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.
De-Commissioned Forum
September 28, 2022, 04:08:45 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Open Question to Present GC and ex-GC on Repudiation of Bad Doctrines  (Read 8718 times)
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« on: January 14, 2009, 11:35:15 am »

Recently on this forum we have had a number of folks discussing the 1984 -1985 GCI doctrines of modern prophecy and apostleship that the National Leaders (and Jim McCotter) had been teaching.  Since those doctrines were such a big deal in '84 and '85 (the National Leaders kept saying we would not win the world for Christ without modern prophets and apostles) what happened to that teaching? 

Did GC (GCI, GCAC, GCM) ever repudiate, renounce, or apologize for having taught that there must be modern prophets and apostles?

If GC never repudiated that set of doctrines, why?


Logged
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2009, 12:06:55 pm »

The obvious answer is that they stopped talking about it.  The "official" teaching really wasn't that "official".  It is now a dead issue, like bad behavior in College that has no apparent connection to the present way you do things.

If GC leaders are of even average intelligence, they can look around at other assemblies, see that the teaching of a Modern Apostle isn't needed  and stop talking about it.

Isn't it obvious that the new main teaching is Loyalty for Life? You don't need a man to be loyal to when you have a Church.


Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2009, 12:13:04 pm »

I have another open question to GC leaders.

Was anyone ever "un"-excommunicated? Or, did they just apologize for the heavy handed leadership, but not change?

I have heard in the last year that as far as GC goes, Bill Taylor is still excommunicated. Anyone know if that is true?
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
wastedyearsthere
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192



« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2009, 12:18:36 pm »

My experience with GCx was that when they no longer believed something they just stopped teaching about it.  This was the case when they suddenly reversed positions about head coverings and for a few years they were convinced that we didn't have a sin nature but sinned because of habit.

It would be nice for them to come out and say what they actually believe and why.  I don't think they will though because I think every church believes different things?  Is this correct?
Logged
EverAStudent
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 716



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2009, 12:41:34 pm »

Quote from: lone gone
The obvious answer is that they stopped talking about it.

Quote from: wasted
My experience with GCx was that when they no longer believed something they just stopped teaching about it.

That is what I was afraid of.  With this approach, they take NO responsibility for what they teach, because they are (never can be) held to account for it.  A doctrine is sponsored by the National Elders, they all teach it as a group, then, when the doctrine is "out of fashion" (it is never called a false doctrine) it is simply ignored.  No elder has to apologize, no National Elder is called to publicly repent.  The bad doctrine simply stops getting air time. 

Problem?  All the old tracts, books, and audio tapes are still in circulation for anyone to get hold and read.  Worse, the rank-and-file members are not clued-in that the old doctrines are biblically wrong, so they go on believing them and teaching them to their children.  And none of the leadership ever has to repent in public of having taught unsound doctrine.

Quote from: lone gone
The "official" teaching really wasn't that "official".

This I disagree with.  Anything that was taught by the National Leaders in The Cause, in book form, or sold as tracts and audio/VHS  tapes by GCI is by any definition of the word, "official."  If it bears the GC imprimatur on its label or cover jacket, it is official.

Official doctrine that has been found to be unsound needs to be repudiated in public, repented of (those who were subjected to the teaching need to hear an apology for being sinned against by the teachers), and the teaching must be corrected. 

 

Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2009, 03:33:52 pm »

Not to be a clanging gong or anything, but all this could have been easily avoided if young kids didn't think they were so much more dedicated than other Christians and "unique."   This lofty thinking and lofty talk (which you still hear... highest caliber, etc etc) led to reinventing the wheel theologically again and again.  They could have joined in to orthodox (small o) Protestant teachings and not gone out on a limb with anything... but instead they've gone their own way.

This kind of odd interpretation WILL HAPPEN AGAIN and again and again, until they "mate" so to speak with mainstream evangelical (I'm thinking Dallas and Moody here) teaching.  When they decide to do that... well, then the odd teachings will stop.  Until then... they'll always have their little GCLI stuff that never quite hits a home run.

Why do I care?  Don't know really.  But it's kind of like telling someone who thinks a banana is purple the truth.  You keep telling them it's yellow.  And they keep saying, "Can't you see how fervently I LOVE this banana?  I am peeling this purple banana with such passion.  I am devoted to this banana for life.  So if I want to say it's purple... I CAN!"

ARGH!
Logged

Glad to be free.
lone gone
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 279



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2009, 05:30:05 pm »

Youth are idealistic.   They rebel against the ruling order, set up new social systems, and then become the ruling order. The along come more idealistic youth.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 998



« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2009, 08:22:04 pm »

At the time I was a member (about 1978) the elders frequently applied 1 Timothy 4:12 ("Let no one look down on your youthfulness...") and Psalm 119:100
("I understand more than the aged, because I have observed Your precepts") to themselves, to justify the fact that such young men claimed such total authority over their followers. The clear message was that a short period of red-hot zeal could trump years of patient devotion and study when it came to understanding the ways of God.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1