How very sad…

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.

[Linda]

Sam,

The question I have is: What specific thing or things did Mike Royal say about you that you consider slander?

Again, what I'm looking for is not what you perceive Mike's attitude to be when he wrote, or whether or not you think we are being dismissive of you, I'm really trying to understand what it is about that letter that you find so personally offensive.

I have to agree with TRPs recent post, I had to look several times (and only because you brought it up) to see that you were even mentioned in the letter.

I'm not trying to confuse you, I am just trying to understand what the slander in that letter is.

The only thing I can come up with is that the letter was critical of GC and at the time you were a GC elder so therefore you feel that it was critical of you as a leader. Is that it?

[DrSam]

Not true Ever.

I say to your friends, "There is an organization that you need to watch out for... and by the way, EverAStudent is in that organization." That's innuendo and guilt by association. That's subtle slander. Why you guys can't see that, is pretty amazing and revealing.

God bless.

Take example of the Mike Royal letter to my pastor friend Mike Braun which was designed to create on purpose deep distrust in our friendship. That is mean-spirited in my opinion and slanderous to me! No one here, apparently protests against that kind of abuse, eh?

did Mike Royal "slander" Sam in his letter to Mike Braun?  The dictionary defines slander as: "slan·der [slándər] n (plural slan·ders) 1.  saying something false and damaging: the act of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation; 2.  false and damaging statement: a false and malicious statement that damages somebody’s reputation."    The Greek words for slander in the New Testament indicate that slander is the use of evil words, that is, lying.

So, back to Point 2, did Mike Royal lie about Sam in his letter to Mike Braun?  After reading the letter for the first time (as a result of these accusations by Sam Lopez calling the letter is a slanderous lie), I was unable to find anything untruthful or factually incorrect in the letter.  Sam, what specific statement in the letter is untrue, and thus slanderous?  If nothing is erroneous in the letter, then it is not slander. 

You are entitled to your interpretation as I am. The problem is that your interpretation is "valid" and mine is "invalid" as decided by you. Answering some of you is like dealing with viral creations... you may answer someone's question then 20 more questions are created. You answer those, and 80 questions follow them. You answer those and several hundred are spawned. It looks like the interest is not in healing but in debating, fighting, proving one is "right," and pursuing almost narcissistically the love of one's own words/knowledge. I am reminded by the words of Jesus where he said he could dance and other for those listening to his words but they would NEVER be satisfied. Have it your way just like I told the guy on the erudition drug.

My own opinion of what a condensed summary version of the above snippets (from different posts) might look like:
  - Sam:  "Mike Royal lied about me in that letter and that is slander, you should care about that."
  - Student: "What specific comment or comments in the letter were lies?"
  - Sam: "Nothing specific was innacurate, I just did not like the fact that he told the truth about me and GCI."

The End (I hope)

[DrSam]

Sam,

The question I have is: What specific thing or things did Mike Royal say about you that you consider slander?

Again, what I'm looking for is not what you perceive Mike's attitude to be when he wrote, or whether or not you think we are being dismissive of you, I'm really trying to understand what it is about that letter that you find so personally offensive.

I have to agree with TRPs recent post, I had to look several times (and only because you brought it up) to see that you were even mentioned in the letter.

I'm not trying to confuse you, I am just trying to understand what the slander in that letter is.

The only thing I can come up with is that the letter was critical of GC and at the time you were a GC elder so therefore you feel that it was critical of you as a leader. Is that it?

Linda,

I was one of the founders of that church. I was still, officially a pastor of it though I was not there when the incident of Legra happened. Mike Braun knew who I was and we had a professional and somewhat casual friendship, participating in projects together. Mike Royal knew that I was a founder of that church. Royal was really good here. It was slander by association in my opinion. I say, "There is a bad group called ABC. By the way, Linda is in it. Keep your eyes open." What's that?

[Linda]

Sam,

I'm trying to understand, really, I am.

I wasn't in GC during those years. Are you saying that the church that you founded and were an elder in did not do the things that Mike Royal mentioned that GC churches did.

In other words, you and the elders at your church disagreed with McCotter and GC policy, but Royal, by mentioning your name, implied that you agreed with them and that you were on board with their unsound teachings.

I don't know much about your GC history, Sam. So I guess something that would help me understand where you are coming from is an answer to two further questions (I promise I don't have 80--or at least they won't come in one posting!):

Did the church that Royal mentions (and that you were an elder in) participate in the excommunications and other things that Royal addresses in his assessment of GC and McCotter?

Second question, a more general one, Do you think that GC should have written the statement of error and apology. In other words, do you think that GC was in the wrong for things they did?

[EverAStudent]

[If] I say to your friends, "There is an organization that you need to watch out for... and by the way, EverAStudent is in that organization." That's innuendo and guilt by association. That's subtle slander. Why you guys can't see that, is pretty amazing and revealing.

If you were to write to my friends that I "had" been in GCI, and that GCI had/has these problems, I would immediately write to those same friends and confirm that GCI does indeed have those problems, and that is the very reason why I left.  Your letter would be true and not at all slanderous.  It would not even be "innuendo" of "guilty by association" for I would have been guilty BECAUSE of my association.

Of course, your situation is not the same as the theoretical one you drew up for me.  When Mike wrote the letter, you were still active in GCI (and had not yet left) AND you were not merely associated with GCI, you were one of the National Elders who were creating the very doctrines and behaviors of which Mike Royal was warning.  Those who "teach" as National Elders incur a stricter judgment than those whom they taught, do they not (James 3:1)? 

In no way do I want to lose the focus of what Linda wrote.  Those questions do deserve an answer.  So I will repost the questions she is awaiting an answer for:

Sam,

I'm trying to understand, really, I am.

I wasn't in GC during those years. Are you saying that the church that you founded and were an elder in did not do the things that Mike Royal mentioned that GC churches did.

In other words, you and the elders at your church disagreed with McCotter and GC policy, but Royal, by mentioning your name, implied that you agreed with them and that you were on board with their unsound teachings.

I don't know much about your GC history, Sam. So I guess something that would help me understand where you are coming from is an answer to two further questions (I promise I don't have 80--or at least they won't come in one posting!):

Did the church that Royal mentions (and that you were an elder in) participate in the excommunications and other things that Royal addresses in his assessment of GC and McCotter?

Second question, a more general one, Do you think that GC should have written the statement of error and apology. In other words, do you think that GC was in the wrong for things they did?

[DrSam]

Sam,

I'm trying to understand, really, I am.

I wasn't in GC during those years. Are you saying that the church that you founded and were an elder in did not do the things that Mike Royal mentioned that GC churches did.

In other words, you and the elders at your church disagreed with McCotter and GC policy, but Royal, by mentioning your name, implied that you agreed with them and that you were on board with their unsound teachings.

I don't know much about your GC history, Sam. So I guess something that would help me understand where you are coming from is an answer to two further questions (I promise I don't have 80--or at least they won't come in one posting!):

Did the church that Royal mentions (and that you were an elder in) participate in the excommunications and other things that Royal addresses in his assessment of GC and McCotter?

Second question, a more general one, Do you think that GC should have written the statement of error and apology. In other words, do you think that GC was in the wrong for things they did?

Thank you. I often feel that though I deeply feel there has been abuses by GC and say that both sides have issues... I get trashed for that. Even if you were trying to do objective framing for research on that matter, it is hard to imagine that only one side is immaculate and most here have swallowed that bias entering in.I personally believe that this bias is due to live pain that is still in existence and it fogs and clutters objectivity. I see it all the time with my patients on a multitude of areas and levels. Also in research methodology it is a case of the supposed authority needing to "bracket" off his/her biases (as in qualitative research).

As for your questions... Your first question is a mine field. I would first ask if there such a thing as Biblical church discipline? I believe so. It's purpose is to heal, restore, and reintegrate in its loftiest form. On the other side its purpose is to keep the body protected and pure morally. So if you think that there is no church discipline in the scriptures then I am already at a disadvantage here. I do believe and always believed that there are cases that merit church discipline. I think that should answer your question. You may agree or disagree.

Concerning your second question... I have always believed in the virtues encouraged in the weakness paper. When it was being written, I was a very strong vocal supporter of that paper and condemned any abuse. In every church that I had direct pastoral responsibility, I can honestly say that I attempted to practice the spirit of the good points of that letter even before it was ever conceived. There is a sense that because I was in the organization I was responsible then for corporate practices. I agree. I have repented and sought restoration and healing from any parties involved. I signed on to the Weakness Paper though I feel I was not 100% guilty of such abuses. It is here that I feel Mike Royal did not have due diligence but lumped me into all abuse by his implications. He could have picked up the phone and tracked me down to talk to me. He just threw every elder into a lump accusation across the board and then sent out specifically one letter to my friend creating doubt and a wedge between the relationship.

[EverAStudent]

Did the church that Royal mentions (and that you were an elder in) participate in the excommunications and other things that Royal addresses in his assessment of GC and McCotter?

Your first question is a mine field. I would first ask if there such a thing as Biblical church discipline? I believe so. It's purpose is to heal, restore, and reintegrate in its loftiest form. On the other side its purpose is to keep the body protected and pure morally. So if you think that there is no church discipline in the scriptures then I am already at a disadvantage here. I do believe and always believed that there are cases that merit church discipline. I think that should answer your question. You may agree or disagree.

Perhaps others read this differently than me, however, I read Sam's first answer as ambiguous and non-specific.  It seems possible to fit within its words any answer one desires to read into it, ranging from, "I excommunicated dozens of saints for being factious and it was a good and holy thing I did so," to "We never excommunicated any person for faction but only for gross sexual sins."

Second question, a more general one, Do you think that GC should have written the statement of error and apology. In other words, do you think that GC was in the wrong for things they did?

Concerning your second question... I have always believed in the virtues encouraged in the weakness paper. When it was being written, I was a very strong vocal supporter of that paper and condemned any abuse. In every church that I had direct pastoral responsibility, I can honestly say that I attempted to practice the spirit of the good points of that letter even before it was ever conceived. There is a sense that because I was in the organization I was responsible then for corporate practices. I agree. I have repented and sought restoration and healing from any parties involved. I signed on to the Weakness Paper though I feel I was not 100% guilty of such abuses. It is here that I feel Mike Royal did not have due diligence but lumped me into all abuse by his implications. He could have picked up the phone and tracked me down to talk to me. He just threw every elder into a lump accusation across the board and then sent out specifically one letter to my friend creating doubt and a wedge between the relationship.

While this answer of Sam's is also subject to some wide intrepretation, I think it is a bit less ambiguous. Here is how I read it:
  - Sam: "I agreed and supported the statement of GC errors.  However, I was not personally guilty of doing what the error statement addresses.  My guilt was only by being in GCI when the others did these things.  Nonetheless, I have made restitution to everyone I led or hurt as a GCI leader.  Mike Royal is a slanderer because his letter did not specifically exempt me from having done the abuses that all the rest of the GCI leaders did."

How do others read that?

[DrSam]

Mike Royal is a slanderer because his letter did not specifically exempt me from having done the abuses that all the rest of the GCI leaders did."

You need to modify that statement to say, "Mike Royal is a slanderer because his letter did not specifically provide a statement of the possibility of his misjudgment of Sam Lopez and that not all GC elders were necessarily guilty of abuses stated." Instead, Mike Royal lumped every single elder into all the abuses of others and therefore went ahead to create innuendos designed to cause suspicion and destroy friendships.

[Linda]

I would first ask if there such a thing as Biblical church discipline?

Yes, most definitely, I believe church discipline, carried out according to Matthew 18, is an important part of the Church.

But, that was not my question. My question was did you participate in the "discipline" and "excommunications" that Royal refers to in his letter?The ones that were for the vague and unprovable charge of "faction" and the ones being accused were never allowed to present their case before the congregation.

I agree with you, there are most definitely cases that merit church discipline, even removal from fellowship, after Matthew 18 has been followed and the entire congregation is allowed to hear the charges and the defense and draw the conclusion as the gathered, gifted, body.

Regarding the "weaknesses" paper, a quick follow up, do you have a problem calling it what the title of the paper says in that it adds the word "error" as well as weaknesses?

Also, Sam, if you did any of the stuff mentioned in the Royal letter, I have just assumed that you have changed your view and no longer believe that the things they did that got them on cult watch lists are acceptable any more so when I read that letter, I don't put any more "blame" on you than I do on Mike Royal who admits in the letter that he was once a perpetrator of the very things he condemns in the letter. People change. Praise God for that.

My understanding is that the letter was written years before the error statement, during the time when you still were a participating elder, and that your repentance came later, after the error statement.

[DrSam]

Linda,

All I can say is that I totally agree with the weakness/error paper. I hate to keep on and keep on and keep on nit-picking on these details. Where I felt I needed to apologize personally I have.

As for using Matt. 18 as the center and controlling verse on ALL discipline, I don't share that theological view and don't believe it is consistent with contextual, situational, and grammatical application. I do believe that scriptures have the cases of specific moral issues such as immorality, swindling, etc. and then the sin of division. The passage of Matt. 18 is sort of like a Tort Law (approach) case. In the sin of division you don't give a slanderer a podium to further slander and destroy the work of God. That's my opinion and I hope you can respect that like I do your position. I arrived at my position via personal prayer, trying to be as humble as I could before God, and using my best exegetical tools based on my seminary grammatical/syntactical/diagramatical skills. I don't care to convince anyone of my position. There is no profit to harranging as Timothy says but only toxicity and also the glorification of the narcissistic ego. It does not edify or please God.

I grieve that my brothers in GC have not had the maturity to resolve these issues of abuse and I grieve that the Pile, Martin, Royal, and McDonald group does not have that ability either. I think both sides have made serious mistakes and there are egos and extreme narcissism with both sides. Both sides I consider incompetent. I hope that this forum can finally respect that position instead of labeling such third position.

I would first ask if there such a thing as Biblical church discipline?

Yes, most definitely, I believe church discipline, carried out according to Matthew 18, is an important part of the Church.

But, that was not my question. My question was did you participate in the "discipline" and "excommunications" that Royal refers to in his letter?The ones that were for the vague and unprovable charge of "faction" and the ones being accused were never allowed to present their case before the congregation.

I agree with you, there are most definitely cases that merit church discipline, even removal from fellowship, after Matthew 18 has been followed and the entire congregation is allowed to hear the charges and the defense and draw the conclusion as the gathered, gifted, body.

Regarding the "weaknesses" paper, a quick follow up, do you have a problem calling it what the title of the paper says in that it adds the word "error" as well as weaknesses?

Also, Sam, if you did any of the stuff mentioned in the Royal letter, I have just assumed that you have changed your view and no longer believe that the things they did that got them on cult watch lists are acceptable any more so when I read that letter, I don't put any more "blame" on you than I do on Mike Royal who admits in the letter that he was once a perpetrator of the very things he condemns in the letter. People change. Praise God for that.

My understanding is that the letter was written years before the error statement, during the time when you still were a participating elder, and that your repentance came later, after the error statement.

[Linda]

In the sin of division you don't give a slanderer a podium to further slander and destroy the work of God.

Sam,
When you say "slander", what do you mean?

[DrSam]

In the sin of division you don't give a slanderer a podium to further slander and destroy the work of God.

Sam,
When you say "slander", what do you mean?

Slander: The communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. A malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report.

Slander often uses the employment of verisimilitudes. Now that is a very big word so here is one good definition:

Verisimilitude in its literary context is defined as the fact or quality of being verisimilar, the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance of the truth, reality or a fact’s probability. Verisimilitude comes from Latin verum meaning truth and similis meaning similar ("likeness to truth"). Verisimilitude usually refers to a real person, place, or thing described in much believable detail.

Slander has the effect that it creates schism/division/rejection/destruction of relationships and alliances. It can be done with great verbal skill so as to make the perpetrator look like he is "humble, honest, innocent, a victim, just inquiring, seeking "truth," etc. The best slanderers are very skilled with acting and are great word smiths. They know how to cast doubt on how another person is seen, received, accepted. Journalists and lawyers are heavily trained in this form of stratagem. I can slander you by writing an article about you where I simply ask questions and then put your photo in a funny weird shot and then have another article right next to it about "Clowns" while having a "bozo clown" photo next to your photo. As you can see, it is VERY DIFFICULT to prove intent yet the damage is done. Technically, the writer of the slanderous article can deny any wrongdoing. Those who read the article subconsciously see you as a "clown." By the way, I actually saw this in a major paper about a public Conservative figure. I should have congratulated the writer or editor for being a genius in the are of slander.

When you look at Larry's book or McDonald's book you are "IMPRESSED" at their supposed "due diligence" when there is simply a lot of padding in there. A good researcher can see that. There is an illusion of "thoroughness." Royal's letter shows "concern" and seeming balance and then my name is dropped into his pot. That's all that is needed. Guilt by association. Never mind if he has not bothered to contact me personally. Mike Braun never told me about this letter. Hence, his impression of me, is probably a negative one to this day. The damage is done. Mike Royal has plausible deniability while looking innocent. He walks free while leaving behind a hornet's nest. Bummer, eh?    (He also gets to trash me at a Conference making jokes at my expense and I don't get to explain my side as I have done here). How about we observe Matt. 18 there?

This is why you NEVER give a highly skilled slanderer the lawyer's podium in a church because he/she will finish you off and destroy your congregation. It is like giving a person who dislikes you at work the podium and you are his/her boss and there is evidence that they are destroying your relationship with your employees. They can get on the podium if it is to admit their wrong and ask for forgiveness of the boss and employees, not to defend, supposedly themselves. That can be done in a very small setting to limit any further damage. You warn them and if they do not change their thinking and there is no evidence of desire to correct their wrong then you let them go to find some other job. They are "persona non-grata" at your company.

[Linda]

Slander: The communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. A malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report.

Sticking with my question of what is slander, I guess I would pretty much agree with you. Just wanted to make sure equivocation wasn't happening here--that we were both meaning the same thing when we used the word "slander".

So, my next question (I really don't think there will be 80 more!) is, referring to the Mike Royal letter, what specific false claim did he make about you that you consider slander?

[DrSam]

Slander: The communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. A malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report.

Sticking with my question of what is slander, I guess I would pretty much agree with you. Just wanted to make sure equivocation wasn't happening here--that we were both meaning the same thing when we used the word "slander".

So, my next question (I really don't think there will be 80 more!) is, referring to the Mike Royal letter, what specific false claim did he make about you that you consider slander?

In keeping with my last response to you, and as I mentioned earlier, by putting Rev. Mike Braun on a cautionary notification with negative information about GC and then throwing my name into the pot, he is basically saying I, too, am the same. That is the sleight of hand he uses and typical of skilled slandering.

[saved]

In keeping with my last response to you, and as I mentioned earlier, by putting Rev. Mike Braun on a cautionary notification with negative information about GC and then throwing my name into the pot, he is basically saying I, too, am the same. That is the sleight of hand he uses and typical of skilled slandering.

Weren't you the same as the other leaders at that time?

[Linda]

In keeping with my last response to you, and as I mentioned earlier, by putting Rev. Mike Braun on a cautionary notification with negative information about GC and then throwing my name into the pot, he is basically saying I, too, am the same. That is the sleight of hand he uses and typical of skilled slandering.

I'm really confused, Sam.

First of all, this letter was written while you were still a leader in GC.

Some time after this letter was written, you left the group.

You are in agreement with the weaknesses-error-apology statement.

So, why is this a problem? Agreement with the 1991 error statement is agreement that some bad stuff was happening. You have even told us on this forum that you apologized to people for things you did while a GC leader.

I agree, the information might be considered critical of certain aspects of the movement and therefore the word negative could apply, but "negative" information is not necessarily "false" information.

My question was, what about the Mike Royal letter was "false" and therefore, by your and my definition, slander?

[DrSam]

In keeping with my last response to you, and as I mentioned earlier, by putting Rev. Mike Braun on a cautionary notification with negative information about GC and then throwing my name into the pot, he is basically saying I, too, am the same. That is the sleight of hand he uses and typical of skilled slandering.

Weren't you the same as the other leaders at that time?

That is too general and vague. In terms of all that Royal implied a definite NO! Not all churches were the same and not all leaders were the same and not every leader's background was the same. Again, here we go with a viral exponential one question creates a hundred which creates ten thousand which creates... on and on.

[DrSam]

In keeping with my last response to you, and as I mentioned earlier, by putting Rev. Mike Braun on a cautionary notification with negative information about GC and then throwing my name into the pot, he is basically saying I, too, am the same. That is the sleight of hand he uses and typical of skilled slandering.

I'm really confused, Sam.

First of all, this letter was written while you were still a leader in GC.

Some time after this letter was written, you left the group.

You are in agreement with the weaknesses-error-apology statement.

So, why is this a problem? Agreement with the 1991 error statement is agreement that some bad stuff was happening. You have even told us on this forum that you apologized to people for things you did while a GC leader.

I agree, the information might be considered critical of certain aspects of the movement and therefore the word negative could apply, but "negative" information is not necessarily "false" information.

My question was, what about the Mike Royal letter was "false" and therefore, by your and my definition, slander?

By my definition I include Mike Royals intent. That intent was to create distrust. He warned Mike Braun about churches and pastors that cannot permit folks to disagree with the pastors. That was never the case with me. I have never had any problem with anyone disagreeing with me. It is the intent of persons and the fruit that is important. If it creates disharmony and destroys relationships and creates division then it is slander or gossip. I have never had the attitude in any church I pastored that you could not disagree with me. I don't appreciate Mike Royal lumping me into that and implying to Rev. Braun that this was probably descriptive of me also.

Mike Royal also implicates that GC was similar to the Moonies. That could only be taken by Mike Braun as being that the GC church in his city could be "Moonie-like." AGain, I don't appreciate this lie perpetrated about the church or myself through association with a blanket statement.

I did apologize to people, even on this forum, for any abuse they suffered when I was in National Leadership though I personally never did so to them. If I ever did anything to a person as a result of my own sincere actions that caused pain I have made amends for that also.

Again, I stand by my belief that Mike Royal was trying to warn Mike Braun of a list of negative things about a National Church organization and then mentions that I was part of that. Why you guys cannot see that "guilt by association" if beyond me.

There are also a bunch of theological things in his letter that I would say non-GC Mainline Christians would agree with GC and not with Mike Royal. I would consider those as an attempt to pad his case with little merit. Anyways, I don't wish to get into a back and forth discussion on theology. I think it is wasteful and simply engenders more pride and juice for egos in this context.

[Linda]

I did apologize to people, even on this forum, for any abuse they suffered when I was in National Leadership though I personally never did so to them. If I ever did anything to a person as a result of my own sincere actions that caused pain I have made amends for that also.

Sam,
Here's my problem and this is not just directed to you, but to any currently in GC leadership who might be reading this.

Being a leader of a "movement" (or anything else, for that matter), means that you "have signed on with the program." Leaders represent the organization in the most basic sense. They help make plans and see to it that those plans are implemented.

Any current leader in a GC church may not like all of the plans, but to remain a leader, he needs to get on board with the program. So, any current leader, who is becoming aware of the abuses and unsound teaching has an obligation to correct that teaching, or, sorry to say, he will be considered in agreement with unsound teaching by his unwillingness to speak up for what is right.

The current GC program involves, among other things:
1. A belief that people are to give the controls of their life to the pastors ("men God works through").
2. A belief that people should commit to their local church for life.
3. A belief that people who believe numbers 1 and 2 above are not consistent with sound teaching are not to be listened to, are to be asked to leave. We were not excommunicated, but we were asked (by Mark Darling who wasn't even a pastor at the church we attended!) to leave rather than stay and try to change things. BTW, the reason MD was even in the loop was because he had spoken at a HSLT in Colorado where our then 17 year old daughter (and a bunch of other high schoolers) were asked to make the commitment to their local church for life...he backed down on that while face to face with us when confronted, but did not publicly correct this blindingly obvious error and the message our daughter and her peers heard is still available online. Again, this fits the old GC policy of "apology" (made as privately as possible) without change.
4. A belief that anyone who warns others of unsound teaching is divisive and labeled slanderous--charges worthy of shunning according to their poor interpretation of Titus 3:10. And, because the charge is slander, the person is not to be listened to. (I must say, this is brilliant on the part of GC leadership. Kudos to whoever it was who came up with that idea. Way to squelch the truth by sounding spiritual!)

Bringing it back to the Royal letter, here's how I would sum it up.
-A letter was written by a former GC leader addressing a specific concern to a local pastor of a non-GC church.
-You were a GC leader at a GC church when the letter was written. GC was doing some bad stuff at the time
-Because you were a GC leader, you felt you were being accused of doing bad stuff yourself

Bringing this back to Sam Lopez--GC Leader (which you were when this letter was written), you, AT THAT TIME, represented GC because of your position. I understand that you didn't think a number of things were right, and you mention that you did not do any of those things, but the sad fact is that, as a leader, the only way you could separate yourself from the bad teaching was to leave. Which you did.

Now, taking it to this forum and what people are saying about GC today. I'm sure there are GC leaders even today who have no idea of the sordid history of GC. I knew a few pastors in 2005 who were unfamiliar with the 1991 statement of error. However, they are leaders, and leaders represent the group.

Any thing I say, even when I've mentioned names, is not an attempt to harm a person, but an attempt to show that high up leaders are saying unsound things and that those things need to be challenged and corrected. Not taught more boldly.

There is not a GC leader that I hate or wish ill on even though I strongly believe they are wrong and misleading others in some pretty significant ways. It is not persecution or slander to be publicly challenged over doctrine after private attempts have been made to point out error. It is the duty of every Christian to warn others of unsound teaching.

It is the duty of a pastor to guard his life and doctrine.

[miserere]

1.  "I guess the best way I could explain them would be to call them 'Christian Moonies."  From a friend hearing of GC in the 1970's.

2.  Those were days of foment.  Who, of college age and charachteristic conviction, could approach ANY serious movement at that time without the revolutionary ardor of the day. 

3.  Thank God for growth.  Thank Him for repentance,  Thank Him for His long-suffering.