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.

[araignee19]

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.

As a woman, I can say that the "avoid the opposite gender" culture was NOT helpful for me. Women are especially talented at reading into things, and whether you avoid or spend extra time with a woman, if she wants to she can find a way to convince herself you like her. In my opinion, this is not something men could or should have to fix. This is something woman need to guard against, and to make sure we are looking at facts and not reading what we want into a situation.

But the "avoid the opposite gender" culture was also unhelpful because I was constantly thinking about men in a "is he a potential" way. ANY interaction I had with a guy seemed to mean something, as the only reason they would normally speak to me is if they wanted to marry me, right? I was constantly wondering if someone was going to ask me out at any moment, and I think not having any normal male relationships made my desire for interactions with men stronger.

I have a hard time believing that when we are instructed to treat each other as "brothers" and "sisters" this is what was meant. I mean, I speak to my siblings. I don't avoid them because interactions with them might lead to somewhere bad.

I will also say that one of my closest friends is a guy. We have been friends for over 13 years now, and I have never seen him as a potential romantic interest. He is like my little brother. I have learned a lot from him, and would hate to loose that friendship. I knew him before GCx, but let my friendship slide during college, because i thought it was sinful. Thankfully, he is a better friend to me than I am to him. He is now married and I am dating someone, and we have remained friends. There are things we have talked about to make sure we wouldn't ever do anything to jeopardize marriages or such, and our friendship does look a little different than my close female friendships, but it is still there. I think it is a great friendship, and proof that male/female non-dating relationships are not only possible, but can be great and God-honoring.

[Linda]

The "brothers" and "sisters" analogy falls apart when people get married. Has anyone teaching this in the "swerver" talks ever thought this through.

If you shouldn't "date" because all Christian women are your "sisters", then, how could you ever marry? That would be incest if you stuck to the analogy. Has anyone ever asked this question? I'd be curious as to what the answer would be.

[2xA Ron]

Sorry, Wiggly.  Maybe I misunderstood, but to me the point of the speaker's "thin ice" analogy was that any social interaction between singles (his example: "hanging around girls at work") was something to be avoided entirely if possible, or done only when absolutely unavoidable: the justification being that they might fall in love and get married despite being "the wrong person" for each other.  He started the analogy out by saying married men should avoid the situation because it could lead to them having an affair, but then said singles should avoid it for the same reason.  Can a relationship start this way?  Certainly, but why is it a bad thing if a single Christian falls to the "temptation" of a single Christian coworker?  Singles by definition have no spouses or significant others.  They can't cheat on or have an affair with anyone (they can, of course, have premarital relations they shouldn't, but I don't think that's what he's talking about since he says they "marry the wrong person").  This is why I have a problem with assuming that whatever a married man can't do with a woman who isn't his wife, a single man can't do either (after all, the #1 thing a married man can't do with a woman who's not his wife is marry her!).  The only way I can see to justify the idea that singles can have affairs is if we accept the idea that all people have an unknown soulmate that they must find and marry, and that if they form a relationship--even a good relationship--with anyone else, they are cheating on their soulmate.  It does seem to be an under-girding concept in some aspects of emotional purity, and in my conflict with the church, I did get told things which boiled down to something like that: "by liking this girl, you're cheating on your future wife!"

The problem is, assuming we have soulmates, there's no way to be sure whether or not the girl from work that you fall for and marry is your "soulmate" or "the wrong person"--and you can kill the marriage by wondering.

A mix of observing from a distance and up close is probably the best.  After all, some people's faults are obvious, and those of others are well-hidden (a la 1 Timothy 5:24).

[2xA Ron]

Ah!  I agree so much, araignee19!

As a woman, I can say that the "avoid the opposite gender" culture was NOT helpful for me. Women are especially talented at reading into things, and whether you avoid or spend extra time with a woman, if she wants to she can find a way to convince herself you like her. In my opinion, this is not something men could or should have to fix. This is something woman need to guard against, and to make sure we are looking at facts and not reading what we want into a situation.

I've heard from several people, most of them women, I think, that the "avoid the opposite gender" culture was not helpful.  One thing is clear to me: you can't learn to love, work with, and relate to people of the opposite sex if you spend all your time avoiding them for fear of "emotional impurity."  The attitude of blaming men for causing women to think they're pursuing them through innocent actions is also reminiscent of the attitude of blaming women for causing men to think lustful thoughts by not dressing in parkas all the time (unless the man has a weird thing for parkas, and then the poor woman is trapped in "sin" no matter what she does).  While we should do what we can to make life easier for each other, we cannot blame each gender for the dysfunctions of the other.

But the "avoid the opposite gender" culture was also unhelpful because I was constantly thinking about men in a "is he a potential" way. ANY interaction I had with a guy seemed to mean something, as the only reason they would normally speak to me is if they wanted to marry me, right? I was constantly wondering if someone was going to ask me out at any moment, and I think not having any normal male relationships made my desire for interactions with men stronger.

I noticed this was a cultural thing, too!  While I was in the Navs, men and women hung out together and had normal friendships.  Discussions about relationships and who-liked-who, etc, was pretty rare.  But in the Rock, every time I turned around the topic seemed to come up.  It was almost constant gossip among the women and a sort of sexual/relational tension was always in the air any time men and women had to interact.  It took me a while to notice the difference, but when I did I thought, This is weird: wasn't courtship supposed to fix this?  Now I think (when taken to the level Summitview had it, at least) it actually causes it.  Men and women will relate and interact.  If they're told they can't interact in any non-romantic/sexual manner, then they will (if they take it seriously) constantly interact in that way and no other.  How can that be good for the Church?

I have a hard time believing that when we are instructed to treat each other as "brothers" and "sisters" this is what was meant. I mean, I speak to my siblings. I don't avoid them because interactions with them might lead to somewhere bad.

This was the thing that always got me the most--still gets me, in fact.  There was lots and lots of lip-service to the idea of men and women being "brothers and sisters in Christ" and "treating each other like brothers and sisters," but when it came to a question of what this looked like, it looked more like "strangers and plague-bearers in Christ" than anything else.  My leaders would tell me "treat this girl like your sister," when what they meant was "avoid her, ignore her, and don't think about her"--but that would be a horrible way to treat my biological sisters!  The girl frequently defended giving me the arctic arm (because cold shoulder was too warm and close) by saying she was treating me as a brother rather than a friend...even though I'm sure her biological brother is a friend, and that she would get in very serious trouble if she treated him as badly as she treated me.

The brother/sister analogy can break down if taken too far, it's true (you would never marry your sibling), but I think at the least it indicates pure, loving platonic relationships should be the norm between the genders.

[Wiggly]

Thanks again all.

@araignee19 That's good to hear.  I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing.

I agree 100% with the discussion on the brother/sister relationships.

Regarding the "thin ice" analogy:  I could be misunderstanding too.  Of course I'm hopeful that he means what I hope he means.  The point I think/hope he is trying to make is this.  Sexual temptation and sexual sin are real.  David, who I already mentioned, Samson, Solomon, and then there is a plethora of non-biblical christian men/leaders who have fallen to sexual sin.  So - when I heard the sermon, my take away was "this is real" so "be careful".   “Flee from sexual immorality.”

But I could definitely be hearing what I want to be hearing.  When I read your version of the summary of his teaching... I didn't believe it right away.  I re-listened to a big chunk of it and I can't disagree with your summary.  In fact, even though I didn't take away your version the first time I heard it, I'm leaning towards your summary was probably closer to the intended meaning.  I was very enthusiastic about a few parts of his message that I found very interesting (the bit about how dating is performance/selfish foundations) that perhaps I wasn't listening as closely during this part.  I don't know.

Anyway, I appreciate you all taking your time to discuss.


Random update:

I asked one of the pastors if he'd share some wisdom with me.  He said he couldn't guarantee wisdom but he'd talk and give his best.  He asked what was on my mind to which I responded 'a woman.'  'A woman here?'  'Yeah.'  He continued, 'you don't need my permission brother but there are three questions I ask men in your position.  One, What do you like about her?  Two, Can you provide for her should she go through something and never be able to work again? Three, are you sure the spirit is leading?'

He started to repeat the questions, this time pausing for me to give some answers.  I told him very briefly some of the things that draw me to her.  That I was capable of providing.  And that I know that this is what I want.  And I've been praying for some time various prayers that essentially ask God to show me his will.

He replied something along the lines of, "Sometimes you just need to go and ask her."


Anyway, I share that experience because I feel it differs from the ones I've read here.  I know the words aren't quoted perfect but I tried to capture the meaning I understood as best as I could.

The woman is why I wrote you guys to begin with.  Being a single and a part of the church, I have the freedom to get out for any reason I saw fit.  Entering into a relationship would take away some of that mobility.  I didn't want to tell a woman that I'd love to commit to her and then immediately suggest we switch churches.  Therefore, I wanted to have a more keen critical eye and I think you all have given me some direction to look at.  From what I've read and what I've been told to look at, I have seen some bits and pieces of the past.  But I honestly think my individual church is much healthier than what was described by many of you.  I can't tell you whether or not this is progress or just by virtue of attending a different location.  I will continue to think critically, don't get me wrong.  But I've decided to see where this adventure with said woman will take me.

I'll continue to post sporadically.  Thank you again for the time you've spent for my sake.   

[2xA Ron]

Thanks for taking the time to listen again, Wiggly.  I have to say there are some parts of the message I definitely agree with as well.  Fleeing sexual immorality is important (though not so important we should flee the opposite sex).  Dating is so often very selfish, superficial, and performance oriented--and it certainly can be apt to compare trying to live godly and marry well while practicing those dating strategies to trying to steer a "swerver" cart straight down an aisle when it's wheels constantly jam and try to veer you off to the right, into the chip display.  The mistake I've seen made is pulling out a hard combination of courtship and emotional purity and juxtaposing it with immoral dating practices as the only two options singles have.  That's the black-and-white logical fallacy.  It's something like reacting to the "swerver" by jerking the cart violently to the left, only to end up in the canned peas.

Thank you for sharing your pastor's words.  The only thing I'd have to add to them is (and this is from For Men Only, a Multnomah book on the most common and frustrating gender misunderstandings, as reported by women) that, on question two, it is much more important that a husband be able and willing to support his wife emotionally and relationally than financially.  Financial responsibility is good and Biblical, but a common problem in marriages is he sees making money as a way to provide for and love her, and she sees it as neglecting her and robbing her of the thing she needs most--her husband.  The advice from the book is to remember, as a man, that your real job is going to be at home.

Otherwise, I'm very glad to hear your pastor's advice.  It is good to hear that not everyone in GCx is plowing through the canned-pea shelf!  I don't know why your experience is so much different from ours.  I would attribute it to God putting you in the right place at the right time.  Maybe someday your pastor's attitude will be the attitude of all the pastors and leaders at GCx (I certainly hope so).  Maybe it already is.  All I can say for sure is that my experience at my church a couple years ago was different.

Thanks for going into this relationship with your eyes open.  Thanks for taking the challenge and the risk of entering that adventure.  May God bless both you and her!  I do look forward to hearing from you again.  Don't think that our time spent posting with you has been entirely selfless.  For myself, I can say I've benefited greatly from hearing from you. 

[Huldah]

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.)

Bumping this topic because I got out my old notebook of sermons from those days. Yes, this is an exact quote! My notes show that Dennis Clark used this phrase in a teaching in '77. In that same sermon, Dennis also cited 1 Peter 4:8 ("Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.") with the comment, "This is more important than understanding any doctrine." So there you have it: unity trumps truth. Not in so many words, but that's the gist of it.

I may start another thread on this later, if I get the time.