McCoter's book/pamphlet on "Leadership?"

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.

[Ames '73]

Anybody have one?

Al~

[MamaD]

We have a copy of Leadership.

My husband found a used copy online a couple years ago.

It's by Dennis Clark and Jim McCotter and is not very "scholarly". Bad writing, bad theology.

I think it was written in the mid-80's. I read somewhere that some McCotter pamphlets were back in print, but I don't know which ones. Anyone know about those?

[randomous]

'With Cords of Love" and "The Secret of Success" were printed recently.  I have copies of both, both excellent and solid.  "With Cords of Love" is a daily devotional about love (as you might guess) and "The Secret of Success" is about humility.

[cltexprt]

I have a copy of McCotter's Leadership book. Shall I make you a photocopy?

Larry Pile

[Linda]

Nice to hear from you Larry.

My husband Terry has a copy of the Leadership book that you mentioned. What a fine scholarly work that is!!??? That's where McCotter says,

“There must be unity at all cost [sic.]. When believers divide over so-called doctrine, they are always trampling under foot the cardinal doctrine—UNITY.” (Emphasis theirs)

Unity as the cardinal doctrine explains a lot.

Of course, the big question I have after reading the comment by Randomous is, "Why in the world is GCM reprinting McCotter books?"

Obviously, the answer is they like what the guy says and they are trying to get back to the good old days.

[randomous]

Or maybe the answer is that not everything he said was bad, that like the rest of us he's human and had his flaws but wasn't pure evil.  The teachings being printed are very scriptural and solid.

[namaste]

Or maybe the answer is that not everything he said was bad, that like the rest of us he's human and had his flaws but wasn't pure evil.  The teachings being printed are very scriptural and solid.

Contorting Bible verses to suit one's own purposes is not scriptural and solid.  The problem, randomous, is that all too often, the "unity in doctrines" bit is used to promote the elder's interpretation above all others.

Instead of accepting that people will disagree (and rightfully so!) over doctrinal "minutia," elders use the "unity" line as a bludgeon to knock everyone into line, whether it's warranted, or their position makes sense.

[Linda]

My point was not that everything that Jim McCotter ever said or wrote was or is unbiblical. I have never thought that.

The point here is that after looking at the writings and legacy of the McCotter years it is surprising to me that GCx would want to reprint any of the past writings.

I also remember reading in earlier posts here that McCotter teachings were being shown to the GCLI guys in Ames in recent months. And, as far as I know McCotter also spoke in person at The Rock in Arizona in April of 2006 (I believe).

If I were part of an organization that had been on cult watch lists largely as a result of the teachings, beliefs, and practices of one particular man, I would be careful to distance myself from that man. There are plenty of good devotionals on love and teachings on humility out there written by people who have a proven record of sound teaching. Why not recommend those?

[randomous]

It seems like you intended to respond to me (you quoted me).  If you were, please reread the context.  "Leadership" isn't one that has been reprinted by anyone in GCM; I haven't read it, but the two that have been recently reprinted are solid.  
There's no reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water."  Some of McCotter's teachings were good, and true.  Can anyone else admit this?

[randomous]

that was addressed to namaste; i didn't see linda's post as I was pulled away and came back to submit that comment.

[puff of purple smoke]

I think the point is, why would you go out of your way to dig up a several decade old books, taught by a person as controvesial as McCotter, on subjects as simple as Humility and Love that could just as easily be taught by any number of the current GC pastors teaching on them? Nostalgia? Too lazy to write up a new teaching on the subject? To get people feeling proud about GC's early history and former leader? Too much profanity in the Mark Darling tapes on the subject?

It's a question worth speculating about and I think Linda and others are right to wonder about it. If I was in charge of GC, and recognized that along with McCotter's good sides he had a bad side that got GC in a lot of (much of it deserved) trouble, I would go out of my way to make sure people knew the GC led by McCotter was not the current GC. That means, if a teaching on Humility would do the members of my organization good, I'll have somebody current write something on it and distribute that, rather than go digging through obscure 1970's and 80's McCotter publications to try to find something my group can read on the topic.

I've tried to find several old McCotter books and I have been unable to, because they are out of print and so rare. Not on ebay, not on rare book websites, etc. They really would have had to go out of their way to republish them. Why did they?

[namaste]

It seems like you intended to respond to me (you quoted me).  If you were, please reread the context.  "Leadership" isn't one that has been reprinted by anyone in GCM; I haven't read it, but the two that have been recently reprinted are solid.  
There's no reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water."  Some of McCotter's teachings were good, and true.  Can anyone else admit this?

First, I'd just like to say that I do hear what you're saying.  Let me expand a little on what my *personal* problem is.  Others have already pointed out that an organization with GC's history needs to be walking the straight and narrow.  Re-printing any of McCotter's teachings draws the ire of many, and well it should.  

Onto my personal problem with re-printing selected McCotter teachings....

I think everyone here agrees that McCotter said/wrote some wacky things, and that those things were used/abused (intentionally or not) to manipulate congregations/individuals, stifle dissent within the ranks, etc.  Like it or not, McCotter's special brand of vitriol HURT  a lot of people.

My personal opinion is that if the people responsible for re-printing/distributing this material had even the slightest modicum of respect or sorrow for the people who were victimized and hurt by McCotter, they'd never even consider re-printing the material.  

But what's more disturbing (to me at least), is your comment about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  To be frank: who are you to decide what is and isn't "solid?"  Who are you to determine which is "baby" and which is "bathwater?"

In my experience (and GC is pretty upfront about it as well), very few GC pastors have the theological/hermeneutical background necessary to even begin to make the determination of what is or isn't "solid."  

So for all intents and purposes, the only "check" on bizarre material is the experience of those in charge.  Of course people trained by McCotter (like Mark Darling, for example) find his stuff "solid."  

Again, I ask, who gets to decide what is/isn't "solid?"  Do all of the elders get together and take a vote?  If the church congregations object, do they get a vote (I know I drew the ire of leadership more than once for speaking out against some of the "off" stuff the elder at our church was saying during my time there)?

Oh!  I know!  A RESPECTED bible scholar (tenured at a local university, Princeton educated, many best selling books published, on tv, etc.) lives just a door or two down from me.  Tom Short has cited this guy's work in the "debunking the davinci code" talk (my neighbor was one of the ones you'd see on tv bashing the davinci code).  So apparently GC leadership respects the opinion of this guy.

Why don't you send my a copy of whatever Jim McCotter garbage GC is distributing these days, and I'll schlep it up to him and see what *HE* thinks about it?  

If my scholarly neighbor with the educational/professional background to actually make an informed determination thinks that the McCotter stuff passes muster, is totally "solid" biblically, and there aren't any wacky theology, or misapplied verses, etc., I'll publically apologize and shut up about it.

[randomous]

First to puff - if you think about it, I doubt they'd have to go very far out of their way to find them - I'm sure they have old copies.  Maybe the reason you can't find them for sale is that they're so good nobody wants to get rid of them.  
As far as I understand it, it's not really "GC" that reprinted them, but rather Rick Whitney out of his personal means (from sales of his book or something).  He was the one who passed them out.  
So maybe the reason (namaste) that he chose to do so is that they had a positive lasting impact on his life, and he wants to pass them on.  
I don't think GC pastors would agree that theological/hermeneutical training is required to be able to determine what's solid.  To my best understand of scripture, that would be the job of the Holy Spirit and God's Word.  If pastors are seeking and following God and making sure it lines up with Scripture, it's not really that complicated to have solid teachings.  
I mean, let's be honest, even different seminaries, heck different professors within each seminary, disagree on what the Bible teaches and even whether it's all true.  What I'm saying is, that's a straw man argument.
With any teaching, just test it against the Word.  Of course, that means you gotta know it yourself.  It it lines up, it's solid.  If it doesn't, uh-oh.
So the answer to your question of who I am to determine what's solid is that I'm a Christian with God's Spirit living in me who has a Bible and knows how to read.  There's no secret code needed that you can get from a seminary.  
I've no problem with sending you the books - more "booklets" really.  Just message me your address.

[nateswinton]

There's a fine balance to be had there, and there is a lot of danger on either extreme.  Ideally, through much study, and through the Spirit (BOTH), we can discern what God's will is through the Bible.  There are seminary profs that barely know God, and there are laymen who love Jesus, but couldn't interpret a passage in context if their life depended on it.  Both are harmful to the Church.

Henry Nowuen is a good example of a Biblical scholar who was 2/3 of the way through life before he started to get to really know Jesus.  There are plenty of GC pastors that really love Jesus, but whom I've heard more than once teach things based on mis-applied scripture.

I agree that you don't NEED to be a scholar, and you do NEED to have the Spirit alive in you to interpret the Word correctly.  It is also border-line necessary to be very well-read and to study diligently, and also to check your doctrine with other wise believers, so that you can be assured that you're not just interpreting scripture based on your own biases, agendas and experiences.

[nateswinton]

I also think that it's the responsibility of a disciple of Christ to know His teachings in context and to be working to apply them to your life.  In theory, every believer ought to be striving for whatever level of "scholarly" understanding that they can muster (with the Spirit's help, of course).  

The disciples of Jesus may not have been rabbis, but it's always a mistake to call them "un-educated" men.  They grew up orthodox jews, after all.  Just because they weren't old-testament scholars didn't mean that they weren't very very knowledgeable of the scriptures.  Every jewish kid grew up memorizing most of what we call the Old Testament.  All 12 disciples probably knew the Old Testament better than 90% of church leaders in America today.

[randomous]

yep

[namaste]

First to puff - if you think about it, I doubt they'd have to go very far out of their way to find them - I'm sure they have old copies.  Maybe the reason you can't find them for sale is that they're so good nobody wants to get rid of them.  
As far as I understand it, it's not really "GC" that reprinted them, but rather Rick Whitney out of his personal means (from sales of his book or something).  He was the one who passed them out.  
So maybe the reason (namaste) that he chose to do so is that they had a positive lasting impact on his life, and he wants to pass them on.  
I don't think GC pastors would agree that theological/hermeneutical training is required to be able to determine what's solid.  To my best understand of scripture, that would be the job of the Holy Spirit and God's Word.  If pastors are seeking and following God and making sure it lines up with Scripture, it's not really that complicated to have solid teachings.  
I mean, let's be honest, even different seminaries, heck different professors within each seminary, disagree on what the Bible teaches and even whether it's all true.  What I'm saying is, that's a straw man argument.
With any teaching, just test it against the Word.  Of course, that means you gotta know it yourself.  It it lines up, it's solid.  If it doesn't, uh-oh.
So the answer to your question of who I am to determine what's solid is that I'm a Christian with God's Spirit living in me who has a Bible and knows how to read.  There's no secret code needed that you can get from a seminary.  
I've no problem with sending you the books - more "booklets" really.  Just message me your address.

Randomness-
This isn't about some secret code that gets learned in seminary.  This is about the fact that GCx leaders get to be judge, jury, and executioner, deciding what is and isn't "solid," with little accountability.  The McCotter debacle is probably the best example in awhile.

This is really quite simple.  Anyone with half a share of brains can quickly rattle off a fairly extensive list (not to mention make a fairly compelling argument in its own right) of reasons why re-printing/re-distributing McCotter stuff is a first class mistake.

If GCx wants to do that (and you want to defend it), that's their/your prerogative.  But you'd better be prepared to take a huge amount of flack for doing it, and with a smile on your face.  And you'd better have a better argument for doing so than, "I'm a believer, and I think it's solid."

Therein lies the problem.  

What if I were to pose the supposition that NO believer "living in God's Spirit" would ever do something as misguided as to re-print/distribute the McCotter stuff?  Who do I go to about that?  Should I invoke the GC "accountability" process?  Would they argue that it doesn't apply since I'm no longer a GC member (although that certainly hasn't stopped them from sending me requests for donations)?

If I get the opinion of a respected biblical scholar that the McCotter stuff is bad theology, will GC pull the material from circulation and apologize?

My intent is not to attack you personally or back you into a corner here.  My point, as evidenced by this entire discussion, is that GC leadership has a nasty tendency to do silly things, even when confronted with clear, meaningful opposition, with well-reasoned arguments against their course of action.  Ultimately, they'll do whatever they want anyway, because they are the authorities, and no one can stop them.

As to teachings being "solid," and you as a believer being qualified to determine this because you are "in God's Spirit," I'll ask this:

Was McCotter "in God's Spirit" when he wrote the teachings?  Was he "in God's Spirit" when he manipulated people and refused checks on his own authority?  Was he "in God's Spirit" when he excommunicated believers from the "Worldwide Body of Christ" (?!?!?!) because they disagreed with him over matters just such as this?

My point, as better stated by others, is that McCotter is NOT someone whose teachings (in any part) should be endorsed as "solid" by GC.  And if GC chooses to do so, they'd better take every punch thrown at them over this without even trying to defend themselves.  Because it's simply indefensible.

Who owns/maintains the gcmwarning site?  Because I think a big, bold headline should read: "GCx RE-PUBLISHES McCOTTER TEACHINGS, CALLS TEACHINGS 'SOLID.'"

EDITED TO ADD: Can we update the GC wikipedia entry to reflect that the organization has redistributed McCotter teachings, calling them "solid?"

[randomous]

Ha, the organization didn't call them solid, I did.  And like I said earlier, it was a Rick Whitney thing and not a GCx thing as far as I know.  I think you attribute more unanimity than exists, in fact lots of people do in lots of areas.  GC is not the boogey-man, and every action is not coordinated.  I don't know many organizations that are like that.  
I didn't actually mention being "in God's spirit" but rather having God's Spirit in me, as do all believers.  Subtle but major difference.  

Again, it looks like you're demonizing Jim McCotter.  Good teaching is good teaching.  The man has faults (I don't know him but due to him being human I'm sure this is the case) and no doubt taught faulty things (which is pretty much true of every teacher since Jesus), I just don't understand the mindset of rejecting everything by him solely because you hate the man (am I overstating that?)

I have no idea what GC would do, and I doubt you'll get that, but "respected biblical scholars" are a dime a dozen.  I think it would get their attention if the guy had good reasons and they'd weigh it, but scholars aren't equivalent to expert Christians; as has already been said they are often right and often wrong.  So I think you'd have to show from Scripture  where and how it is bad theology.  

BTW, I hate misleading headlines; as i said it was I and not GC that calls them solid, but more importantly one's gotta note that these are select, specific teachings, GC wouldn't call McCotter's teaching in general solid, which is the implication of the headline.

[namaste]

First, just wanted to say thanks for the good conversation.  I appreciate very much the dialogue and that it's remained reasonably civil.  To address the content of your reply:

Rick Whitney is a member of the GC board of oversight.  He is one of the individuals that should be stopping other pastors from re-printing/distributing this stuff.  He is one of the people who should be reminding others of the hurt McCotter caused, NOT someone who is endorsing the individual by distributing his work.  

The GC board of oversight is and should be held to a higher standard (as should any elder) in the public eye.  It would be a terrible shame if pastors all over GC began endorsing McCotter material in imitation of Whitney.

You say that Whitney is but one man.  I agree.  But this one man is a member of the board of oversight for a large, national organization.  People are watching what he says and does.  Likewise, like any other individual, his actions have consequences.  If he lacks the wisdom to discern why this is a bad idea, I'd say that's pretty serious.

As for outrageous headlines, point well taken.  But likewise, if a member of the board of oversight is the person responsible for the distribution of the material, that's far more serious than what I thought initially (I must have missed the part where someone said it was Whitney who was distributing the material).  How about: "MEMBER OF GCx BOARD OF OVERSIGHT RE-PUBLISHES McCOTTER MATERIAL."

That's about as good as the inflammatory headline I came up with before anyway.

As to your comments about my "hatred" of McCotter and GCx being the boogeyman:

-I have never met/had any contact with McCotter.  The most contentious things he did happened before I was even born.  I certainly don't hate him, and talking about him illicits precisely zippo emotional response on my part.  There is a big difference between being openly critical of a person and hating a person.

-I do not think GCx is the boogeyman.  

-I do believe that not all "men of God" (in any church setting- I'm not attacking GC here) are what the represent themselves to be, but rather, are ego-driven and power-hungry.

-I believe that such individuals exist within the leadership of GCx, and that there are some within GCx who misapply scripture and abuse authority to get "their way."

-I do not blindly respect/follow authority.

-I believe that "elders" or those with any kind of church authority who abuse their positions, contort scripture, or otherwise manipulate their "flocks" should be regarded with little esteem.

In closing, thanks again for the nice conversation.  I find it interesting, that the comments here can be broadly summarized as the following: "It's a bad idea for anyone in GCx to be distributing McCotter material for a number of reasons.  It shows poor judgement on the part of those responsible that they would choose to do so."

Somehow, that legitimate criticism/concern gets twisted into us (or me) thinking that GCx is the boogeyman and hating people.

[randomous]

It may not be true of you, but I think there's definitely some real hatred of McCotter here.  Like you said, not many of us really know him but many seem very willing to demonize him.
The boogeyman comment is more directed towards a theme that I see repeated a lot here than this thread specificially.  I just find it highly amusing the way people will take two totally unrelated events and then form a theory of how they were both coordinated from above in an attempt to [insert crazy motive].  It's like a lot of conspiracy theories - on this forum the government is simply replaced with GC, haha.