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.

[Linda]

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?)

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.

This probably won't help, but I'm going to go ahead and give it a shot.

"Demonizing", "hatred", those are some pretty strong accusations to use towards people you don't know.

The Bible speaks of sound doctrine. It is a requirement for an elder.

When an elder teaches that which is not sound, it is incumbent upon Believers to point out the error.

I don't hate Mr. McCotter--don't even know the fellow. But, as a Believer, I have a duty to run everything through the filter of sound doctrine.

Mr. McCotter (or Mr. Piper for that matter) don't get a pass on what they say because they are fallible and everybody has their faults. They are responsible for their words. Sound teaching matters. Period.

So, I won't buy into the "everyone has their faults, no one is perfect, let's give them a pass" theory of church leadership.

My rule of thumb: Everyone is fallible, no one is perfect, therefore it is important to have a basic knowledge of doctrine and proper hermeneutics. When a leader says something that is un-sound it is the responsibility of Believers to correct them.

What I have observed is that GCx leaders seem to have a "code of conduct" that doesn't allow them to correct and in some cases to even listen to criticism of teaching.

Example, my husband and I pointed out some major un-sound teaching (after giving lots of questionable stuff a "pass").

While the talking points were "ain't plurality of elders great and Biblical", the reality of the situation is that there was no legit accountability among the elders at our particular location.

Examples:

We talked with two pastors about some "off" teaching. They agreed it was off. (We didn't talk to the pastor who gave the talk because he was not one of our elders, but a visiting elder). We were told by these 2 elders that, they agreed, this certain teaching was "off". The pastor responsible for the "off" teaching was not corrected. The teaching was not publicly corrected. The pastor responsible got the "pass" because "that's just his personality, he's an evangelist and he gets to talking and in his excitement says things that he doesn't mean."

An GCx elder said something that was off to a gathering of high schoolers. We talk with one of our elders about this unsound teaching. The elder we talked with would not even listen to the teaching in question. He said, "I don't need to listen to that teaching. I know that pastor's heart."

A GCx elder told us that there had probably been affairs involving GCx elders that had been covered up by the other elders.

So, my point.

Teaching matters.

Words matter.

I don't hate any of the pastors that we had dealings with. In fact, truth be told, I feel sorry for them and believe they have been adjusting their blinders so as to not see the Truth. In turn, they are being deceived and are deceiving others.

Speaking for myself, I can tell you that I am constantly asking myself the questions, "Am I nuts? Am I divisive? Am I a heretic?" I have never heard of one GCx elder who was willing to ask those questions.

Instead, charges of division go flying out, Believers are vilified because they dare to ask important questions and call leadership to account.

So, I don't hate Jim McCotter or anyone else. I do believe that GCx elders will one day have to give and account for every misleading/unsound teaching and the related practices that came as a result.

My job, as I see it, is to be motivated by love to shout a warning to leaders and church members alike and take the hits that come from that decision.

[nateswinton]

God has not historically smiled on false teaching. Deuteronomy 18:20.

[randomous]

I am certainly not saying that we should ever give false teaching a pass (tho sometimes we may need to consider that our view might be false - humility is a must).  False teaching is a very serious matter;  I am simply saying that it's absurd to reject everything taught by a man because he teaches or has taught some false things.  If we did so we'd soon by completely out of teachers.  

Allow me to give an example.  I'm thinking of a pastor who endorsed polygamy, who endorsed the modern-day burning of witches, often believed Satan himself was attacking him and present in the room with him to the extent that he would throw objects across the room.  Add to that that this same pastor 'advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."

Now, surely if we're being consistent in our logic and applying the same standard as we are to McCotter, this guy is a good candidate for being ignored.  Those beliefs surely show that he has poor judgement and we should not acknowledge or reprint any of his good teachings; it would just be poor taste, given how many people he hurt and offended.  Oh, and btw,  his book "On the Jews and their Lies" and his other teachings on that subject were used to great advantage by Mr. Hitler in perpetrating the Holocaust.  

Yes, if you hadn't figured it out yet, this pastor is Martin Luther.  Yes, he had some pretty wacky beliefs.  He did a lot of questionable things.  But he also started something pretty great and had some things pretty right.  We honor him today because of the things he had right and the good things he did.  Why can't we acknowledge McCotter's good teachings in the same way, while rejecting the bad?

[TerryD]

Why can't we acknowledge McCotter's good teachings in the same way, while rejecting the bad?

Why indeed. That is precisely the question for you and for GC leadership asked again and again by ex-members through the years, many on this website. Nobody’s arguing for the rejection of what your founder taught correctly, just forthright rejection of “the bad”.

As to the Luther comparison, here’s the difference:

What Luther got right was original, brilliant, unique, courageous, and revolutionary within Western Christianity and arguably Western civilization. What Luther clearly got wrong has at last been faced up to, examined (with no small quantity of embarrassment and tears) and soundly rejected by every Lutheran I’m aware of.

What McCotter got right in his book (Have you read it? If not, I’d recommend it) was at best derivative, cliche and/or better expressed in a hundred different places. What he clearly got wrong has not been faced up to, examined and rejected within GCx,  but in significant part continues in their practice and teaching today.

[randomous]

Sure, McCotter in terms of overall influence and probably even charisma doesn't compare much to Luther.  Few do.  I haven't read Leadership, I was referring to the other two books - trade ya.  

I think one thing to keep in mind is that, at least in the two small booklets I've read, it may well be that it's not "original" (no good teaching really is, imho, good teachers relay or expound on what God says).  And it may not be overly unique.  But I think that the value is in the particular style, perhaps the brevity and simplicity and just personality, that relay that truth in ways certain people will be able to connect with it.  I doubt it'll ever become the main teaching on love or humility like, say, E.M. Bounds is for prayer, but it has had a great effect on certain people already and I think it's just not very wise and somewhat short-sighted to throw it out of the toolbox when it might be effective in communicating those doctrines to others.

You may be referring to something else, but the things which he got wrong HAVE been renounced, see the Error Statement (yes conspiracy theorists here is a sentence for you to quote).  You may disagree with additional things or have seen individual practices contrary to that, but it's not fair to say that those things weren't face up to, examined, and rejected by GC.  They have been, and that's why GC is widely accepted now.

[Linda]

You may be referring to something else, but the things which he got wrong HAVE been renounced, see the Error Statement (yes conspiracy theorists here is a sentence for you to quote).

I hadn't realized that there had been an apology for all the excommunications and a statement issued renouncing McCotter's bad teaching. When did this happen? Is this written down somewhere? Have all those who were "excommunicated" been contacted by GCx with an apology? Has McCotter ever apologized?

Also, you used the term "conspiracy theorists" but I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain.

[Angry]

Randomous -

Let's pretend for a second that the things he got wrong were renounced.

The $64000 question becomes "when will GC* stop these practices?"

Until the manipulation of scripture, mind control, time demands, and abusive tendencies of several of their autonomous churches are stopped, there is still a problem and people should be very wary of this group.

PARENTS - WATCH OUT FOR THIS HURTFUL GROUP AS YOU SEND YOUR CHILDREN OFF TO COLLEGE CAMPUSES!

Angry

[The Clone]

I'm assuming that we're accepting scripture as authoritative, but are going to try our best to interpret it from a neutral point of view, and not add or subtract anything from it's teachings on the subject.

[namaste]

I am certainly not saying that we should ever give false teaching a pass (tho sometimes we may need to consider that our view might be false - humility is a must).  False teaching is a very serious matter;  I am simply saying that it's absurd to reject everything taught by a man because he teaches or has taught some false things.  If we did so we'd soon by completely out of teachers.  

Allow me to give an example.  I'm thinking of a pastor who endorsed polygamy, who endorsed the modern-day burning of witches, often believed Satan himself was attacking him and present in the room with him to the extent that he would throw objects across the room.  Add to that that this same pastor 'advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time." He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."

Now, surely if we're being consistent in our logic and applying the same standard as we are to McCotter, this guy is a good candidate for being ignored.  Those beliefs surely show that he has poor judgement and we should not acknowledge or reprint any of his good teachings; it would just be poor taste, given how many people he hurt and offended.  Oh, and btw,  his book "On the Jews and their Lies" and his other teachings on that subject were used to great advantage by Mr. Hitler in perpetrating the Holocaust.  

Yes, if you hadn't figured it out yet, this pastor is Martin Luther.  Yes, he had some pretty wacky beliefs.  He did a lot of questionable things.  But he also started something pretty great and had some things pretty right.  We honor him today because of the things he had right and the good things he did.  Why can't we acknowledge McCotter's good teachings in the same way, while rejecting the bad?

For the love of all things holy, are you HONESTLY comparing Jim McCotter to Martin Luther?!?!?!?!  I honestly can't decide whether I should laugh, shake my head, or pray that you learn to use the noodle God gave you.

Martin Luther said, "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God."

Sounds to me that the posters here on de-comm are an awful lot closer to Martin Luther than ANY pastor/elder who maintains the GC status quo.  Martin Luther was willing to spend the rest of his life in exile from the church to avoid making a butchery of his conscience.  Of how many current/former GC pastors/elders can you say the same?

I don't think you want to compare any GC elder to Martin Luther.  It will end most unfavorably for the poor elder.  Besides, I'm not aware that this place is a GC "roast" anyway.  

Yeesh, I say that and I'm Catholic.  :lol:

[randomous]

The point was not to compare McCotter to Luther; the point is the hypocrisy inherent in rejecting everything McCotter ever said because he said it but not doing the same for Luther.  Some people here seem to have an all-or-nothing view of the teachings of McCotter, but won't apply that same rule to others.  
Luther stood for some pretty awful things.  Luther stood for some unconscionable things.  
All the GC elders I've personally interacted with are no less godly than Luther, at least as far as I can tell.  They certainly stand on their conviction more than most pastors I've met.  I didn't know Luther personally, just like I don't know any of you personally, nor do I know McCotter (and most of you don't as I understand it).  
Really, that's one of the biggest issues.  You can go find a teaching on just about any subject by some author, but really you don't know their character.  There are some great teachers who've turned out to be pretty awful people.  The GC elders I do know I trust because of their integrity and character.  So I have no problem "comparing" them to Luther, though such a comparison is inherently foolish.  Luther did his best with what he had and knew to advance God's kingdom; the men I know are doing the same.  Luther had some major flaws in his doctrine; I highly doubt any of the elders I know are perfect in theirs.  But at least I can say that they are giving their all for the kingdom, something they share with Luther as they emulate Christ.

[jehu]

Could it be that there is no baby in your bathwater?

[puff of purple smoke]

The point was not to compare McCotter to Luther; the point is the hypocrisy inherent in rejecting everything McCotter ever said because he said it but not doing the same for Luther.  Some people here seem to have an all-or-nothing view of the teachings of McCotter, but won't apply that same rule to others.  
Luther stood for some pretty awful things.  Luther stood for some unconscionable things.  
All the GC elders I've personally interacted with are no less godly than Luther, at least as far as I can tell.  They certainly stand on their conviction more than most pastors I've met.  I didn't know Luther personally, just like I don't know any of you personally, nor do I know McCotter (and most of you don't as I understand it).  
Really, that's one of the biggest issues.  You can go find a teaching on just about any subject by some author, but really you don't know their character.  There are some great teachers who've turned out to be pretty awful people.  The GC elders I do know I trust because of their integrity and character.  So I have no problem "comparing" them to Luther, though such a comparison is inherently foolish.  Luther did his best with what he had and knew to advance God's kingdom; the men I know are doing the same.  Luther had some major flaws in his doctrine; I highly doubt any of the elders I know are perfect in theirs.  But at least I can say that they are giving their all for the kingdom, something they share with Luther as they emulate Christ.

Thing is, scholarly Christians know this about Luther going into it. His history is very well documented and studied, good and bad. His writings are read with this in mind. Not so with McCotter. If you listened to only GC for your understanding of him, you'd think he was nothing but wonderful. It's one thing if the leadership wants to keep their congregation in the dark regarding McCotter and the movement's past. It's quite another when they are trying to selectively introduce parts of the past to them (the parts they liked) and silently leave the rest out.

What is getting people interested in a mysterious long-gone leader going to do? It might very well encourage them to listen to his old tapes (which are still around in several churches), find other books of his (Linda got hers off of ebay), and so on. All without any warning that some of the stuff he's teaching is way off -- so off it landed the group on cult lists. At my former GC church this would have been extremely dangerous, because we were being taught to accept what our leaders taught us without questioning it.

Of course, the cynic might say that the stuff he's "off" about is still taught in many churches in GC, so what does it matter if they hear it from McCotter or a current day leader.

[Linda]

Could it be that there is no baby in your bathwater?

Thanks for the laugh! :lol: