The Book of Government

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.

[Miss Current]

I just read the 1991 Error/Apology Statement put out by GCx and signed by Dave Bovenmyer. Wow!!! That will stop you in your tracks. But that wasn’t the biggest shock of the day.

Here is a quote from the first page of the 1991 Error Statement:

“And because we realize that our churches and leaders, while doing their best to follow the Lord’s leading, will make mistakes in the future, we are in the process of developing a Book of Government to formalize procedures on how to approach and respond to those mistakes and grievances.”

It is my understanding that this Book of Government was never finished and released. The fact that the Book of Government wasn’t finished is HUGE. To me, the fact that it wasn’t followed through on NEGATES the 1991 Error Statement completely. It says to me, that the leaders got the change in the movement squashed. The leaders in the GCx movement don’t want to change its ways.

To me, finishing that Book of Government should have been the leaders number one priority until it was/is finished. Why would the leaders put anything at a higher priority? Even the “Great Commission” command. The GCx movement has a GAPING HOLE in its ship. Can anyone else see that? The GCx movement started around 1970 and was/is supposed to be THE WAY to spread the gospel. Whether it is 80 churches or 140, 200 ministers or 500 or 900, the GCx ship is NOT moving swiftly through the water on its course.

Leaders, I have never been a part of GCx. I have NO trauma to lay at your feet. I’m not a faction inside your local churches or your national movement. I am definitely a Believer who God is using in His kingdom. I am open to the Holy Spirit’s direction in my life.

LEADERS, I beg of you, FIX YOUR SHIP!!!!! How can you say ANYTHING is of a higher priority? How? Leaders, if you don’t fix your ship, YOUR SHIP WILL SINK. I “sense” it.

[randomous]

The idea that the Book of Government was never finished has been said on here repeatedly. In looking at the GCC website, I found this in the extended history:

"In the early 1990's Great Commission pastors developed a book of government, called the Articles of Association, which were formally approved in 1994"

There's more on there about them if you want to look.

[puff of purple smoke]

Are the Articles of Association available online anywhere? Has anyone seen them?

[J]

I was talking to Dave Bovenmyer via email about the Book of Government, and he said the same thing, that it was replaced with the "Articles of Association" in 1994. He was very prompt in his initial response. However, when I asked him where I could read the Articles of Association and if they were still "on the books" (official GC policy) he didn't return my email? Does anyone have the answer to those two questions?

I also have another question. Do the Articles Of Association fulfill the same goals the Book Of Government was supposed to fulfill?  Here is what GCAC's 1991 error statement (link) says the purpose of the Book Of Government was supposed to be:

And because we realize that our churches and leaders, while doing our best to follow the Lord's leading, will make mis­takes in the future, we are in the process of develop­ing a Book of Govern­ment to formalize procedures on how to ap­proach and respond to those mistakes and grievanc­es.

Many of the most serious grievances that former leaders and members had might have been resolved many years ago if we would have had a formal­ized, written policy on handling complaints, addressing divergent views, and resolving grievances. That is why we are developing, as previous­ly noted, a Book of Government that will provide that needed formality.

To guard against future problems in this area, the Associa­tion is preparing a Book of Government that includes clear procedures that our churches must follow in exercising church discipline as well as other church judgments, including an appeal process.

I am eager to know if the Articles Of Association are just the Book Of Government with a new name, or, if it is as some have suggested, that the movement never actually followed through on their promise to make such a book..

[randomous]

This is an interesting link from the GCC website:

http://www.gccweb.org/gcc/about/accountability.asp

Book of Government implies more than just this type of things to me, but this looks like a specific written policy on this to me.

[J]

That link seems like it is hinting at some sort of process, however, I am looking for the exact process laid out in writing somewhere. I want to see the Articles and know what those process(s) are. I think the whole idea in the 1991 statement was: GC made mistakes, is sorry, is trying to correct those mistakes, and to ensure they don't happen again will draft a book of governmental policies and rules for those in power to follow in certain situations. The big question is: did this happen or not?

[MamaD]

That linked article is interesting. Has that been up for long or was that just written?

A few things jumped out at me when I read it.

First of all, Matthew 18 is about sin and what to do if your brother sins against you. So, it doesn't apply to "off" doctrine. Someone could genuinely be "off" in their doctrine (Apollos) and not "sinning."

Matthew 18 doesn't seem to apply in the case of things gcmwarning and de-com are trying to point out.

Our policy is that a church member should work through the Matthew 18:15-17 process, presenting his or her concerns to a pastor in the church and then, if not satisfied, to the board of that church. If still not satisfied, that individual has the option to contact a regional or national office of Great Commission Churches.

This is an interesting statement that demonstrates to me that there is no role for the "church body". The Matthew 18 steps for them are: 1) Go to the person, 2) Go to the board (which we all know is pastors only), 3) Appeal to GCM national leadership.

Matthew 18 says about sin 1) Go to the person, 2) Take someone else and go to the person, 3) Take the matter before the whole church.

I think it is telling that there is no role for the local congregation in the Matthew 18 process. I disagree with the GCM article, but am very glad they have put it on their web page. It will help others make informed decisions since it makes clear how the system works.

[DesiringTruth]

Copying a portion of the linked info that Randomous gave to us...

ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS IN GREAT COMMISSION CHURCHES
 
"If an individual believes that his or her church is not complying with Biblical or ethical standards, what is that individual to do? Our policy is that a church member should work through the Matthew 18:15-17 process, presenting his or her concerns to a pastor in the church and then, if not satisfied, to the board of that church. If still not satisfied, that individual has the option to contact a regional or national office of Great Commission Churches. Our commitment is to address concerns with impartiality and sensitivity, with the goal of restoration and reconciliation."

From Matthew 18:

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Matthew 18 would direct us as follows:

1. If you have been wronged by a pastor, then go to him alone with your grievance.

2. If he does not listen, go to him again with your grievance, along with one or two others (anyone, not specifically members of the church board, which often consist of the pastors of the local GC church - whoever is selected, you and they should approach the pastor again with the grievance - for the purpose of further confirming the grievance).

3. If he does not listen, then take the issue to the church. The "church" is not just a person on the national or regional level, but consists of the members of the local church. If the grievance has been established by 2 or 3 people, why would there be need to go outside the local church?

In my estimation, the preferred method outlined in the GC statement above breaks the guidance of Matthew 18. The preferred method enables the local and national leadership to potentially stifle the resolution of a legitimate grievance. It would enable the local and national leadership to protect their own over the legitimate concerns of their flocks.

Opinions?

[DesiringTruth]

I see that MamaD was busy with a response similar to mine - we were working at the same time!  Double info to consider!  Thanks, MamaD.

[randomous]

As for how long that link's been there, I saw it months ago, so it must have been there for a long time.

As for the Matthew 18, GC* would say (I think0 that the step regarding taking it to the church is meant to be taking it to the church leadership (elders) rather than the congregation.

MamaD and Desiring have just espoused the Congregationalist (style not denom) belief on this topic.  GC* isn't alone in their interpretation of Matthew 18, I think Episcopal (style not denom) and Presbyterian (style not denom) may tend towards that view

[DesiringTruth]

Although I am not a defender of a congregational form of government, I also have become convinced that exclusive elder rule is dangerous.  The checks and balances I see in GC form of government seems to be weak in a belief in the fallenness of man.  I can think of a few instances where going to pastors or a church's board of "pastors" didn't resolve legitimate concerns or grievances. In fact, there often is just a "circling of the wagons," protecting and defending the leadership. When you mention a problem, then you usually end up being a problem. Granted we are new creatures in Christ, but we are incomplete vessels with a mixture of the old and new.

"Cursed is the man who trusts in man
and makes flesh his strength ...

"Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
whose trust is the Lord."

So where does GC get the idea of going to regional or national leadership for local church sin issues from Matthew 18? Not to say that it wouldn't allow for that, but why would GC make it a preference?

[puff of purple smoke]

That linked article is interesting. Has that been up for long or was that just written?

As for how long that link's been there, I saw it months ago, so it must have been there for a long time.

The page isn't on Google yet, so I am guessing it's not very old. The only other reference to it is in this document, which is a GCC history document dated February 2007, so it was most likely added around then.

[MamaD]

MamaD and Desiring have just espoused the Congregationalist belief on this topic.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Have I made myself clear!

Randomous, based on your saying that, I am assuming you have at one time been or currently are a GCLI guy.

This statement in the above link:

Each church affiliated with Great Commission Churches is an independent church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, cooperating within the association with other like-minded churches in conferences, mission efforts and for accountability in doctrine and ethical practices.

is a statement telling the world that GCM churches are congregational churches.

I'm not mad, but I'm going to bold here to make a point.

CONGREGATIONAL DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CONGREGATION VOTES ON EVERYTHING.

CONGREGATIONAL MEANS THAT THE CHURCH IS AN INDEPENDENT CHURCH THAT DOES NOT "ANSWER" TO A DENOMINATION.

IT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION TO SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN ELDER LED CHURCH WHERE THE ELDERS ARE VOTED ON BY THE CONGREGATION. IN FACT, THIS IS HOW THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OPERATES.

The GCLI paper on church government that we received from our pastors after we left our church is incorrect. So, all GCLI guys who use that as their only source have been taught incorrectly.

I, MamaD, don't favor the congregational form of government. I prefer the presbyterian. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are misinformed.

Google "types of church government", pick your source, and you will have a better understanding of the three types. GCM is a cross between congregational (independent churches) and episcopal (an apostolic succession of leaders chosen by leaders going all the way back to their "first" apostle, Jim McCotter). They are not presbyterian. They think they are.

[puff of purple smoke]

MamaD and Desiring have just espoused the Congregationalist belief on this topic.

GCM is a cross between congregational (independent churches) and episcopal (an apostolic succession of leaders chosen by leaders going all the way back to their "first" apostle, Jim McCotter). They are not presbyterian. They think they are.

A better thread to discuss this would probably be: http://gcmwarning.com:8080/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=102

Thanks.

[namaste]

The problem with GCM's "issue resolution" process is that it totally fails to account for the fact that GCM's brand of rigidly patriarchal Christianity attracts power-hungry, ego-driven narcissists into leadership.

Obviously, I'm not saying that *every* GCM leader fits that description, simply that an awareness of the fact that offering individuals authority over others is extremely attractive to power-hungry individuals.

That said, I have to wonder about the wisdom behind any policy that requires an individual with concerns, or wounded by the inappropriate actions of one in leadership over him/her to go to that individual to work it out.  Requiring such a course of action greatly tilts the outcome in favor of the person in power, and greatly diminishes the probability of satisfactory resolution.

Likewise, what is the logic behind requiring a wronged individual, if unsatisfied with the resolution, to then go to that leader's friends (either the board of the church, or up the ladder of gcm) for resolution?

As another said, where are the independent checks and balances?  Why not simply create a document of clear guidelines for behavior?  The simple fact of the matter, is that a resolution process such as GCM prescribes depends on everyone in the process acting in a completely godly, prideless, and humble manner.

As we've all seen, that's too often *not* the case in GCM leadership.  How many examples have we seen here of that not working?  Church members bring concerns to the elders and are asked to leave?!?!?!  Unacceptable.  :evil:

So...what's a church member to do if, say....the issue at hand is abuse of power by elders?  Does lack of reasonable resolution process not set them up for precisely the same situation that led to the '91 "error statement" to begin with?

You know it's bad when you think latter day political cronyism is easier to navigate than gcm.

Of course, gcm's process works just fine if one considers that perhaps the issue gcm is intending to resolve is dissent within the ranks....or anyone who actually remembers how to think for him/herself.

[J]

So... an update.

To recap, randomous, quoting the GCC website, asserts that the promised "Book Of Government" was actually released, but under a different name, the Articles Of Association. Stated on the GCC website: "In the early 1990's Great Commission pastors developed a book of government, called the Articles of Association, which were formally approved in 1994"

Interesting... I thought, but they seem to have forgotten to include the actual articles on the website. So I decided to contact the man who signed his name to the original Church Error Statement, David Bovenmyer.

On February 21st, I emailed him with:

Dave,

I am curious as to the status of the "Book of Government" mentioned in the 1991 Church Error Statement. Someone suggested you knew something about it.
Was this book ever created?

He wrote back less than two hours later with:

We decided to call the organizational documents we developed after the Weaknesses statement "Articles of Association."  "Book of Government" is a term used by more tightly aligned denominations.  Since we ended up with a more loosely aligned association, we decided on the name "Articles of Association."  Referenced in the Articles is our "Procedure for the Appointment and Removal of elders."  These cover most of what would have been in a book of government.

I responded with:

Thanks for the reply. When did the articles come into existence? Are they still active, "on the books" so the speak? Where can I acquire a copy?

After one month of no reply, I again emailed him asking him if he'd received my previous email. To this he did respond, on March 21, with the following:

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you.  My wife and I were given the gift of a trip to Israel.  It was awesome and truly inspiring to walk in the footsteps of so many of our heroes of faith.

The articles were ratified by our pastors in May of 1994.  There have been some minor modifications since then.  They are in use and define our associational agreements.  Currently, some modifications are being proposed to update them in several ways.  After this is completed, we may put them on the public area of the GCC web site.

I responded that day with:

How long before that will happen, do you think? Any way I can just see the current ones, even if they are going to be updated soon? Thanks.

This is where things got interesting. His response, on March 23rd, was:

What is your purpose in having them?

At this I got kind of annoyed that I had to provide a reason for wanting to see a public document. My response was:

This is interesting, I have to provide a purpose to wanting to see them? I
don't understand why an explaination is necessary, but I will provide
several.

First, there are some who claim GC never followed through with its promised
book of government (mentioned in the 1991 error statement.) The GCC websites
states otherwise, saying they became the articles in 1994. I want to see the
articles and determine if GC did or did not follow through, and put that
debate to rest.

Secondly, I want to know if the procedures outlined in the articles are
being followed at several churches currently in the movement. I can't do
that without seeing them and knowing what the contents of these articles
are.

Third, I am curious, and I had assumed they were public documents, given
they were described in 1991 as "a formal­ized, written policy on handling
complaints, addressing divergent views, and resolving grievances."

Given these reasons, I would again humbly request to see the current
version.. Thanks.

That was 7 days ago.. still no response.. Hmmm. The purpose of the Book Of Government was supposed to be "a formal­ized, written policy on handling complaints, addressing divergent views, and resolving grievance." How is anyone supposed to address divergent views and resolve grievances if the document itself is so hard to get ahold of?

I'll let you know if he responds further.

[namaste]

J-
There is no reasonable justification for witholding those documents.  IMO, there's no reasonable justification for not having them publically available on the website, and failing to ensure that individuals on the church level are aware of their existence and the means by which they can be accessed.

But this is simply beyond belief.  I'm sure, however, that an organization like gcm, that wants to be seen as reputable, wouldn't want to be associated with such an absurd position, and will quickly make the documents available for public review.

You know, now that I think about it...

Every non-profit organization has to provide certain materials to anyone who requests them within a reasonable time frame...I wonder if the "articles of association" would fall under that guideline....

Having read multiple accounts of churches failing to provide financial statements, etc., I'm surprised at the pervasive ignorance of the fact that it's not at all difficult to legally compel them to supply certain information.

[namaste]

A full list of what they are required to disclose by law in order to maintain their tax-exempt status can be viewed here:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopico00.pdf

GC may have attached a copy of bylaws/codes of regulation to their application.  Their entire application is public record.  I'll take care of requesting that from the IRS and will let you know when I receive the documents.

ETA: It is VERY important that GC not be overwhelmed by an enormous number of requests for this information.  If they are, they can claim that they are being subjected to a campaign of harrassment and are no longer required to provide those disclosures.

[J]

Finally got a reply today. Here it is:

Again, I regret taking so long to get back to you.  I often have trouble
staying on top of all my correspondence.

My understanding is that a Book of Government is a document typically used
by tighter denominations that lays out the purposes of the church, how the
church is governed, qualifications for leadership, procedures for church
discipline, etc. It usually includes these for both the local and national
levels.  When the weakness statement was written in 1991, our organizational
preferences were still somewhat developing.  Subsequently we have decided
that we will be more of an association of independent churches and not a
tight denomination.  Therefore, we decided not to develop a "book of
government" that covers both the local and national level.  What we
developed instead is our Articles of Association that lays out the goals of
the association, church membership requirements, and how the association
will be led and governed on the national level.  As far as ordination is
concerned, we have a dual ordination system.  Our pastors are ordained by
their local church, and, if they desire to be, by the association as well.
But associational ordination of a church's pastors is not required for
membership in the association.  Our local churches are autonomous
(self-governing) and each has its own organizational documents and
governmental procedures.  We do require that member churches have some means
of accountability, such as a board of trustees, and we do have some
recommendations for local churches concerning governmental issues.  However,
many of our churches and member ministries have gotten as much, if not more,
help in this area from the Christian Management Association, from the ECFA,
from books on church organization, or from other sources outside our
movement.

We do have procedures for removal of member churches, which can be done for
things such as 1) a departure from the membership requirements; 2)fiscal
irresponsibility; 3)any action or involvement seemed inconsistent with high
standards of Christian conduct; or 4)any action which might reflect
unfavorably upon the association. So, the association does have the ability
to remove any church that has problems that are not being corrected.

I'm explaining this, thinking that it will answer your questions concerning
our envisioned book of government, why one was not developed, and what we
have done in its place.  Concerning the Articles of Association themselves,
they are in need of some fairly extensive updating, and I would prefer not
to make them public prior to this happening so as to avoid confusion.  Once
these updates are done, we will most likely post the articles on our web
site.

In regard to your concerns, if they relate to possible improper or
unbiblical or abusive behavior in any of our member churches, I would like
to refer you to a recent statement we have posted at
www.gccweb.org/gcc/about/ExplanationofCriticisms.pdf.  It requests that
anyone who has a grievance or unresolved problem with a member church
contact the Great Commission national office.  The contact information is on
our web site at http://www.gccweb.org/gcc/about/contact.asp.  Or, if you
prefer, you could have the individual or individuals contact me.  If need
be, we could talk by phone and see if there is a need to set up a mutually
agreeable meeting for mediation or other means of resolving the issues
involved.

Concerning our 1991 statement expressing our intention that a book of
government would develop a "formalized, written policy on handling
complaints, addressing divergent views, and resolving grievances," I believe
that we found that the increasing humility that we attempted to show in the
statement and in informal meetings with people who felt they had been hurt
by us was, by and large, sufficient to resolve most grievances and
complaints.  So, even though our settling into an association of independent
churches that did not become the denominational system that the 1991
statement envisioned and even though we have no formal policy that covers
behavior in our self-governing local churches, I would encourage you, or
those you know who may have a grievance, to pursue our somewhat more
informal, but not necessarily less effective, process by contacting our
national office.

Dave Bovenmyer

[MamaD]

Our local churches are autonomous (self-governing) and each has its own organizational documents and governmental procedures.

So, if the local churches are "autonomous", why do they have to get approval from the GCM board to build? Here's what the GCM web page says about the Ann Arbor Church.

The GCM Board approved New Life's building project in December 1999, and the land was purchased by April of 2002, but then a series of legal difficulties set the project back.