GC and the NAE

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.

[skewed_grace]

i agree. it would always send chills up and down my spine when one of the leaders would say something to the extent of "Mother Teresa was a great woman, but she completely missed the message of the gospel", or "i am not familiar with the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers, but keep in mind that it can be dangerous reading books other than the bible"... i mean, shouldn't there be some sort of christian common sense? i am just not getting it...

i was involved in  community work at the time, so i would miss our weekly bible study every now and then. that's when i was told by one of the leaders "be careful, humanitarian work can lead you away from god"  :shock:

[G_Prince]

They said that!!!!!!!!!  WTF!!!!!!!!!

How could any Christian believe that! Unreal!

I guess maybe that's what comes out of an uneducated and inbred system of leadership.  :twisted:

[AgathaL'Orange]

I think it should be, "God leads you into humanitarian work!"  

or something like that!

[skewed_grace]

the sad part is that those WERE the things i was told. i am sure not all the leaders would subscribe to that though...

[theresearchpersona]

Well Theology is Theo + Logos, "Word of God", the of in the sense of "concerning/about", thus to theology is the beginning of all study of God and points of doctrine: it is central, and its is fitting that we call the Bible the "Word of God" not only using the "of" in the sense of "from" but also "about".

And Jesus himself dealt with the abstract, such as "He that believes not is condemned already", he never shied away from the spiritual, to discuss the reign of heaven or the things of God: including about His Father. Insight into someone's theology is excellent insight into their spirituality--it makes all he difference.

For instance, and let me demonstrate. If GCM denies that God is sovereign in salvation, you get "be cool so the world can see you" (worldliness and friendship with the world, which the theology from the word says is "enmity with God"). If GCM doesn't start with this point and duly emphasize, expound upon, teach, uphold, and enforce this important doctrine then they turn to seeker-sensitive to attract people (also disregarding the theologies of God's will for the preaching of the word so that those who might believe do so by the foolishness of preaching, believing the Word of Jesus and in trust toward him being saved in their belief, rather damned in their trusting of the wisdom of men); in this same vein if we deny this sovereignty we get Catholicism's doctrine that Christ is re-sacrificed on the alter...and a theology where not only is Christ transubstantiated, but the Holy Spirit is restricted and subjected to men called "priests" and denying the scripture's doctrine (teaching) that all believers in Christ Jesus are priests; and this is applicable too, because this very doctrine is one that GCM denies, at least implicitly, teaching "obey your leaders" in such a twisted manner (which they get from not just their past, but from works they've read by wolves)...it also denies it in that they crush spiritual gifts (and I'm not talking those of charismatic emotionalism) based on the "models" they use, and the church they "design"; they further do it through many other avenues...but you guys are familiar.

If we don't start with Theology, specifically with Jesus the Christ, then all else will fail under scrutiny; even the Catholicism does agree here, somewhat (maybe afer tradition), in that they have been very firm at defending the trinity...though the killing wasn't called for.

and

I always find it funny when people tell us what we believe. I really had no idea until now.

was uncalled for man, considering Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are wide-open, widely published, and etc.; which you've assented to by acknowledging that Linda said so. The difference is not everyone knows this, or pays it due attention...and brings it up when necessary. Now's a good example not so much to discuss Catholicism or Orthodoxy, necessarily, but the significance to any consideration of signing an NAE doc in good faith; and the GC parallels. It's those similarities which have given other people a heads-up; such as one who commented that the last time an enormous movement of highly-zealous people committed themselves to one-on-one descipleship in authoritarian hierarchies it was the Jesuits reversing the counter reformation: maybe good in your eyes...but bondage to those of us who have known Christian liberty from spiritual despots.

And love isn't playing nice, but telling the whole truth, just as Paul wrote he was innocent because he proclaimed the whole counsel of God.

Frankly in consideration of Orthodoxy, mind you, I'm glad that for a very long time they've repudiated Papal claims: though sadly abrogated some of those same to their own leadership; and today appears to be dwindling as they've discussed more ecumenism and possible recombination or unity, which I don't get since even the orthodox Church, on paper, take great issue with much of Catholicism. But in the evangelical vista, the affirmation of idols as legitimate (which oddly the east and west had the great schism over in the first place), the subjegation of scripture to tradition, the somewhat widespread belief (though not official dogma) of the assumption of Mary, and difference of cannon are major issues.

Further, today "evangelical" is an institutionally used term anymore, not so much a "theological" one as it's meant. One couldn't be, in the proper sense, Evangelical and Catholic, or Evangelical and Charismatic, or even Anglican...unless you were one of the Anglicans seeking to reform the english Church. That's all for another day and place, though.

Oh, and we're told to reprove error toward one another...so again, doctrine and theology are very important.

[namaste]

TRP-
I knew I could count on you to have the ultimate answers to fundamental theological debates that have dragged on for hundreds of years!

 :roll:

[Linda]

researchpersona,

I'm not sure why you brought my name in above. If you were defending me, I appreciate it. Thanks. However, I don't think Gene was rebuking me or anything. I think we were just posting at the same time and each of us were on different tracks.

I am with you on the idea that theology matters. Totally agree on that. Also, I agree that we are told to correct each other.

So, here is what my problem is about debating doctrine/theology other than GCM doctrine on this forum. My problem is that when we comment on someone else's forum, we are a guest of the moderators of that forum and etiquette dictates that we stick to the purpose of the forum, which in this case is problems people have with GCM, not problems people are having with other denominations.

A while ago, I read this post by the Bayly's on their blog:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2006/09/when_sheep_bark_1.html

I guess it sums up what I am thinking. This forum is primarily the property of the moderators. They have stated the purpose it to discuss problems we have had with GCM. It seems to me that while debates over other non-GCM doctrine can be worthwhile and sometimes even fun and educational, it becomes a big distraction from the real purpose of this forum. I'm really posting here to come to grips with the theology and practice of GCM.

As much as I love a good debate... and I do!!! I think maybe we should find another place to debate, like an evangelical/orthodoxy discussion site.

Maybe some here wish to discuss these topics, but it gets distracting when these discussions get all mixed together. So, I think the above is a good idea.

[G_Prince]

Dear TRP,

I'm glad you are so knowledgeable and insightful on issues of theology. However, others such as I, who are not nearly as enlightened have a hard time understanding your posts. It seems like you have lots of interesting points to make, but you could you tone it down a little for the layman? Thanks! I'm sure a wonderful conversation will ensue.

-Gene

[G_Prince]

Ok, just re-read and understand a little more,

Hmmm, It seems like I've offended you in some way. I'm not sure why trying  to defend myself and church is "uncalled for" Perhaps I should have left out the sarcasm. However, if you were in my position and constantly dealt with people explaining why your faith is incorrect in very stereotypical and misunderstood reasoning, you might also feel jaded. So I'm sorry, but that's a sensitive spot of mine. It's probably how you feel when your family gangs up on you for not being Catholic.

To me how someone decides to live their life and practice their faith is their own business. Even if I disagree, who am I to reprove? "I am the greatest of sinners" as we say in our weekly prayers before communion.

I'm sure you feel much differently and that's fine with me.  I wouldn't really care if you believed God was a ritz cracker. As long as you loved your family, were generous to those in need, prayed for those you could not help and loved God with heart and soul, we would still agree on the core doctrine of the gospels.

Just remember how hard things have been with your family when you critique someone else's faith. It's not easy having your beliefs reproved and dragged through the mud.

[puff of purple smoke]

It is okay to talk about other religious groups on this forum, however every topic should not be turning into a debate about, of all things, Catholicism. That seems to be happening lately. One of the reasons we moved from a blog to a forum was to prevent that, as every conversation back then seemed to be getting derailed into a debate about Wellspring/Larry Pile. With a forum, we have the ability to keep each thread about a specific topic, and every poster can start their own threads. The forum rules further clarify:

Be mindful of the topic. A small deviation from the original topic is permissible, but if your post is going to radically adjust the direction of a thread (known as "thread hijacking") simply make it into a brand new thread. We reserve the right to move or delete off topic posts. Also be mindful of which forum would be most appropriate when posting a new thread.

At first I thought maybe the Catholicism stuff was relevant to this thread because Catholicism was being discussed in the context of the NAE's belief statement, but at this point it's time to move that sub-conversation elsewhere, and let the remainder of this thread be for discussion of the NAE and GC's relationship to it. A good thread to discuss Catholicism/Orthodoxy would be this one.

Thank you.

[G_Prince]

Right you are Puff!

[Linda]

Great rule! I hadn't realized there were forum rules, so, dumb question, where are the rules located? I don't think I've ever read them!

[puff of purple smoke]

http://gcmwarning.com:8080/decomm/index.php/topic,3.0.html

[puff of purple smoke]

(Additional debate about Orthodoxy continued here.)

[MidnightRider]

Lots of evangelical people think the Holy Spirit speaks to them.  Are you saying they aren't abiding by sola scriptura?

If they think their messages from the Holy Spirit are infallible, then yes, they are denying Sola Scriptura.

[MidnightRider]

Agatha,

I always find it funny when people tell us what we believe. I really had no idea until now.

I was not trying to tell Agatha what she does or should believe. I was telling her what the Orthodox church teaches.

Personally, while I find theology to be highly interesting, I think it is only really useful in making others feel inferior.

I recommend that you look for a better use for theology.  

[IWishToRemainAnonymous]

John Hopler is on the Board of Directors of NAE. Obviously, they are clueless about the history and ongoing problems within Great Commission.

http://www.nae.net/about-us/executive-leadership

[Badger]

For those who are unaware, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is the largest Evangelical Christian organization in the world. Its membership includes 60 denominations and "about 45,000 churches." (http://www.nae.net/) You probably heard of them last year when Ted Haggard, current president of the movement, was accused of sexual immorality and then resigned. That blotch aside, the organization is highly respected in the Christian community, with member denominations including Assemblies of God, Association of Vineyard Churches, Baptist General Conference, Church of the Nazarene, Evangelical Free Church of America, The Salvation Army, The Wesleyan Church Corporation, Presbyterian Church in America, Pentecostal Church of God, etc. A bigger list here. According to one site I saw, of the 50 million evangelical Christians in America, 30 million are members of the NAE.

GCI was accepted into the NAE in 1988. Larry Pile (former Wellspring counselor), in 1990, stated his belief that their joining was an attempt for "“legitimization” in the estimation of the evangelical Christian community."

Things soon went south, however, as in late 1988 or early 1989, following a technicality that postponed GCI's membership renewal, a series of complaints came in about GCI's authoritarian practices. Suddenly in March of 1989, GCI decided to withdraw its application. Newspaper articles at the time quoted the current national director, Rev. Billy Melvin, who gave strong hints that GCI was about to be booted out if they hadn't left on their own. One of his quotes was: "We didn't have to take any action."

GCI, of course, turned on the spin machine and played it off as if nothing happened. In 1991, in a sermon I can post later, David Bovenmyer talks a little about the NAE incident, and then says that he isn't sure if GC leaders will feel "led" to renew their membership with the NAE in the future. The implication is that they left on their own, to which I have to laugh.

Lastly, there have been incidents in the early 90s where certain GC pastors claimed that their church had an affiliation with the NAE, when in fact this was not true. In a correspondence between the NAE and Larry, confirming that GC had not been re-allowed membership, an NAE director wrote:
We have a file six inches thick containing all we’ll ever need to have. I personally handle the membership process, and I assure you that GCI has not reapplied for membership in NAE, nor have there been any church’s application since they were not allowed to renew. In addition, we have on record that no GCI church will be admitted into NAE membership until their internal matters are totally resolved. The record also stipulates that should some “independent” church containing any name whatsoever that is in association with GCI in any way will be disallowed membership, and should the possibility of their getting admission in spite of our careful review procedures, when evidence is presented that they are in fact associated with GCI, their membership will be immediately voided. I don’t think you can get much tighter than that.

One should not be too overconfident, though, because as Larry also wrote regarding their attempts at "legitimization":
To some extent it has succeeded because of the general lack of familiarity of most evangelicals with its history, as well as its present teachings and practices. ... Doctrinally GCI would be able to sign any evangelical statement of faith in all good conscience--doctrine is not the area of contention. Rather, it is GCI’s methodology that is the problem.
There is always a chance GC could one day slip through the cracks and make it back into the NAE, as GC does look good on paper. I guess that's where ex-members need to make sure their stories are being heard by the Christian community.

Thank you for writing this Puff!! 

I confirmed much of what you included in this review, and in the posts following, using internet archives to access the National Evangelical Association (NEA) and GCC websites from the late '90's and on.  GCC did not mention their affiliation with NEA on their website until 2007.  Prior to that year they did not include them in their list of "relationships and partnerships" tab/page.  NEA also did not list them being members between 1997 and 2007.  So there was a period of about 18 years ('89 to '07) in which GCI/GCM/GCC was not a NEA member.

I'm wondering if you have any copies of the NEA and Pile's correspondence, the Bovenmyer quote you mentioned, or any other data that further supports that NEA was against continuing GCI's membership and/or GCI leadership sentiment at the time.  I have read and appreciate the Frank Callahan article.  Just wondering if you or any other forum member has additional information regarding the 1989 GCI withdraw from the NEA.

[GodisFaithful]

Badger,

I believe it is NAE.

NEA reminds me of National Education Association, right?

[Badger]

Badger,

I believe it is NAE.

NEA reminds me of National Education Association, right?

You are absolutely correct, GodisFaithful.  Thanks for correcting me.

I had NEA insurance at one point in my life   Maybe that's where NEA came from...?  I will try my best to use the correct acronym from here on out.