can tell. From some papers (like Mark Darlings) we see concern that perhaps they might have failed preaching on it enough (maybe especially with the rise of seekerism in GC0, but certainly it doesn't seem they actually ever stopped teaching it or denied it until more recently. This is why I wonder if it's just one more example of the disunity that gets covered-over by "agreeing to disagree" or simply denying to let the public know about the inner turmoil and strife.

There are teachers in GC with the passion that if they dropped the unbiblical stuff (whether or not it's "near and dear to the heart"), and the pretensions, sought correction from qualified elders and teachers of other more orthodox Churches, got some practice in discernment, and trained in handling the word, that I think they might, perhaps, (with oversight by less troubled teachers), be useful as preachers/teachers in the future: but it takes time, digesting, humiliation/humility, thinking, practice, etc. to not just get beyond, but challenge, and undo the damage: especially for those in there so long. For one thing they need to drop "our experiences" from preaching, that is, to stop subjecting the sheep to themselves, and submit both themselves and those sheep to God through His Word, just as they're commanded to, and that without warping the word (guys like the social-gospelists "we read everything, look how much we 'resonate' with everyone Kairos-type leadership, throughout GC, and every emerging/ent "missionary", have to go, period).

Speaking of social gospels, being clear, unity, and taking stands:

[p.1] The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible, in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself. Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time; there are many who prefer to fight their intellectual battles in what Dr. Francis L. Patton has aptly called a "condition of low visibility."[1] Clear-cut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from "controversial" matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things [p.2]about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.
--
1. Francis L. Patton, in the introduction to William Hallock Johnson The Christian Faith Under Modern Searchlight, [1916], p. 7.

From "Christianity & Liberalism", available here, http://www.reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/

A couple notes: I'm positioned as Reformed, but not paedobaptist (as Reformed.org and this author are). Also note that while that book is available online, I think that its copyright status is hazy/in-question; several of Machen's works were supposedly either transferred in copyright, or restored when Congress passed legislation in 1998: the haziness comes in that the legislation they passed may not be, technically, valid (courts ruled it's subject to review case-by-case because it wrongly "change the contours of the law", which I believe means they violated the intent of the law as set for the reason behind copyright, since as we know the lobbyists practical pay for the laws they want anymore T-T). (by the way, T-T = crying "smiley".)

Speaking of GC, which has many teachers that very often attack anyone challenging them about incorrect doctrine, who impute error to those contenders who become categorized as legalists or pedantic dividers who have too much sight on "notional correctness" over action, this is for those who think Christianity is a life over doctrine:

[...]Christianity is not a "life," as distinguished from a doctrine, and not a life that has doctrine as its changing symbolic expression, but that--exactly the other way around--it is a life founded on a doctrine. (From "Christianity in Conflict," by Machen).

[AgathaL'Orange]

I feel like my GC church which had some serious problems was pretty strong in their preaching about hell.  If anything they hit it obsessively.

[Genevieve]

Sure! I'll take your survey. When do you need it completed by?

[AgathaL'Orange]

I will take it too!

[JohnS]

Thanks agatha & Genevieve! Please send a note to john@bcbc.org and I will send you the survey. I will put your e-mail address (or physical address) in my database. I probably won't be sending it out until April or May. I am currently building my list of survey-takers. I have about 27, but would like to get about 35.