Looking for introduction/faq

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.

[Ned_Flanders]

Oh, yes, I was just commenting that the Amish do not try to paint themselves as culturally appealing.  You won't find them putting up billboards, or ads, or touting themselves as cool in order to get members.  I've actually heard they are controlling (or different pockets of them are controlling) too, and wouldn't recommend membership, but yes, I'm more speaking to how GCx markets itself in a deliberately appealing way.  They have a target demographic (Did Jesus have a target demographic, pretty sure he targeted the entire world), and seek to reach that demographic.  This is just one of the many screwed up things they do.  

Thanks for the response.  My My biggest problem with Great Commission was that they didn’t respect individual freedom and too often tried to tell grown adults what they should do with their lives.  And my point with the Amish example is to say that for any group, large or small, inclusive or not inclusive, popular or unpopular,if being a part of it means you have to conform to their standards and give up who you are means it is a group I would prefer to stay away from.  

[Huldah]

May I ask how long it's been since you've left?
In what ways would you say their motivations were legalistic?

I generally give anyone the benefit of doubt when it comes to things like motivation.  I wouldn't consider myself a great judge of it, so perhaps your experience can help.

Fair questions and I'll do my best to answer. I was there in the late 70's. Some of the people I knew back then as local elders or deacons are now national leaders. It appears that their attitudes and teachings haven't changed much over the years. According to stories and testimonies coming out of GCx, people are still being harmed, which is why this forum exists.

The motivations were clearly legalistic because there was no room for grace, for individuality, or for honest differences of opinions on non-essentials of the faith. There was an established norm within the group for behavior and for attitudes, based on the idea that our church was superior to other churches. We could only attain and maintain this superiority by rigid conformity to New Testament practices, as interpreted by the elders.  One's level of conformity was considered the indicator of his or her spiritual commitment.

The legalism was bound up with the highly authoritarian nature of the group, which in turn was the result of poorly handed Scripture. I remember many teachings that emphasized authority, submission, unity, and discipline, but few if any that dwelt on grace, the believer's freedom in Christ, or the fact that God created us as individuals, each uniquely gifted for His glory. The following are some examples of legalistic, overly authoritarian practices I witnessed or experienced in my time there.

Attendance at all meetings was mandatory. If you weren't there, you had to have a very good excuse. Doing homework was a quasi-acceptable excuse. The mere fact that someone was still in college, instead of dropping out “to serve the Lord full time,” was viewed as evidence of mixed loyalties. Higher education was considered unnecessary, because, "If God wants a doctor or a businessman, he'll save a doctor or a businessman." Our job was to preach the gospel, not pursue a career.

Almost every relationship was placed into a hierarchy of some sort. While living in the sisters' house, I was told by one of the deacons that I should be in submission to one of my sister housemates. (What? Five young adult women in the privacy of their shared home can't relate to each other as equals?) On one occasion, two brothers were having a discussion on how to translate “glory to God” into Russian. One of the brothers (the one who actually did the translation correctly) told me he had decided to accept the other brother's translation “out of submission”. (Really? You knowingly defer to someone who's objectively wrong because it's the spiritual thing to do?)

There was a sister in our house who functioned as a de facto informant to the deacons. This was truly one of the darkest aspects of life in my GC church. A friend of mine was very frustrated with some of the things going on in the fellowship. One evening, she poured out her frustrations to me over dinner at the brothers' house. The informant overheard the discussion. Late that night or the next night (I forget the exact timing), I received a visit from two deacons who wanted to know how the disgruntled sister's words had affected my thinking. When I told them how upset and confused I was by their visit (I told them it reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition), they went back to the sister, shamed her for “confusing” me, and made her come and apologize. I can hardly overemphasize how devastating this kind of thought control was. The Weaknesses paper makes no mention of this kind of interrogation and intimidation, but it happened, it was evil, and it caused tremendous damage. (My understanding is that there are still some dark and disturbing practices going on in some of the GC fellowships, and some members are still suffering severe emotional trauma as a result.)

Most recreation was discouraged, not actively, but by the emphasis on only doing what was profitable for the kingdom. I don't remember ever seeing another brother or sister read a book that wasn't spiritual in nature, work on a hobby, take a class to improve a skill, or practice a sport other than one mandatory volleyball gathering. Square dancing was out, because “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Dating was discouraged, not because it might lead to sin, but because 1) the elders knew what was best for you, and they would let you know if/when God finally found you worthy of marriage, and 2) we were just so darn busy "serving God," who had time to date? There was a lot of guilt attached to doing something that wasn't part of the group. The Lone Ranger Christian was the sinning Christian. (This is the attitude they taught, though I can't remember whether they used that exact phrase or not.)

I hope these examples make the legalistic underpinnings clear. At least, it should be obvious that these behaviors weren't motivated by a spirit of grace or love. Your church may not be as extreme as mine was, and I hope it isn't. But as I said before, you won't really know what's in your elders' hearts until you find yourself in opposition to them on some issue. Only then will you find out where you really stand in your church.

[Wiggly]

Wow.

And thank you.

I'm happy to say, at the very least, I haven't experienced almost any of that in my individual church.  That isn't to say they've necessarily dropped the underlying motivations/convictions.


"highly authoritarian nature of the group"
I think there is still an emphasis on submission and authority that does surpass my other church experiences.  It doesn't seem to be the same as your experience of it, but it's undoubtedly there.  With that said, on those topics I would consider minor and disagreed with... I've for the most part not changed for the sake of "submission".  (One of the men asked me to stop hugging his now fiance, which I don't agree with but I did yield.  She and I have been friends for quite awhile, predating my entrance into the church.  I don't see any problem with it but I decided to respect his wishes.) My primary example would be male-female platonic relationships.  I sense the unwritten rule that just seems to exist even though I've never heard it taught.  This idea of "guarding women's hearts" that seems to get pushed way too far.  I will not sacrifice having female friends in order to guarantee that none of them become infatuated with me.  I can tell that would describe the norm for certain people who are born into GCx. I haven't been formally discouraged for this yet, only told I should probably be careful. 

Hopefully I've communicated that well enough.  I have this feeling I'll be explaining that further.

"Attendance at all meetings was mandatory."
I haven't found this to be the case.  I'm not in any type of leadership role (perhaps that changes things?).  I would consider myself a regular attendee.  I am a member of the church. I skip things occasionally and I might get a, "We missed you this week at lifegroup".  But I've always felt that came from a good place.

"I received a visit from two deacons who wanted to know how the disgruntled sister's words had affected my thinking..."
Wow.  This whole story is a bit scary.  Have any disagreements come up, there's never been at time we haven't discussed privately as two adults.  I have no idea if the other party ever approached any form of a leader, but if they did, he never came to me.

"Almost every relationship was placed into a hierarchy of some sort...I was told by one of the deacons that I should be in submission to one of my sister housemates.."

Not this at all that I've seen/heard.  The Russian translation story is pretty absurd.

"Most recreation was discouraged, not actively, but by the emphasis on only doing what was profitable for the kingdom..."

I think this theme is probably closer to your experience than the rest. I do see people with hobbies and sports.  We dance with each other, particularly at weddings.  I would describe the expected contact as "safe".  Primarily swing type dancing.  I play on three different soccer leagues.  Dating... is still discouraged within the church.  I'm not sure if it's because of point 1 (that they know what's best for you).  Point 2 (too busy serving God) is probably the same.  Though they would say that you should focus on God and not worry about dating.  I've heard many other arguments to strictly courting within a church (and that dating was okay when you attend different churches).  I'll share those if people are interested in hearing it.


Overall - you've convinced me that the church of today (and at my specific location) is at the very least.... less abusive.  I still have a lot of things to consider and go over.  And of course, there's still ample opportunity for them to show me colors that I've never seen before.  Based on your description, I would say that there's still elements lingering from the past that you can still see.  They seem to have been greatly reduced from what I can tell.

Thank you again for sharing.

[EverAStudent]

As has been ably stated by others, much of the coersion-by-innuendo is focused only on the "core group."  The core group is comprised of the current "sold out" laborers who have not yet made it into official leadership.  Regular attendees are considered fringe and will be kindly courted almost indefinately in hopes they will someday "grow" into core group material.

Core group members, such as those who live with other core group members, will be given "counsel" about being more regular in their attendance at all important functions (almost everything was important as it turned out), giving more of their time, giving more of their money, setting a better example for the newbies of submission to their leaders, dressing less provocatively, and striving to become leadership material.

It is safe to assume that in the mind of most regular attenders they saw themselves as committed members who were participating in the church, at least so long as they were still in school in that area.  GCx leadership did not view them that way at all.  They saw them as tentative and uncommitted, untrustworthy and not deserving of their detailed guidance or attention.  Worse, such fringe people may "misunderstand" and be resentful if they were to be treated as zealously as is the core group, and such fringe people may then offer up bad press and hurt the leadership.  So the leadership did not mold the fringe with quite the same energy as they applied to the core team members.

My advice (it's free!):  Attend the church regularly if you like it, learn what you can of the Scriptures, enjoy the fellowship activities, remain in the fringe group, and if it ever becomes time for you to progress to the next level of ministry involvement then seek out an established para-church group (e.g. Campus Crusade) or a traditional seminary by which to become deeply trained and tempered for the long race. 

[2xA Ron]

If I run into problems, I'm sure this is where it will happen.  I still love my old pastor and his church really.  I don't serve for them as much but I do like to go over there occasionally. 

Also, would you mind sharing your problems when it came to dating?  Via PM if that's more comfortable.  This could be even more relevant than splitting time between ministries.

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond.  I guess I need to pay better attention after I post something! 

I apologize in advance for the excessive length of this post!

The good news about the commitment issue (where attending another church is seen as "lack of commitment") is that (if your church is like mine: Summitview, Fort Collins), it won't be that big of a deal.  A leader may occasionally mention it to you, but since it will mark you as "fringe group material" they probably won't press it.  My leader mentioned it to me once and when I (quite perplexed) told him I didn't see it as a problem, but I would think about it, that satisfied him.  I never heard on the topic from him again.  The only time it really was made into an issue was when I challenged the leadership on the area of dating.  Then one of the leaders alleged that the only reason I wasn't "submitting" to his "council" was because I had "split loyalties" with this other group (the Navigators, who, incidentally, are pretty awesome).  Another leader asked me to leave the Rock with the excuse that he wanted me to be fully committed to one organization or the other (but didn't ask me to leave the Navs because I wasn't giving them trouble over dating).  Ignorance worked in my favor there as I took the "request" for an actual request, refused, and managed to talk him out of it.

Dating is a complicated issue in many places of the GCx.  The best resource for that is probably browsing through the "Gender Roles, Dating, Marriage, and Courtship" section of the forum.  Exact practices may very, but at Summitview what you've already observed is the tip of the iceberg, or was, as I observed it there.

One of the men asked me to stop hugging his now fiance, which I don't agree with but I did yield.  She and I have been friends for quite awhile, predating my entrance into the church.  I don't see any problem with it but I decided to respect his wishes.) My primary example would be male-female platonic relationships.  I sense the unwritten rule that just seems to exist even though I've never heard it taught.  This idea of "guarding women's hearts" that seems to get pushed way too far.  I will not sacrifice having female friends in order to guarantee that none of them become infatuated with me.  I can tell that would describe the norm for certain people who are born into GCx. I haven't been formally discouraged for this yet, only told I should probably be careful.

This was pretty much exactly the first things I noticed at Summitview in regards to dating strangeness.  First, there was a female friend who was rebuked by her team leaders for her habit of greeting close friends with a hug.  She was also apparently harassed for immodesty and several other issues, none of which I or any of her friends that I knew could see in her life.  When she could not get her leadership to listen, she vented to me and my roommate.  When he tried to take the issue to leadership himself, he was sternly rebuked for not "guarding her heart" by talking with her and also undercutting the authority of her leaders.  Thereafter I was the only one who'd talk with her and he threw her out of the room (when I wasn't there, apparently).  Predictably, when no one would listen to her or help her, the girl eventually blew up in her leader's face with a nasty public confrontation and some months later left the Rock (Summitview's campus ministry arm) to join the Navigators.

Around the same time, I noticed "guarding each other's hearts" was a common catch phrase being thrown around with very broad applications (I was once rebuked for trying to share the gospel with a non-Christian young woman on the grounds that it wasn't "guarding her heart" and would make her "too vulnerable"--the rebuker later repented and apologized when I pointed out he'd basically used extra-Biblical convictions to trump the Great Commission itself).  I also noticed there were many more platonic relationships in the Navigators than in the Rock.  "No Man's Land" was a lot harder to cross for some reason.  But no one really objected to me having platonic friends or to dating a girl in the Navigators (well, I went out with her once and then she gave me the "let's just be friends" talk, but let's not focus on my lack of a love life  ).  This may have been, as EverAStudent and araignee19 have suggested, because I was just on the fringes of the group and my activities were not of much concern.

In 2010, I felt a strong conviction from the Spirit to pursue a romantic relationship with a girl who was part of my D-Team (small group) in the Rock (I don't think it's normal to feel such conviction and direct guidance, but I have heard of it in other cases, and I believe to this day it was real).  I got to know her over the summer by exchanging a lot of texts and letters with her, in some of which there was mild flirting (which means we meant to flirt and kinda thought the other might be flirting, but were shy and inexperienced and didn't say anything obvious).  At the end, I mailed her pressed wildflowers.  I was very excited about all this and the confirmation of God's will I'd seen in it all summer long (I spent the summer with a bunch of Navigators--if I hadn't, this probably wouldn't have happened).  I told my D-Team leader about it when we talked over the phone toward the end of summer and he was horrified.  He told me I'd gone too far with this girl, I wasn't "guarding her heart" (there's that phrase again), and that I needed to repent and withdraw myself from the friendship as much as possible.  When school resumed, both my D-Team leaders reiterated this to me.  One of them (who had fallen for a female leader over the summer, spending a lot of time hanging out with her--the feeling was mutual and they would get married about a year later to the joy of the church) confessed that he was also under a rebuke for "going too far with a girl" and had repented and wrote her an apology letter explaining why they couldn't be friends like they'd been over the summer and needed to put distance between each other.

Further questioning revealed that in the Rock dating was regarded as a sinful pattern stolen from the world (a "swerver" as the message goes: a vehicle for relationships prone by design to leading people into sin and heartache).  The Rock practiced courtship.  If you were attracted to someone, you were to talk to your leaders about it.  They would advise you to wait till you were ready and to see if it really was God's will.  Meanwhile, they'd be in touch with the female leaders of the girl you were interested in and--if she returned the interest and they thought you were both "mature," they would give you a green light to enter a relationship.  Usually, this process was expected to take two years, during which time you were to treat the object of your affections "just like any other woman on your team, etc" (which practically boiled down to having as little to do with her as possible) and many prayed for God to take away the attraction if it was His will (and were frequently guilt-tripped for the attraction as "emotional impurity," so no wonder they prayed so hard!).  But it's okay, because once the leaders give you the green light, couples generally "knew each other well enough" (despite having been banned from having meaningful interactions) that they advanced their relationship by leaps and bounds.  From the "green light" to the altar was supposed to take six months, though some couples did it in three, and proposals on the first date were common.  This was the spiritual way to do relationships, the only way to save yourself from breaking your heart and sinning with multiple people by trial-and-error dating, and it was the reason why Summitview had a 2% divorce rate compared to the 50% of Christians in general (which is comparing apples to oranges: the Baptist church I now attend as a 0% divorce rate and allows dating).

  Seriously, that was pretty much what I was told when I asked the leader of the Rock what the deal was with dating.  The parentheticals are obviously things I found out on my own, but the rest is pretty faithful paraphrase.  Hopefully that shocks you as much as it did me.

Anyway, long story short, I decided to ask the girl out that fall anyway.  She wasn't as interested as I thought she was and we became "just friends" in the normal way.  I continued to have feelings for her and these were construed as the sin of "emotional impurity" and my refusal to distance myself from this girl lead to conflict with my D-Team leader (who I was rooming with at the time).  During early 2011, the girl had a change of heart, developing (on her own in private prayers) a very strong conviction from the Spirit wanted her to be romantically involved with me (as I would find out from her later).  Even though she still didn't feel quite that way about me, she went ahead and resurrected the topic of us being in a relationship and said we should both pray about it and seek council and then come back to each other with an answer.  Though I was definitely caught off guard (shouldn't have been, God had told me a change was coming in our relationship on the exact day when she and I had that conversation that took such an unanticipated direction), I still liked her and felt it was what God wanted for the relationship, so I had my answer very quickly.  It definitely helped that me and my D-Team leader weren't talking much any more.  The girl, however, had a hard time getting in touch with her leader and when she did the leader asked her a bunch of questions (such as "would you marry him tomorrow?  If not, you shouldn't be romantically involved with him") which were based on the Rock's courtship ideas and only served to frustrate the girl and make her wonder why her leader could not understand that God might want something a little different with this relationship.  She made her way higher up the chain of command and wound up talking with the wife of the leader of the Rock, and (I suspect) the leader himself (who had, the past fall, told me point blank when I described my spiritual experience that God never talked to anyone that way and that if He did give specific guidance on anything it would only cause us to sin more--since we could then sin by not following His guidance...and I mentally dismissed him because that sort of thing happened all the time in the Bible).  They managed to convince her that it was not the will of God that she be in a relationship since she didn't like me and God's character was such that He wouldn't want her to be in a relationship with someone she wasn't romantically attracted to (that God might have intended for the relationship to develop gradually, with feelings, from our friendship--as both of us later confessed as our romantic ideal--or might have some other thing in mind that would make it align with His character...none of these possibilities occurred to them).  They further convinced her to call me up, tell me she would not be in a relationship with me, and furthermore that she needed to end our friendship for emotional purity's sake.

Thus began the next fun chapter of the saga.  At the end of spring semester, she unfriended me (not on Facebook, just in real life).  Halfway through the summer I started doing research to write a letter expressing my concerns on gender issues to the pastor of Summitview and contacted her to confirm some details and ask if I could use her name.  At that point, she'd thought better of it and renewed our friendship.  We spent some time ironing out differences and negotiating a fairly comfortable "just friends" relationship.  We kept in touch over email and had a pretty big miscommunication, which--in classic guy-style--I did not even notice until after she overreacted to it.  She informed me that she couldn't talk to me any more, even to answer direct questions in public (general questions of a group she was in like "how are you all today?" were fine, but not anything aimed at her) and that if I wanted to communicate with her at all, I would have to go indirectly through my D-Team leader.  Extremely frustrated, I did just that and eventually cleared up the misunderstanding, but, under advice from the leadership, she did not reopen communications.  I was to treat her "like any other girl on the team"...except that I was friends with and talked to several of the other girls on the team one-on-one and I was never to do that with her and--due to the frigid tensions between us--could not really be considered friends with this girl at all.  In textbooks, what happened next is called an avoidance-aggression spiral: where one party to a conflict tries to avoid the other in hopes the conflict will just go away while the other party becomes increasingly aggressive and desperate to contact the first party and bring them to the table in order to resolve the conflict.  The leadership supported her 100% with the leaders of my D-Team literally conspiring to keep me occupied and away from this girl, betraying my confidences, and rebuking me frequently for trying to talk to this girl--even to just engage her in casual conversation!  Her avoidance was couched in terms of protecting her "emotional purity" and was viewed as the mature, Christian solution.  I didn't see anything mature or Christian about giving me the silent treatment, made my opinion abundantly clear to my D-Team leader, and finally confronted this girl with my view of her behavior publicly in a crowded cafeteria (remember that young woman I mentioned earlier who blew up?  Yeah, I imagine it was something like this).

My D-Team leader was clearly out of his league at this point and punted it upstairs to a pastor (Pat Sokol, no longer with the church) who, in December of 2011, sat down and talked to me, explaining that any guidance I thought I received from God needed to be ran past my peers first.  If they didn't agree, based on their personal opinions, then it wasn't from God and shouldn't be followed.  This went double for leaders and pastors who disagreed with me.  Since all Christians have the Spirit, surely they would all agree with any personal direction I was given from the Spirit (which assumes their personal opinions are divinely inspired, and practically means God can be outvoted).  Like a sap I actually believed him for the whole of twelve hours before I started thinking critically about it and comparing it to scripture.  However, that was long enough for me to feel totally miserable, broken, and abandoned by God; to write an email to this girl and my D-Team leader saying it was all my fault, apologizing, and promising to accept any punishment they saw fit to inflict; and to very seriously consider taking my life since the ripple effect of not being able to trust anything I heard from God threatened to destroy my faith and life anyway.  Thanks pastor. 

Once I came to my senses, I let my apology and promises stand, even though I knew it wasn't true.  I decided to play along, since I'd never gotten anywhere fighting them anyway.  I was rewarded when the male and female leaders of my D-Team called for a meeting between me and this girl (mediated by themselves, of course) to discuss possibly renewing our friendship and laying our conflict to rest.  Both the girl and I had experienced some positive interactions with each other since the detente and both expressed the desire to renew our friendship with each other.  But at this point the leaders butted in (so much for mediation) and suggested it would be "wisest" to "rest in this peace" by continuing not to talk to each other for an indeterminate amount of time.  The girl pulled a 180 to agree immediately with her leader.  I kept a simmering silence: since the conflict, for me, was the lack of communication, this was basically like calling off the armistice.  I went back to rocking the boat, though on a much lower level since I was sick of the whole thing by now.  When I texted a prayer request to the girl (the two of us were no longer allowed to text, or share prayer requests privately), she shared it with her leader, it became a topic in the leadership meeting that night, and in the morning one of the D-Team leaders met me in my dorm and told me I was not welcome to come to team any more.  They hoped I would still be a part of the Rock and join another team, but that text had been the last straw.  I sat and listened to my D-Team leader's explanation.  He blamed me for everything of course, called me spiritual "dead weight" who should have been cut from the team a long time ago.  God gave me an amazing sense of peace through all of this, and a knowledge that this fellow was just blowing bull**** at me.  I asked him if there was anything he'd do differently as a result of this in the future, and he promised he'd boot anyone who offended as I had quicker next time and also railed against a tabletop RPG some of the men on the team played on the side (remember what Huldah said about recreation?) which he planned to end because, basically, it was competing with him for time and attention.  God told me there, as the fellow talked, that He would not allow him to continue as leader for the things he had done and planned to do.  I never told him.  It turned out, though, that this fellow had over-committed in to the church in terms of time and money, like araignee19 mentioned.  Severely in debt and on academic probation, he was unable to enroll that semester to finish his degree and was forced to return to his hometown by the beginning of summer.  There is no GCx church in that area so he could not continue in a leadership role.

So, that's my story!  It's also on the thread in "Hello's and Testimonies" that has a smiley face on it (like this  , because that was the face I made when I realized I wasn't the only one who'd had a bad experience).  My analysis of the whole dating mess is that it largely has to do with the false doctrine of emotional purity, an idea taught nowhere in Scripture which asserts that having an emotional or romantic attraction for a member of the opposite sex who is not your spouse is equivalent to lusting after them and is a subset of sexual immorality.  It is applied mostly to singles.  Proponents use Proverbs 4:23 out of context: it says, "guard your heart" but in regard to wisdom, sin, and living a righteous life--not in connection with emotions which the Jewish culture held to reside in the gut, not the heart (hence the odd references to "bowels" in the old KJV in places like Genesis 43:30 or Philemon 1:7).  They mainly rely on psuedo-logical arguments that draw a connection between emotional involvement and sexual sin.  One of their main thrusts is to propose that every time one falls in love or crushes on someone, they "give a piece of their heart away" and cannot ever get it back.  This results in them being less devoted and able to love their spouse when they finally meet.  In order to avoid this, proponents generally adhere to some form of courtship model, in some of which matches are arranged (explicitly or implicitly) by authority figures.  In the Rock, the culture and teaching seem to be a textbook example of this.

Emotional purity doctrine has several problems.  It contradicts the Bible, which explicitly says that falling in love and getting married is not and does not involve sin (and says it from the pen of a confirmed lifelong celibate, no less--1 Corinthians 7:46).  Proponents further generally create a system of rules (the violation of which is supposedly sinful) designed to prevent emotional impurity in the self and others, and people in the Bible, including Jesus, can be seen to violate these rules repeatedly (for instance, Jesus shared the gospel with a loose Samaritan woman while talking alone with her).  The idea that every human desire not explicitly spiritual is irredeemably evil also seems to be part of emotional purity doctrine, denying Christian doctrines of redemption and renewal of the whole man.  Emotional purity is also very frequently paired with legalism.  When this happens, it causes shame in anyone who feels emotional attraction because they've "given their heart away" and it is now "less valuable," pride in anyone who can fool themselves into thinking they haven't, and creates an atmosphere of relational dysfunction and ambient sexual tension.  Few platonic relationships form between the genders and fewer still have any depth.  People have no idea how to relate to members of the opposite sex constructively, but the legalism makes certain that relations with the opposite sex are always a hot topic.  Who's dating who or who likes who is a topic for gossip.  Leaders are constantly on the lookout for "inappropriate" behavior and rebuke it swiftly.  You can't help but think of the opposite sex as a strange, unknowable species which you can (due to the fact that you can't really be friends with them) only relate to in a sexual or romantic way--or not at all.  This means that whenever one approaches a member of the opposite sex innocently in friendship, they are predisposed to misinterpret it as a sexual or romantic advance and overreact accordingly (usually by going to find a leader to rebuke the other party).  When relationships do form, they are heavily criticized as violating emotional impurity and most couples receive peer pressure to break up or marry immediately.  The end result is a huge mess, usually cleverly hidden in plain sight, which massively distracts anyone who discovers it from serving God, loving their brothers and sisters in Christ, and generally leading a normal life.

Given what you've shared about your church, I would be on the lookout for these problems, which seem to crop up wherever emotional purity doctrine and legalism meet.  It is possible to sail through without experiencing much harm (especially if you find a way to have normal platonic friendships with members of the opposite sex outside of the church), but you'll probably notice something's off, and if you ever get into a disagreement over how men and women should relate, expect a pitched battle.

[2xA Ron]

I did want to end on a positive note, however.  My story does not end with me getting booted from my D-Team, though that was what caused me to leave Summitview and the Rock.  It is really ongoing.

After I left Summitview, I discovered the skeletons in the GCx closet (the Statement of Error and the testimony of a leader in the Navigators that GCx churches had--at least at one point--a reputation for producing shell-shocked individuals) and this site.  I realized that not only was the whole fiasco with this girl not all my fault as I'd been told, but that it was actually mostly the church's fault, part of a pattern they'd admitted to but continued repeating for the past 20+ years.  I managed to forgive them all in my heart and move on with life.  In December of 2012, someone here posted a link to an article by one of the national leaders of the GCx, which accused anyone who criticized the GCx on the internet as either beating a dead horse with decades-old grievances, being evil, or choosing to rant publicly rather than resolve their conflicts in a constructive manner.  Since I'd spent two years trying to resolve my conflict constructively, I was rather put out by this, as were a number of other posters.  While it was tempting to rant publicly about the article, I decided I would at least try to get in touch with the writer so he couldn't accuse me of not trying to "resolve the conflict constructively" when his article wound up in my blog.

Much to my surprise, he actually replied to me, apologized, took steps to make sure the article (which he considered defunct) was no longer available, and wound up writing a reconciliation letter to posters here (it didn't go over well, nobody but me thought he was legit--and honestly having heard all these stories, I can't blame them even if I don't quite agree with them).  He also asked me for my story and, when he heard it, got in touch with my pastor from Summitview (not Pat Sokal, who was gone by then) and tried to arrange some sort of reconciliation.  The pastor took a great deal of time working his way down through the hierarchy, talking with people who were involved.  The end result was that, when I called up my D-Team leader (we had somehow managed to remain friends, probably as a result of rooming for each other for three years before our conflict), he apologized to me.  The girl also apologized to me by email.  As a matter of fact, both of them were not only penitent but overly so.  He blamed everything on himself even though that was not realistic and completely ignored the fact that the church had done this whole thing before through different leaders.  She apologized for all sorts of things, including the specific procedure the leadership used in banning me, which was as much beyond her control as it was mine.  I suspect a lot of guilt got shuffled off to them so that higher-ups could protect their empires (I have yet to receive, and honestly do not expect, an apology from any of the other leaders who were involved).

But some good definitely came out of it.  I got a forum to express my concerns over gender issues and other things with the pastor and the national leader, who agreed to do certain things to try to resolve the issues (I haven't shared this with the forum before because I want to verify that they're actually going to do this before I go and get anybody's hopes up).  I was also able to arrange for mediation (using a mutual friend and former fringe-member of Summitview as mediator--no leaders!) with the girl and we buried the hatchet and decided we still wanted to be friends.  We still have communication and trust issues from our epic quarrels, but we are actively trying to work those out.  And to my great surprise, I find I still like her.  We'll see if anything happens with that. 

[Linda]

Thanks for sharing your story. Just curious, where do parents fit in this whole thing. Are they even in the loop of who people should "court" or date or marry?

[2xA Ron]

In the general setup of courtship in the Rock, parents were given lip-service, but practically disregarded.  I remember a leader saying that it was important to honor a girl's father and ask his permission first, but that--since the girl was away from home at college--her pastor or leader now fulfilled the role of her protector.  It did not seem to matter that the girl might still be in regular contact with her parents: since she was in the church and they weren't, church leaders considered it alright to supplant them pretty much completely.  I never heard of a single case where parents were mentioned as a part of the decision-making process regarding courtship (and in 2009 they printed a nice big booklet with several courtship testimonials in it...I used to keep it around, but I guess I lost it).  I'm sure couples did talk to their parents about it, but the leaders completely overshadowed them in terms of actual authority in people's lives.

The leadership-vs-parents conflict was actually one of the issues that caused the young woman who blew up in her leader's face to leave.  She was very close to her father, even though he was out of town, and he told her not to go to a conference her leaders insisted she should attend.  She obeyed her father, but her leaders weren't happy and quoted Matthew 10:37 ("Whoever loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me") at her.  Needless to say, she wasn't terrifically receptive to their input at that point...

In my specific situation with this girl, I do not know that she ever talked it over with her parents.  Certainly she never mentioned receiving any advice from them, only from leaders.  Myself, I talked with my father and mother about it and asked their advice at many points, especially going for my dad's advice and listening ear whenever things were frustrating.  He backed a lot of my major decisions that contradicted the church.  Wisely, no one mentioned Matthew 10:37 to me: since my father is actually a pastor of a small Baptist church, accusing him of drawing me away from Christ would have been beyond ridiculous.  Instead, they ignored his support for me and focused on accusing me of sin in order to break down my resistance.

[Linda]

I remember a leader saying that it was important to honor a girl's father and ask his permission first, but that--since the girl was away from home at college--her pastor or leader now fulfilled the role of her protector.

Do you know of any tape where a pastor said he now fulfilled the role of her protector? Not to imply that I don't believe you, it would be really good to have that on record.

She was very close to her father, even though he was out of town, and he told her not to go to a conference her leaders insisted she should attend.  She obeyed her father, but her leaders weren't happy and quoted Matthew 10:37 ("Whoever loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me") at her.  Needless to say, she wasn't terrifically receptive to their input at that point...

Interesting, isn't it, how they like to quote Matthew 10:37, but they always forget Matthew 15: 1-7

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!

[2xA Ron]

Interesting, isn't it, how they like to quote Matthew 10:37, but they always forget Matthew 15: 1-7

Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!

Yeah, sad to say for a group so apparently on fire for Jesus, but the most honoring things I heard about one's parent came from the young woman in conflict with leadership. 

Unfortunately, I do not know of any tape where they say that church leaders take the place of parents in the role of protector (and, implicitly, authority figure).  I believe it was said to me privately in the same conversation where the leader of the Rock explained their dating practices.  That would have been something to have on tape!  I suppose there might be some recorded sermon or teaching somewhere that mentions it, but I've never been good at listening to recorded sermons...

[Linda]

As a parent, the "swerver" talks always troubled me in that no one ever talked about the parents being involved. The plan seemed to be 1) talk to your mentor/minder person and if he gave you the go-ahead, 2) ask the girl if she'd pray about marrying you.

Shouldn't the guy run it by his dad first, then maybe ask the girl's dad. And, then maybe never ask the Pators/elders/mentors/minders for permission because they are not in a position to give permission. Permission is out of their realm of authority.

[Wiggly]

2xA Ron,

At the end of spring semester, she unfriended me (not on Facebook, just in real life)

This made me chuckle... I'm not sure why.

Thanks for sharing.  That's quite... a story.  And very recent too.  A troubling story for sure.  Your experiences will prove to be valuable for me almost certainly. 

Now, I'm not opposed to a courtship model.  In fact, I like a lot of the courtship model more than the 'worldly' dating model.  Dating 'casually' is often times selfish.  'Will you go on a date with me?' is generally answered with the following thought process, 'I think that would be fun.' or 'she is really pretty' or something similar.  The relationship is built upon this idea of, "I had fun, and you had fun, lets date again."  What happens when the fun runs out?  I mean, that can definitely (and does) work.  It takes two mature individuals to switch from the dating mode to the committed mode, I suppose. 

I become an even bigger supporter when you're in an environment where you can interact frequently with your person of interest regularly without trying.  In 'normal world' circumstances, this is really hard to find.  Perhaps you volunteer together or work together.  In GCx, obviously this is the norm.  You can observe a person's character when they're not trying to impress you all the time.  You can see them when they're having good days and when they're having bad days.  When you go 'casually dating', there's this fake good behavior... or maybe more accurately... you're generally always having a good day on those dates.

However, what you described sounds really painful.  I'm sorry that you had to endure that and probably are still enduring it.  What troubles me the most is when you challenged people, they didn't prayerfully study, meditate, and read upon the topic.  Challenging rules should be a healthy and encouraged practice. If they are morally sound and upright, the challenge will make them clearer for both parties and followed with a better heart.  If they are not, throw them out. 

Which comes to more of a root of the problem.  Taking counsel of a leader as equally important to scripture or God himself.  If this is really what is happening at your place, it could definitely happen at my place.  I think I've sold myself a little short when it comes to the involvement in the church.  "Fringe member" doesn't quite fit my own perception of how I fit in.  But my perception could definitely be wrong.  Probably more accurately, I'm just about to enter the "core".  I love the people here.  I love their hearts.  But I want to honor God.  I will not submit like a child to this leadership.  Hopefully I will submit after critical thought and prayer.  Hopefully their practices, their heart, their passion comes from the spirit of God.

I am a stubborn individual when I am convicted.  If my experiences begin to resemble yours, I'm probably in for an exciting time.  I hope and pray that we don't get to share this experience.

Thank you again, so much, for sharing.  With a track record like the GCx has, and written stories like the one you just gave me (which in my opinion was very well tempered, humble, pure, honest), I won't give them the benefit of the doubt when the time comes.  I can have my battles much earlier, much less committed/invested, hopefully much less painful when/if they come.  I really want to reiterate how much I appreciate your perceived tone/heart/motive for sharing.  I can't read an emotionally charged story and give it a whole lot of credence. 

Lord willing, I hope your possible pursuit of that woman sheds some light on their community.  Be it his will, he could really use you to open some eyes.  It sounds like, through the mess of it all, you are still interested in her.  The Lord is good and He can use this for good.  You will  be in at least one of my prayers. 

[Linda]

Which comes to more of a root of the problem.  Taking counsel of a leader as equally important to scripture or God himself.  If this is really what is happening at your place, it could definitely happen at my place.

Excellent point.

Protestantism has "Five Solaes" (sola is the Latin word "alone"). They are:
1. Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)
2. Sola fide (by Faith alone)
3. Sola gratia (by Grace alone)
4. Solo Christo (Christ alone)
5. Soli Deo gloria (glory to God alone)

The second you have a man saying that you need to obey him (and quoting Hebrews 13:17 as proof) you have a person, in effect, equating his words as equally important to the Word of God. I really doubt that the majority of these guys have ever studied Protestant theology, but imagine they think of themselves as Protestants. It occurs to me that a "normal" pastor who attended seminary would be familiar with the "solas", but remember, these men are self taught and all their teaching comes from within GC. They have put themselves in a position where they are not open to correction because no one else knows what they teach in those secret GCLI papers and books. This is highly unusual and profoundly unwise.

Also, it seems to me that the "courtship/swerver" model is becoming more the thing to do. I've listened to a few of the talks and one point I always think is odd is the "She's your sister, would you kiss your sister" argument for not dating. Could someone tell me why it is okay to marry your sister just as long as you "court" her first? This makes no sense. Your wife is still your "sister in the Lord" after you marry her.

I think in the "normal" courtship model, there is an arrangement between the young man and the woman's dad. In the GC model, the arrangement is between the GC leader and the young man. What is wrong with this picture?

[Wiggly]

Here's a 80 minute listen from the last faithwalkers that talks about male-female relationships if you're interested.  A lot of it is courtship.

http://www.gccweb.org/podcasts/episode-1991/mermaidsmatrimonymagnetism-1.mp3

[2xA Ron]

At the end of spring semester, she unfriended me (not on Facebook, just in real life)

This made me chuckle... I'm not sure why.

  I'm glad!  I try to break up tension with humor.  It's something I do automatically and it isn't always helpful.  I'm glad it worked out.

Now, I'm not opposed to a courtship model.  In fact, I like a lot of the courtship model more than the 'worldly' dating model.  Dating 'casually' is often times selfish.  'Will you go on a date with me?' is generally answered with the following thought process, 'I think that would be fun.' or 'she is really pretty' or something similar.  The relationship is built upon this idea of, "I had fun, and you had fun, lets date again."  What happens when the fun runs out?  I mean, that can definitely (and does) work.  It takes two mature individuals to switch from the dating mode to the committed mode, I suppose. 

I become an even bigger supporter when you're in an environment where you can interact frequently with your person of interest regularly without trying.  In 'normal world' circumstances, this is really hard to find.  Perhaps you volunteer together or work together.  In GCx, obviously this is the norm.  You can observe a person's character when they're not trying to impress you all the time.  You can see them when they're having good days and when they're having bad days.  When you go 'casually dating', there's this fake good behavior... or maybe more accurately... you're generally always having a good day on those dates.

I agree.  When the courtship model was first presented to me in 2009 (before I had any real conflicts with the Rock), I agreed with it.  I thought it was great.  I still think it's good to take a more serious approach to dating, some "middle road" between the Rock-version of courtship and dating all sorts of people for fun.  For me the point of a relationship isn't just to have fun (though, no doubt, fun will be had) but to get to know someone better and build a foundation with them for a possible marriage.  I've always told myself I only wanted to ever date one person, and marry her (whomever she was), but at the same time I realized that such an approach may turn out to be impractical.  Rock-courtship seemed to offer a way to make it practical, at least on paper.  But when I learned more about it and was instructed to practice it, it was different.  Like you said, I think it's really great to see the person you're considering for a relationship living through daily life for a while.  This avoids the hazard of seeing only what they want you to see on dates.  But what I saw at the Rock was that emotional purity concerns stepped in whenever one person started thinking about another and made every effort to keep them from knowing each other at all.  They can't talk to each other (talking breeds emotional impurity), they can't pay too much attention too each other (that shows favoritism, a sign of emotional impurity)...one female leader I knew (the one who later married one of my D-Team leaders to the joy of the church) was rebuked at one point by her leader for even happening to know the schedule of the man she was interested in.  If you're not allowed to get to know the person before you start a relationship with them, the wait is pointless.  It only serves to frustrate you and trick you into thinking you know the person you've only ever seen from across the room, so that you rush headlong into a relationship with a stranger in the end--worse off than if you'd spent those two years dating each other.

Probably more accurately, I'm just about to enter the "core".  I love the people here.  I love their hearts.  But I want to honor God.  I will not submit like a child to this leadership.  Hopefully I will submit after critical thought and prayer.  Hopefully their practices, their heart, their passion comes from the spirit of God.

I wish you the best, Wiggly!

I really love the people at Summitview, too.  They are really passionate about Jesus, very jealous for good works, and while I was there they loved me intensely.  I feel a little like Paul, though, as he said the Jews were jealous for God, but not according to knowledge.  In the church where I was, people were all very zealous, especially leaders, but they very often lacked knowledge.  As I perceive them, looking back, they were passionate for Christ, but did not realize that when He said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" He meant that they love each other with the condescending, self-sacrificing, unconditional love He showed us, but instead thought He was talking about the list of rules (mostly made up: "thou shalt not miss Bible study; thou shalt not like a girl; thou shalt not miss thine quiet time," etc--rules I confess I tried to make myself keep and judge myself by even after I left) they thought necessary to being a "good Christian."  They were zealous for good works, but they did not know how many good works there were to do--most of which do not related to the church activities or evangelism they limited themselves and others to.  They loved me and each other intently, but not with the knowledge that love, when it was based on the truth of what Christ had done for them, was more important than any good work or church function. 

Your church may be different though.  Even if it isn't, you may never encounter the problems I did (certainly, the odds of you hearing God name that freshman girl in your Bible study as your future wife are very small--at least, that is, I general consider what happened to me rather unusual!).  I pray you don't!  If you do, you will at least not be blind-sided and not understand where people are coming from as much as I did.

Thanks for your sympathy and...um, thanks.    It probably helps that I've told my story a lot.  Whenever I try to summarize the nature of my conflict with the church or this girl down to one sentence, I invariably get a disbelieving and confused reaction ("What do you mean, they don't date: how does anyone get together there?" or something similar), so I've had to explain it a lot.  I don't think I could do it in a terrifically "emotionally charged" way.  Emotions were there, for sure, and the drama was infuriating and went on for months, but who can write about being really frustrated for months on end?  I just try to write the facts because that's what makes the most sense to me.  Emotions can fill in themselves.

Thank you for your prayers!  This girl and I are going to be talking soon to try to work out some issues between us and hopefully figure out how to move on in our friendship.  I have high hopes that we'll accomplish a lot, but if God isn't in it, it'll be a wash.  Please pray! 

[2xA Ron]

Here's a 80 minute listen from the last faithwalkers that talks about male-female relationships if you're interested.  A lot of it is courtship.

http://www.gccweb.org/podcasts/episode-1991/mermaidsmatrimonymagnetism-1.mp3

Thanks, Wiggly!  I finally had a chance to listen.

I agree that it's necessary to start approaching the topic of dating/courtship by looking at what marriage is and should be.  I also agree that marriage cannot be simply about gratifying our fleshly desires.  In fact, if one wants to just gratify the flesh, the great question is: why marry?  They have hookups and one-night stands for that.

I agree that marriage must be an image of Christ and the church, including self-sacrifice on the part of the husband for the good of his wife.  As a matter of fact, it was the night that I understood and committed myself to this mission that I received the name of the girl from God--which makes it a little ironic that I was opposed then, when I understood what I was going after, rather than before when I asked out a Navigator girl just because I liked her and thought marriage someday would be nice...  I also agree that God should lead, and we must trust Him, but obviously I and my leaders didn't see eye to eye on what God leading and us trusting looked like...to them it looked a lot like leaders leading and me trusting them.  A bit at the end of the talk seems to reflect this attitude as well.  Should I pray about getting into a relationship with this woman that I have some uncertainties about?  Nah, just ask my pastor! 

However, even twenty minutes in, I think I see a problem.  The speaker seems to have gone from saying that gratification of desire shouldn't be the end goal of a relationship (which I agree with) to saying it should only be purely coincidental to the equation.  I'm very leery of that position.  Desire is a huge part of how human relationships are designed to function.  There's also, judging from the Bible a huge amount of desire in the relationship between Christ and the Church, between the Father and the Son.  If marriage is to be an image of these, desire must be a central part of it!  There's also that verse he quotes about God giving us the desires of our heart--which seems to imply they're something important God expects us to be motivated by in some fashion.

Later, at 36...there's the implication that platonic relationships are completely impossible.  It's explicitly said that any time a man and a woman get close to each other, whether they like each other or intend to or not, they'll form a couple and start having sex.  Later (59) it even implies that this is equivalent to an extramarital affair.  He allows that men and women might have to interact, but it's "thin ice" and they should "get off as soon as they can."  Well...this raises some interesting questions about Christ, who evidently had a number of female friends (Mary, Martha) and interacted with women one on one (as in the Samaritan woman at the well).  Was he not male in the same sense that we are?  If not, then He did not (as the Bible says) face all the temptations we do, yet without sin.  Following this line of thought pretty much means that platonic relationships will not happen and you will have a culture of legalism where people are obsessed with keeping themselves away from the other gender...which is exactly where the speech goes next: favoritism--which I heard more than any other term and which is actually not used that way at all in the Bible (Jesus again spent a lot of time with Mary, more than Martha...and more time with both than with Emma Jean down the road).  In Q&A he even encourages members to watch and confront each other on this--even if they don't know that the other person has been effected.  Heck, don't even ask Mary if she thinks Bob crossed the line: assume evil is afoot, because legalism arrives so much faster that way.  And unfortunately, once legalism shows up all the bad, distracting effects he lists to a dating culture apply to a legalistic courtship culture: a lot of time is wasted trying to avoid the other gender that could be used more productively, it results in pride and a belief in false maturity (I've never had a crush, therefore I am more mature, etc), it results in men and women being unable to interact with each other in a godly or fruitful manner (which is, of course, presents a huge challenge to having a relationship with one's spouse--since you wind up marrying people who've never talked to the opposite gender before), it results in men and women being hyper aware all of the time of anything which can be misconstrued as immodesty or impropriety--which means none of them can relax or concentrate, and then of course it divides the church (see me, this forum, etc).  And can you really find out most about a person's character by watching them from across a room?  Flaws are easily hidden in public, but when you know someone more intimately for an extended period (emphasis on an extended period) the mask will invariably fall (this is the reason why people who disciple each other are supposed to know each other well and not observe from a distance--if it doesn't work for knowing how to build someone's character for discipleship, it won't work for evaluating their character for marriage).

Then, there's the talk about modesty.  One of the things that really irritates me about these talks is that it shifts the blame for lust from the men who are lusting to women who don't dress in some unspecified way that wouldn't provoke lust...even though he says practically anything can remind a man of how beautiful a woman is.  Oddly enough, the Bible blames men for adultery of the heart that comes from looking and lusting.  There is no mention of the woman sharing blame.

And then he pretty much says you get permanently damaged any time you like someone...sigh.     That's emotional purity right there in a nutshell...with all it's fun effects implied.
I'll just come out and say that, contrary to this logic, I have actually found my previous crushes strengthened my desire for this girl--something I have heard echoed elsewhere by other people, too.  When I heard her name and started to get to know her, suddenly a lot of my previous crushes started making sense, at least to me.  I began to see and to reason that all of the girls I had liked earlier I had liked fundamentally because in them I saw something of her.  So these crushes did not permanently damage me (if they did, where would the gospel of redemption and regeneration be?), but actually made my eventual feelings stronger.

And did I imagine it, or did he say in the Q&A that "our primary calling is to give our life to the church?"  Where does that come from in the Bible?  Pardon my rabbit trail (which probably repeats other people's rabbit trails), but in the Bible, Christians commit to Christ.  I have yet to see one Biblical example of a Christian committing him or herself to a church, or even to the Church at large.

Thanks for posting this!  Based on this, I would say that I have grown and changed a lot since I left Summitview...but the GCx has not really changed at all.  At least not when this was recorded.  Under the directions that can be gleaned from this message, my situation would have repeated itself in exact and painful detail. 

[araignee19]

And unfortunately, once legalism shows up all the bad, distracting effects he lists to a dating culture apply to a legalistic courtship culture: a lot of time is wasted trying to avoid the other gender that could be used more productively, it results in pride and a belief in false maturity (I've never had a crush, therefore I am more mature, etc), it results in men and women being unable to interact with each other in a godly or fruitful manner (which is, of course, presents a huge challenge to having a relationship with one's spouse--since you wind up marrying people who've never talked to the opposite gender before), it results in men and women being hyper aware all of the time of anything which can be misconstrued as immodesty or impropriety--which means none of them can relax or concentrate, and then of course it divides the church (see me, this forum, etc).  And can you really find out most about a person's character by watching them from across a room?  Flaws are easily hidden in public, but when you know someone more intimately for an extended period (emphasis on an extended period) the mask will invariably fall (this is the reason why people who disciple each other are supposed to know each other well and not observe from a distance--if it doesn't work for knowing how to build someone's character for discipleship, it won't work for evaluating their character for marriage).

Wow. That is so true. Never thought about things this way before. 

[2xA Ron]

To tell the truth, I didn't think of it that way either until last night.  Then, it was just so obvious.  Why did I ever let myself be convinced it could be any other way? 

[Wiggly]

Thanks again for spending the time.

I agree with much of what you say.

What I really liked about the message was his emphasis that a dating culture puts emphasis on performance and selfishness.  Once one stop performing, what happens next?

At 36: I'm torn here.  I listen to his message and I generally agree with what he says.  I've had friendships where I just be myself and not a worry in the world about her or her potential as a romantic interest and she develops feelings for me.  But is that my problem?  Do I have to concern myself with that?  Perhaps.

At 59:  Ehhhh.  I think there's some wisdom there.  "When a married man puts himself in the wrong situation, he could end up in an affair."... (now I'm paraphrasing) "The same forces at work for single people."   Granted we have to assuming the meaning of 'the wrong situation'.  When I listened to it, I took away the message that we need to 'be careful' as this is an easy way to get tempted.  Some of the greatest men we've ever known have fallen to these temptations.  Even the bible great David fell. 

I guess what it comes down to is something that I can't answer.  I have no idea about how men are foolishly unaware how we emotionally affect women, as I'm not a woman.  I would be interested in a woman's perspective on that I guess.  If what he says is true.  If I affect women drastically more than I am aware just by sharing my life with them, then I aught to consider them and respect them.  I should probably limit my social interaction to a degree.  Of course, people will read that and apply it wrong.  They'll completely cut off interaction as you describe.  That's not healthy either... and likely a bigger problem than the one they are trying to avoid.

I do feel a remnant of what I just described.  Some people do avoid real social interaction with each other.  I've gone on my merry way and just continued to build relationships with many of the women though.  I don't hide it nor am I shunned for it. I'm probably naive to believe I'm a part of breaking that part of their culture... but I can hope.

[Wiggly]

And can you really find out most about a person's character by watching them from across a room?  Flaws are easily hidden in public, but when you know someone more intimately for an extended period (emphasis on an extended period) the mask will invariably fall (this is the reason why people who disciple each other are supposed to know each other well and not observe from a distance--if it doesn't work for knowing how to build someone's character for discipleship, it won't work for evaluating their character for marriage).

Surely what you observe a woman doing over a period of time is her "default" behavior for that situation and similar situations for some time to come.  I think that's valuable.  When I see (random name) Kate staying late making sure everything is picked up, cleaned, and put away repeatedly.  I can assume she will stay late making sure everything is picked up, cleaned, and put away in similar situations in the future.  I can't immediately assume why she does it.  She might be trying to impress her life group leader or by men who stay late.  She might genuinely want to ease the burden on who eventually will clean the mess.

I think you can see character there. I agree with you that it should then be complimented with personal, intimate interaction later.