Hi...

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.

[MidnightRider]

For what it's worth, I was in GCx 5 years. For the first 4 of those years, I would have said the same thing about GCx that insearchoftruthjc said.

[Immortal_Raven]

There are so many sides to this.  On the one hand, Insearch posted and got several responses, most of them debating and countering his observations.  On the other hand, he claims to have been reading this forum for a couple years.  If he really had, why did he expect a response different than what he got?  It's no secret how a majority of forum members feel about GCx.  It's no secret that we may post some things that has incendiary words or even disrespectful words.

I don't know if it was a "drive-by", but here's what I think.  THis is my unqualified psycho-analysis and it does jump to some conclusions that have no physical evidence.  I think Insearch is starting to see some things wrong with the church.  He says they're trifles, but then why post here and post multiple times defending his church?  I think he feels there is something wrong and is in denial.  This denial is leading him to need reassurance that his situation is good.  I've found myself and many friends in similar psychological situations.  The most common being alcohol addiction or drug addiction.  You find reassurance every time you drink or light up again.  There's the vague sense that something is wrong, but you can't put your finger on it.  Then the feeling grows and you need something more, but your situation has such a firm grip on your conscience that life gets tricky.

Reassurance from the pastors is nice, but psychologically he links the pastors with the church and the church's problems.  No matter what they say condemning or oppsing certain practices, he stills sees those practices within the church.  So he needs a third party.  It's easier to talk on the phone with someone instead of face to face.  Less confrontational, more time to react, etc...  By the same token, it's easier to communication via text message, forum, or email than phone.  Even more time to react, even craft a response.  So he comes here.  It's the easy form of communication.  Our responses would typically put him on the defensive.  After some posting, he feels better about his situation and is convinced that we're all bitter and unhealed.  Then he gets to go back to his life feeling strengthened and more confident in his situation.

Again, my unfounded analysis.

-Immortal_Raven

[AgathaL'Orange]

I'm trying to put my life back together.  I'm working.  It's taken a few years.  I've seen a few counselors.  I'm crafting a new life.  It's really hard.  I've met others in the same boat. 

It's really hard for them too. 

It's like someone running towards a cliff and you are saying, "Go back!  Stop!  Stop!"  That's how I feel.  I really wish that I would have listened to my friends who said my church was weird.  I'm glad they told me.  It hurt my relationship with them, but it stuck with me.  It helped lead me to google and read.  And now I'm out and I'm in the middle of recrafting a philosophy of life and my existence. 

I'd like to save people some work.  They might not believe me.  I still don't see what Linda did as bad.  Am I missing something?

I'm open to the idea that I am confrontational and aversive to people looking for an answer; that thought makes me feel paranoid and sad... but I'm still wondering what happened here and what was so horrible?

This forum is like sweet little church mice debating over mini cups of tea compared with some forums I've seen!

[AgathaL'Orange]

Immortal, I think your analysis could be right, but what are we doing that is pushing people away?  I DO think GC is bad.  I DO think people should stay away until they make serious change and acknowledge the authoritarian control they have placed on others.  How do we get this across?

[Immortal_Raven]

Agatha, there is no easy way.  I realize that psycho-analyzing people without their consent or desire is probably not the way to do it, but I had a thought and ran with it.  And try as we might to be impartial, people will not see us that way.  We're the ones who were hurt by GC, we're the outsiders, the shunned ones.  We're on this forum for a reason, and anyone who comes here and reads more than a few topics knows that.  I can approach things as a neutral party, but ultimately I'm still biased.

I try to remove parts that seem biased or that I know someone else doesn't believe in.  That's why I mentioned in another thread to look at the resignation letters and statements of church error.  Those are matters of public record, not my biased opinion.  Larry Pile is a published author on the subject of cults.  National cult watch organizations have publications.  Psychology professors publish mind-control technique literature.  Those are researched and licensed documents.  They aren't the musings of people on this forum or a blogger who happens to have a popular site.

It's also a matter of what you can live with.  I can live with making $XXX a year.  If I can't, I'll find a better job.  If Insearch can live with minor problematic practices, that's his choice.  I can say everything I want to stop him from going to a GC church because I believe they are harmful to a person's physical well-being, their psyche, and their walk with God, but ultimately it's his life and his choice.  He's not doing anything illegal.  I'd love to believe that some GC churches have changed and I'll freely admit that my experiences were a microcosm compared to what I've heard, but they're still letting people like Mark Darling, the Whitneys, and Tom Short preach.  Bearing those facts in mind, I find it hard to believe that a change has occurred.

-Immortal_Raven

[Linda]

I don’t really know what I’m doing here, except that I want to share that I don’t think that GC is all bad.

isotjc states his/her purpose. It was apparently to say that GC isn't all bad. I agreed with this. GC is not all bad.

I don't understand the fuss.

That said, there are some things that are REALLY bad about the teaching/theology that is being perpetuated from the national leaders. Local churches seem to vary in degree of compliance with the "old school" teaching (as has been pointed out many times over the years).

But at the end of the day, friendships have been ruined by GC's false teaching. Families have been divided and are not on speaking terms over GC false teaching. Brothers and sisters in Christ have been excommunicated (and to this day are apparently still excommunicated) for suggesting that truth should win out over unity. I've experienced GC pastors trying to influence my children against me. People have to seek counsel to get over this place. There are some major issues in terms of relationships.

I believe that most of these issues stem from false teaching that denies the Lordship of Christ and misrepresents His Bride, the Church. I am compelled to point these things out.

Bias isn't always wrong. Sometimes a strong opinion is a good thing. I'm "biased" when it comes to believing that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, or killing unborn babies is wrong, or hating someone because the color of their skin is different is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm mean to people who hold to another view. It merely means that I express my view boldly and without apology in the kindest, yet firmest manner. At the same time, I understand that as kind as you try to be while being bold, there is always someone who says you "didn't do it in love". (We have that in writing from a GC pastor regarding my husband's blog post).

[Rebekah]

I don't understand why Linda's gotten the brunt of this. Wasn't it G_Prince who took it to the person to begin with? (Sorry for throwing you under the bus, G.)

Either way, there's so much factual evidence in the GCx web library and in the sermons themselves (that we so wittily tear apart) that any harsh questioning or truth can't change the facts staring them in the face.

BTW, if it's only a few people doing weird things and the pastors are coming down hard on them and the practices, why does this person care?

I imagine he/she cares because this small group of people actually has a bit of power. They're the ones being groomed for leadership or are the ones that other people want to be like.

At least, that's how it was in my GC church. The pastors would say "No, no, it's not a command to court, and let's not get legalistic about it." But then this small group of wackos doing these things had close relationships with the pastors, were being sent on church plants, and were being raised up as pastors. The words didn't match the results.

I'm probably projecting the situation I saw onto his/hers, but I can't imagine why this person would care about a small group of people doing these things if they really were being openly rebuked or criticized for it.

[nelliepooh]

I think that the main problem with the gcx church today is that old practices that used to be taught are sneeking back into the church either from trickling down of mere suggestion or practice as an indivigual are seen by new zealous young leaders as what they are told to so to live a god honoring life and they pass it on to their friends and so on until it is emense peer pressure to act a certain way.

[lone gone]

"That doesn't mean I'm mean to people who hold to another view. It merely means that I express my view boldly and without apology in the kindest, yet firmest manner. At the same time, I understand that as kind as you try to be while being bold, there is always someone who says you "didn't do it in love"."

If you treat a total stranger to your strongly held opinion in a bold yet (to your way of thinking) kind manner, that act on your part may be mistaken for an attack.  One man's boldness is another mans attack.

If you walked into a store and the salesperson noticed you were wearing a competing stores brand of clothing, and that salesperson boldly (but kindly!) stated their firmly held opinion that what you were were wearing, (what you had personally chosen for yourself and decided to wear) was not the best, not even good for you, and that you should immediately change your clothes to his brand.....   wouldn't you think that salesperson was pushy and being an jerk?

There are many ways to react to someone's shared thoughts. You don't have to start off bold and firm. You can ask clarifying questions to determine what is meant. ( as some people did ) You can engage someone without confronting them.  It seems that the minute a person states an offensive opinion it has to immediately and firmly be countered ( lest the contaminating thought spread to the less wise.....)

Spiritual warfare is not conducted on some field of battle that isn't connected to this earth. It is subject to the same conditions that we live in, act upon and react to.  To blythly think that by boldly sharing the truth  that this will win the day is misguided.

If there is so much information here and on the sister site that serves the purpose of educating and informing the stranger,  wouldn't it be just as good to point that info out to the stranger while a the same time engaging them in a conversation to get to know them and learn more about them?   

It's my experience that people are more often offended by people, less often by impersonal ideas.

Some people can be oblivious to the effects that their actions have on other people.  A person can easily justify themselves by stating their motives were in love, were kind, were Godly. In fact , that is what we accuse GC leaders of doing ( justifying themselves).


I really honestly feel that I am sharing this in love, boldly, yet kindly......... but what do you think?   

[Linda]

It seems that the minute a person states an offensive opinion it has to immediately and firmly be countered ( lest the contaminating thought spread to the less wise.....)

You certainly seem to have jumped to a conclusion on this.

First of all, nothing isotjc said was offensive.

Secondly, I immediately agreed with isotjc's point which, if you will remember, was that he/she just wanted to say that they were posting "to share that I don't think GC is all bad."

Third, I immediately agreed with this person by saying that I agreed, GC is not all bad.

Fourth, you took my quote out of context. I was making a statement on "bias" and how "bias" is not always a bad thing. Here is my statement in it's entire context:

Bias isn't always wrong. Sometimes a strong opinion is a good thing. I'm "biased" when it comes to believing that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, or killing unborn babies is wrong, or hating someone because the color of their skin is different is wrong. That doesn't mean I'm mean to people who hold to another view. It merely means that I express my view boldly and without apology in the kindest, yet firmest manner. At the same time, I understand that as kind as you try to be while being bold, there is always someone who says you "didn't do it in love".

Fifth, I wasn't talking about "spiritual warfare", I was talking about the idea that there is a right and a wrong and we can state our opinion on matters of conscience without feeling a need to "balance" it lest we seem biased by pointing out that in some situations we should be biased.

Sixth, I never suggested anyone make any comments in a careless or "blithe"manner.

Point seven (didn't know I would have so many points!) The comment "lest the contaminating thought spread to the less wise" is a tad judgmental since this forum has always been a place where ideas may be expressed openly. Anyone who comes on and posts is choosing to be part of the conversation. Coming on a forum where the stated purpose is to discuss problems in GC and expecting to not hear about the problems doesn't make sense. Why would someone even post? I actually thought that isotjc's point was worth repeating. Not everything about GC is bad. I said immediately that I agreed with this point and have said it several more times. I think there is even a thread on the "good" things of GC. Somewhere. We have even had that discussion.

Eighth, You can share whatever you want, however you want. I can't possibly judge your motives. I won't try. Only God can do that.

I hope you have a great day.

Oops, point two and three are the same, but I'm too lazy to renumber them. Also, I put the little smiley face by the have a great day statement not to be sarcastic, but so that Agatha, who hates conflict, won't worry. I really do hope you have a great day, lone gone. Here's a smiley face for you, Agatha.

[AgathaL'Orange]

  Thank you, Linda!

[calgal]

I'll be blunt.

I had not been here long so perhaps I have some perspective.  I was in GC for 11 years so I do know how harmful this cult is. So, my criticism of how this thread has been handled by all of us, has nothing to do with the content of this claim.

However, it is odd to me that when a person comes to this site wanting to talk about questions they have this is what happens:
1.  They are openly judged as to what their motives are (i.e. is this a 'drive by'? or equate their behavior to alcoholism, etc)

2.  They are bombarded by multiple people with offensive questions which they then need to defend

3.  Regulars then post (and squabble among themselves) about their own problems they have had with GC in the past, completely negating the person who came to the site in the first place.

Wouldn't this scenario make more sense? -
1.  Questioner comes to post

2. This forum has a moderator which is clearly posted on their profile (I don't think we have this, right? - check out healingwell.com as they do this well).  This person is welcomed and their question is addressed in a friendly, open manner. The moderator reviews all the posts going in and out and makes sure the thread is followed to address the orginal question without comprising real dialouge

3. Regular members ask questions about questioner that show they care but are not confrontational.  Links to the educational material are provided.  An open, hoest sharing enviroment is fostered.  Remeber, these people don't know who to trust and we are the ones they can!  Careful attention is made to not overwhelm this person as this person is desired to come back. Also, it is assumed that for every one person posting, there are others reading who are in the same situation.

Frankly, I think when someone posts, the focus needs to be on them, not us.
If I was InSearchOf, I'd feel overwhelmed by us ...


Without being defensive, do you think we can take resposibility for this as a group and make changes toward the good? Aren't we here to affect change?  I think we all agree that GC had major flaws that inhibit spiritual growth and we are here to help people fulfill God's full potential and we can be a bridge to help them get out of GC and get into a better environment. Right?  Can we do this? But the change, I think has to start with us.  Let me know your thougths ....

[Linda]

However, it is odd to me that when a person comes to this site wanting to talk about questions they have this is what happens

Help me out. What were the questions?

[calgal]

Is it possible to take a step back and look at this with trying to be "Right"

Perhaps this person didn't come with an actual question posed as "question", but their post, in opinion was a BIG question or why would they be here? 

Could you kindly consider the QUESTIONS I posed and respond to those? 

To be honest, I'm frustrated and I don't know if I want to continue coming back to this site and I'm a recovered cult survivor!!! What is someone who who wants to get out going to do???

I'm just trying to be honest.

[G_Prince]

I'll be blunt.

I had not been here long so perhaps I have some perspective.  I was in GC for 11 years so I do know how harmful this cult is. So, my criticism of how this thread has been handled by all of us, has nothing to do with the content of this claim.

However, it is odd to me that when a person comes to this site wanting to talk about questions they have this is what happens:
1.  They are openly judged as to what their motives are (i.e. is this a 'drive by'? or equate their behavior to alcoholism, etc)

2.  They are bombarded by multiple people with offensive questions which they then need to defend

3.  Regulars then post (and squabble among themselves) about their own problems they have had with GC in the past, completely negating the person who came to the site in the first place.

Wouldn't this scenario make more sense? -
1.  Questioner comes to post

2. This forum has a moderator which is clearly posted on their profile (I don't think we have this, right? - check out healingwell.com as they do this well).  This person is welcomed and their question is addressed in a friendly, open manner. The moderator reviews all the posts going in and out and makes sure the thread is followed to address the orginal question without comprising real dialouge

3. Regular members ask questions about questioner that show they care but are not confrontational.  Links to the educational material are provided.  An open, hoest sharing enviroment is fostered.  Remeber, these people don't know who to trust and we are the ones they can!  Careful attention is made to not overwhelm this person as this person is desired to come back. Also, it is assumed that for every one person posting, there are others reading who are in the same situation.

Frankly, I think when someone posts, the focus needs to be on them, not us.
If I was InSearchOf, I'd feel overwhelmed by us ...


Without being defensive, do you think we can take resposibility for this as a group and make changes toward the good? Aren't we here to affect change?  I think we all agree that GC had major flaws that inhibit spiritual growth and we are here to help people fulfill God's full potential and we can be a bridge to help them get out of GC and get into a better environment. Right?  Can we do this? But the change, I think has to start with us.  Let me know your thougths ....

Good post, interesting questions.

I agree we shouldn't judge the motives of Pro-GXc posters, even if they do engage in the classic drive-by. I think it's easy to forget that we are all people behind the anonymity, and even if we say something mean it's because we feel the need to defend ourselves.

I also want to engage in open, honest dialogue with the Pro-sters. To me this means asking hard questions which will likely lead to an argument. I'm not scared of conflict or of scaring people away from this site. Even if they don't come back, at least they had to think about some of the bothersome issues that they are personally aware of. A seed may be planted. There are many ways people get out, and this site may have little or no part to play in that decision. God has a plan for everyone.

This might sound really bad, but I don't have a problem with confronting someone with information because I don't think it is ultimately my responsibility to get them out of GCx. I am powerless to help anyone; all I can do is to get them thinking about their church. Ultimately, the only way someone can leave is if they decide to do it. The only way they can decide is if they have thought long and hard about it. Most pro-sters have stopped thinking for themselves, and only use group-think. In my opinion a good argument gets the brain going….then EMPOWERMENT!   

This site is just a mix of good cop, bad cop. Some people are going to be more direct, others more sensitive. But in my opinion, everyone on here is very civil. There is no name calling, no abusive language …seriously, this has to be one of the most reasonable forums on the internet. 



     

[TerryD]

This site is just a mix of good cop, bad cop. Some people are going to be more direct, others more sensitive. But in my opinion, everyone on here is very civil. There is no name calling, no abusive language …seriously, this has to be one of the most reasonable forums on the internet.

I agree, Gene. I just read through the entire thread, and while I'm absolutely in agreement with calgal's concern for civility and kindness to pro-GCx posters, I just don't really see any unkindness or incivility here.

And remember, (to modify somebody's earlier allusion) this site is not so much like a clothing store where customers wandering in get "blithely confronted" about the clothes they're wearing; it's more like a demonstration outside the door of an establishment where something truly harmful is being sold, and the unsuspecting public needs to know. Were I to wander into that group asserting that my experience with the products has been OK, I would hope for civility, but would expect some fairly direct and earnest point-by-point contrary information.

Then I would have to decide who to believe and go on from there.

That's all that has happened here.

[boboso]

Here's my $0.02

If people come to gcmwarning.com forums, we can all easily infer their interest in hearing the 5Ws of what the warning is about and to hear some testimonies. The purpose of the site is very obvious so we can reasonably assume the lurker knows exactly what they're stepping into.

That said, in re-reading the thread, I think I was more aggressive and pointed than Linda. I assumed the original poster wanted out and was asking advice. In my re-read, the OP just wanted to say he/she saw some craziness, but that GC was a-ok. Knowing what I do about the "leadership" practices and seeing first hand how the kool-aid drinkers were used to do the dirty work, I may have falsely assumed the OP was seeing the exact same thing. We attended a GCx franchise (that's right: franchise, not church) that was being overseen by a top leader (mentioned in this thread!). The OP could have been attending a SE US church that doesn't buy into all of the authoritarian nonsense. The point is, I superimposed my experiences, and I would say I may have been part of scaring he/she away.

I would also like to remind everyone that no one is forcing anybody to attend a GCx franchise. Any of you who work for a large corporation will understand: there are people who just want to be told what to do and to follow easy-1-2-3 steps. Essentially, it's ok for them to not know the "why" -- it's enough that someone in authority (reasonable or not) told you to do it so you won't be held responsible. For a career, it's not necessarily bad, but really dangerous. In a Christian walk, it's really dangerous as ALL of us will be judged for our thoughts/actions. One "leader" told me he would be held responsible for all of the sin in "his" franchise. I told him Jesus did this already for all of us and he (the "leader") couldn't possibly bear the sin of others. The "leader" told me to submit. Yet another (horribly incorrect) classic answer.

We all know who the regulars are and we've all heard the same stories. Obviously, some of us went through far more painful experiences than others. In my opinion, there have been times where posters here have gone too far in condemning GCx people and practices (me included). This thread isn't one of them.

Here's what I know:

I will warn all people about the authoritarian model of "leadership" practiced by GCx franchises that I have personally seen in Denver, Colorado and Fort Collins, Colorado.

I will also stand for some GCx individual leaders in the South Carolina/Georgia area who have condemned these authoritarian practices and who have worked to serve God wholeheartedly. I've asked a few to leave GC too. They tell me that GC Europe is different -- not sure about that.

I will help any and all of the "leaders" we engaged in Colorado to stop these crazy practices and they know my door is open to them. They are my brothers. Yes, they are hurting many believers -- however, I do not believe they know what damage they're causing nor do I think they are evil. I believe these "leaders" are misguided, confused, stubborn, and misinformed (and some very egotistical).

Clear as mud, right? That's the problem with humanity folks. We're inconsistent and messy -- why wouldn't pastors/clerics be too? I'm not giving a pass by any means, but just trying to work in the bigger picture.

[Rebekah]

Good post, boboso.

We all do read everything here through the lenses of our experiences. I admit to having very few good things to say about GC, and I have little patience for people who want to defend them--even a little bit (this is not something I'm proud of but just the truth of how little good feeling I have toward the group).

I guess I've heard what they have to say, and I'm not interested in hearing it again or trying to debate it. If someone thinks GC is fine, then that's fine for them, but don't try to convince me that GC really isn't as bad as I think it is. That's not a discussion or debate I'm interested in and it makes me wonder why they're posting here and what they expect.

Now, if someone's in GC and thinking about getting out or wondering if they should or if they can, then I'm all in.